#I typed Bog Dragon at first which I imagine would be a very different show

[three--rings]

Big Dragon ep 5

What is with this show and pacing?

  Like we could just get rid of ep 4 almost entirely and take more than 2 seconds to go from “you’re cheating, we’re punching each other, I’m blackmailing you into sex, we’re fucking, and now we’re domestic boyfriends in a serious relationship and breaking up because we haven’t shared everything.”

Like I’m sorry did we lose two weeks somewhere? 

Yes the conversation at the end of the ep was confusing but I mostly followed except for the fact that last night you were punching each other and Yai had to be “forced” into having sex and refused to admit he was even INTERESTED in Mangkorn.

ARGH. 

Honestly I feel like this show is like 70% ingredients of a good show?  I think the actors are good, the cinematography is good, a lot of the direction seems on point, but the writing is sloppy and the editing is questionable.  Like I would be very interested in what this team did NEXT.

IDK IDK.  The sex scenes are hot.  I just can’t connect emotionally with the characters despite some strong performances because the plot and pacing is so bonkers.

[aquaburst3]

Some general writing advice from my years of creative writing both original works and fanfics. (Also, I’m only saying a few of these, just to keep this shorter. Might go into more depth later on.)

Keep in mind, you don’t have to heed all of these. Like all writing advice, you can ignore some of these. 

Disclaimer: I don’t have a degree in English or Creative Writing, I just took some random classes in college. Take this with a grain of salt.

Diversify your prose and sentence structure. 

Take out filler or redundant words to make the prose sound more punchy. (ie Basically, actually, there is, suddenly, etc) 

Have what I like to call “Standing in Front of Someone’s House in My Underwear Factor�� within in the first couple chapters of your story. Hook in the reader right before or during a turning point or interesting part of the story, so they keep on turning the page. (For example, in FMA manga, it starts when Edward Elric is bleeding out on the floor with an arm torn off. This hooks in the reader, because it makes you wonder, “Hang on, what?! How the hell did that happen? I got read more of this to see what happens next.”) 

Focus on the core cast in the first few chapters in order to keep the story tighter. 

For the first couple chapters, limit the amount of information about the main character to the amount you would find on a profile page, such as: likes & dislikes, name, age, ethnicity, and, most importantly, their goal/motivation. 

In the first couple chapters, you want to establish tone and setting as well. 

Know when to “Show or Tell.” Usually when you are describing character’s emotions or how they see things, show. (Example: The man lumbered towards Jackson, brows furrowed.  “Hey, kid,” the man grunted, beefy arms folded over his pot belly.  “Where are you doing?” ) When you are transitioning from one scene to the next or need to give information in a quick amount of time, tell. 

Stay away from epithets (dialogue tags saying things like “the blond”). Describe the character in smaller increments within the first chapter, hitting the main details like hair, body type and things like that. After that, just use their name unless you want to put empathize on a key feature for dramatic effect. 

Along that same notion, avoid super long description paragraphs, since they can bog down the reader. 

Stay away from describing a character in a mirror or other reflective surfaces like the plague. 

Something that helps me to describe a character is comparing them to a family member or sibling, which also works for first person. Adding it into character actions works for first person as well. 

The amount you describe a character depends on their importance. If they’re a main character, you can describe them in more detail when they’re first introduced. If they are a minor or background character, only a couple descriptors would be good enough. 

Try not to describe the POV character doing actions they wouldn’t see themselves doing like blushing. Instead try describing it in a way how the character would “feel it.” (Saying, “My cheeks heated up,” vs, “I blushed.”) This doesn’t apply as much to things like smirking, smiling, frowning, quirking a brow or wiggling a brow, since you can feel yourself doing those actions. 

You don’t need any fancy tags with adverbs or use random words you find in a thesaurus. Just say “said” or “asked” for regular dialogue. If a character is really yelling or whispering, only use that word only then.     

Everything in a novel should serve a purpose. If an element or scene adds nothing to the story, scrap it. (Only do this during the second or third draft) 

If there are two characters that are very similar to one another, it’s better to combine them or scrap one of them all together. Having two very similar characters would make the story more muddled and you don’t want that. 

Characters should always be active and want something. No, not want. Desire something and will do anything to get it. But in order to get it, they have to overcome a lot of obstacles and struggle along the way. 

Good way to add a character arc is “want vs need.” Your character wants one things, but needs something else. 

Having a villain with a sob story isn’t necessary. Sometimes it’s more effective to have more monstrous characters, who had good upbringings that are still evil (like Gaston or Light Yagami) or have good intentions, but went about about it the wrong way (Verin from The Dragon Prince). 

A good way to humanize the mentor, keeping from seeming like a paragon with infinite expository wisdom rather then a character, is by having them make the same mistake as the person in the past, but they learnt from it. (For example, Iroh was once a general, who only cared about power. It wasn’t until his son died that he saw the error of his ways. Iroh tries to make Zuko realize the same thing throughout his journey.) Another is giving them a character arc or have flaws themselves. (Think Kamina from Gurren Laggan or Arataka from Mob Psycho.) 

Make sure your character’s motivations are clear and understandable. Not in the sense that they need to be sympathetic, but in that you can see the logic behind their choices. For example, while characters like Dexter Morgan, Aang and The Joker have varying degrees of sympathy, you understand why they make the choices that they do and their motivations. If you don’t do this, it’s an easy way to make your audience turn into that reaction picture of Winnie the Pooh looking at a page in confusion. 

If you imagine a character being white, write them like that. If you imagine a character being apart of a marginalized group (POC, LGBT, etc), even when you’re not apart of that group yourself, write them like that. However, if you choose to add diversity of any kind into your work and you are not apart of that group, do proper research, be self aware and make sure it's done respectfully. Using and listening to feedback from “Sensitivity Readers” or beta readers from that group will help you out a lot. Adding a character from any marginalized group for the hell of it, or worse, for "Woke Points," without knowing anything can also really backfire. 

One of the best ways to avoid cliche or tropey characters, at least for me, is getting inspired by people you know.  Think about other people in your life, whether they are friends, schoolmates, co workers or even people you know in passing and use them as inspiration for your characters. Just make sure that if you do that you do so respectfully and add in different traits to separate them the actual person.

Watch some writing advice videos on YouTube. Some great ones on the top of my head are: Hello Future Me, ShaelinWrites, Alexa Donne and Terrible Writing Advice (who has the funniest sponsorship bits I’ve seen from any YouTuber.) 

[morshtalon]

Phantasy Star

Back in the late 1980′s, the market for console jRPGs in America was all but nonexistent. Though Dragon Quest, Final Fantasy, Fire Emblem, and a slew of other franchises were beginning to flourish in the East, it wouldn’t be until 89 that Dragon Quest I was released internationally, followed shortly after by Final Fantasy in 1990.

While nowadays we tend to internalize these NES games as being the true pioneers of the jRPG, this wouldn’t be the reality of a gamer in the west at the time, because - to my surprise when I finally got around to playing it this month - Sega’s Phantasy Star, as you can see from the title screen picture, had them all beat in the international market by at least one year. Even Phantasy Star II, on the Genesis, was released before Final Fantasy I in the US, which is really surprising, but that’s beside the point.

With that said, If I were around at ‘88 and didn’t know any better, I’d likely use Phantasy Star as a yardstick to measure future RPGs against, technology and quality-wise. So, let’s do that now, in 2019 where it’s almost completely irrelevant because I’m sure standard reviews of a classic like this are already a dime a dozen everywhere you look!

As soon as you start the game, you can already bear witness to some quite impressive graphical capabilities, showcased in a Ninja Gaiden-esque opening that starts by panning by outer space until it gets to the outer atmosphere of Palma, the first planet. Through Phantasy Star alone, I can deduce that the Master System was at least reasonably more powerful than the NES, as you can plainly see more liberties being taken with the artwork (more complex shading, less restrictive palettes, etc.). I imagine it might have come as a disappointment to some players when, years later, Final Fantasy would have a simplistic text crawl against a blue background leading straight into gameplay. I can’t really blame it for being developed for a system that was less graphically powerful, though, but I can say that Phantasy Star is, at times, delightful to behold.

I say at times because, to me, the art direction doesn’t always work. As the opening ends, you find yourself in Camineet, the first town, and... I don’t know, it doesn’t look - or play - too great. The houses are tiny and they look like weird domes straight out of a 50′s movie about the future (which is, perhaps, part of the charm, but it’s not too interesting to look at anyhow), the trees are tiny, the townspeople are just event-triggering tiles with superfluous graphics, so they just stand there completely frozen until you walk into the relevant tile (plus, since most regular houses are also just event triggers to give you some information, there is absolutely zero difference between talking to a person on the street and walking into a house), and you can’t walk on the grass for some reason. In comparison, though Dragon Quest doesn’t even feature house exteriors until later in the series, both it and Final Fantasy have much more immersive and future-proof town design. People walk around, you can walk anywhere that seems sensible for someone to walk in, and in the case of Final Fantasy, the buildings actually look pretty good, with mostly correct proportions that give off a better sense of scale. Not to mention, due to the strangely streamlined design of PS, most of the time you need to go into buildings and such to find relevant story events, so the overall feel of walking around a city is strangely plastic and artificial. It weirds me out.

Once you leave town, things start to look up. The Master System allows for a more diverse palette, and PS takes enough advantage of it to make the standard old school RPG overworld spiel look lush and vibrant. There are beaches with an animated water line, great care was taken to not make the tiles look like a bunch of squares, there are all sorts of rocks and small details, and overall, the overworld feels more natural than in FF and DQ, where there was a strange cartooniness to them, like you were walking through a bunch of icons (particularly so in DQ’s case).

The actual design of the overworld is about what you’d expect from a game in the ‘80s. It’s a breed of design that resonates with me somewhat. Going to each new place implies walking around little obstacles that feel less like a Skyrim-type open-world experience and more something akin to Dark Souls, where each thing is like a mini-level. Sometimes, you have to walk through the coastline, sometimes you need to delve into a narrow valley corridor, surrounded by mountains on each side, sometimes you need to go into underground passageways to emerge on the other side of a river, and so on. Enough care was put into each of the game’s three world maps to make traversing through them feel satisfying, though the first one is, in my opinion, by far the best one.

If I do have one criticism, though, is that, if you actually look at t picture of the full maps, they’re really tiny. I’m not sure if the actual tile count is smaller than the one in DQ1, but it feels much smaller. This isn’t really a problem per se, as there are, as I said, three world maps, but it can sometimes give the design tunnel vision and a strange form of linearity. Most of the game revolves around going places and finding items to use in other places that give you more items to use in even more places, so on and so forth. Usually what happens in these RPGs is that when you get something new, like a key or a vehicle, a whole new world of possibilities opens up to you, as you’re able to use them in all sorts of crazy ways to access tons of new locations. Not so much in Phantasy Star, as the diminutiveness of the maps makes it so that even a new vehicle will give you about one or two new places to explore at best, and they’re just kind of another piece of the comparatively linear item chain you need until you get to the end. That’s not to say the game is entirely linear, but the reductive, segmented nature of exploration, while satisfactory at times, renders some of its ideas somewhat token. Sure, I’m not gonna be impressed by the functionalities of a key, but a hovercraft? Damn, that’s cool, man! Yet, all you do is use it in specific points to go places you know well beforehand you should enter, then move on without a second thought.

Once you get to the overworld, naturally, fights start to happen. Once again, showcasing the Master System’s graphical superiority, they look great. It really can’t be understated how good the fights look. Like early Megami Tensei games, there’s only ever one group of enemies in each battle, but they look awesome and, most importantly, they animate! Sometimes, the enemies even have two animations for different abilities they might possess. Also, there are slash animations for the party’s attacks, which sometimes change, but that’s not as impressive because Final Fantasy has the characters wielding different little weapons too. Furthermore, when you’re not in a dungeon, there are some great looking backgrounds that change depending on which tile you’re standing on when the battle is triggered.

Due to the generous nature of the game’s visual presentation, text in battles is reduced to a minimum, showing up only when deemed necessary, such as to indicate a status effect or when a character dodges an attack (though, arguably, that one doesn’t need text either). This helps the pace of the fights significantly and, even though there’s no auto-battle option, it still feels about as brisk, which is great. Unfortunately, that’s bogged down by the fact that instead of just giving you money no strings attached, each and every opponent drops a treasure chest at the end of the fight, which you can choose to open or leave be. Sometimes, the chests are trapped, too, so it’s not entirely superfluous, but it’s really annoying.

Also, unfortunately, the actual gameplay involved in fights isn’t great. The overwhelming majority can be won by spamming attack, and the scarcity of MP means that you’ll just be attacking most of the time anyway, even if you can go faster with magic. In long treks through dungeons, you’ll most likely be running from all but the simplest of battles. There’s actually a spell that makes it more likely for you to run away, but that costs MP and you have to go through more menus than just running normally, so I found myself just hitting run and hoping for the best, even though that meant I walked back a step... Oh, right.

All dungeons are first-person crawls in this game. They all look the same, too, this brick wall thing you see there, with the only change being in the color. They’re even like that if you’re in a natural cave, which makes no sense whatsoever. There is one series of dungeons late in the game (really just part of one big dungeon) that makes the floor and ceiling black, but it’s not even the final one (that one’s yellow). I don’t know why I’m talking so much about this, it’s just kind of odd. There are no maps whatsoever, so make sure you bring a sheet of graph paper or, if you’re stubborn and impatient like me, just stumble around enough that you happen to find where you’re supposed to go by pure luck. They’re not as complex as you would expect from something like this, and you can save anywhere you want, even in dungeons, so it’s not too bad, in my opinion. I just wish they’d have some different architecture once in a while, but I understand how difficult and painstaking that is on a 2D engine.

The plot is a straightforward revenge one that doesn’t change much and serves mostly as a farfetched objective excuse to string setpieces together, as you would expect. Of course, its claim to fame is that it has a female protagonist, and that it does. Given it’s a really old game, there’s not a lot of characterization to go by, but for what it’s worth, Alis doesn’t display any traits considered stereotypically feminine - perhaps as the very consequence of the system’s limitations - which I think we can all agree is very mature on the developers’ part. Instead, she’s revenge-driven and headstrong, but valiant and compassionate, like a typical hero. A somewhat clichéd personality type now, but hey, again, given the context, that’s pretty amazing. I mean, look at what they turned Samus Aran into just recently.

Anyhow, I would say the story is not as interesting as the one in Final Fantasy, but it’s comparable to the ones in early Dragon Quest, so take that for what it’s worth. However, the simplicity of this game’s battles take away from the tension which Dragon Quest endgames’ teeth-clenching difficulty elevates quite a bit on a visceral level, so I would still say it loses to DQ as well. Heck, I could even argue that this raw feeling transmitted to the player through gameplay is even more important than any emotion that stays within the confines of the game’s universe, so perhaps it loses in the most important way.

Oh, also, it’s in space. Most of it, aside from the few towns that have that zeerust 50s future feeling, doesn’t really need it to be set in space, but there are enough thematic choices to justify it, and I think it’d be a mess to organize the world map if it was all in just one planet, so it’s somewhat justified, at least. And hey, it opens the way for future franchise titles to expand upon the space aspect of it, so it was a smart choice, in my opinion. I almost wonder if they did it because of the first few Ultima games or something.

Overall, Phantasy Star is a straightforward RPG with beautiful presentation and enough freshness of ideas to make it well deserving of its status as a classic. I found the experience to be, frankly, less gripping and immersive than Final Fantasy I or early Dragon Quest, especially III, due to its artificial towns, downsized maps, uninvolving battles and a soundtrack that feels a bit all over the place and unfocused, but it has enough things going for it to make it a no-brainer recommendation to people who like games of that era. And I do, so, yeah, I enjoyed it. I’m growing a bit distant from grading games numerically because there’s so much context and stuff going on that sometimes it might make number choices incongruent with past grades I’ve given to games, but... Eh, sure, 6.4. Go play it if you like.

[sammgreer]

Mass Effect Andromeda - Review

Despite being a huge fan of the original games, I wasn't expecting too much from this. I felt they had concluded nicely and the universe didn't really seem suited for new stories. How could anything compare to Commander Shepard and crew's fight against the Reapers? On top of that Bioware's last game Dragon Age Inquisition, whilst enjoyable, was mired in the tedium of open world fetch quests and busy work. So when Andromeda marketed its massive worlds and seemed to emphasise combat over the kind of storytelling that had made the originals so successful, I was very cautious.

But against all the odds I really enjoyed Mass Effect Andromeda. A lot. It has numerous flaws, it's a bit of a mess but in reaching for new heights it manages to breathe life into a setting I had convinced myself was finished. Make no mistake though, compared with modern RPG heavy weights like The Witcher 3, Mass Effect Andromeda is a rougher, less elegant game. However it is a lot more accomplished than it may seem.

Its relation to the original games is pretty irrelevant, Andromeda wisely adopts a clean break from that trilogy by removing its story completely from that setting and time. We play as Ryder, part of an initiative to establish colonies in the distant Andromeda galaxy. Cryogenically frozen we awake over six hundred years after leaving the milky way.

Andromeda doesn't put its best foot forward. Instead of introducing us to a thrilling new galaxy, it spends the opening hours introducing a host of characters, many of whom won't reappear after this introductory mission. Those who will are your human companions, also the game's flattest or most irritating characters. The mission itself is a closed, linear affair that deprives you of many of the interesting features that define the majority of the game. It is also where we're introduced to the game's antagonists, the Kett. This initial counter devolves too quickly into gunfire and violence. No mysterious first contact, just a perfunctory introduction to the games cannon fodder. Whilst they're fleshed out later, they never really rise to be more than “the baddies”, fanatics with an inherent hostility. Filling the need for foes in an action driven RPG is fine but something more inspired would have gone a long way.

Once this dull setup is complete you're handed a ship, the sleek Tempest and set loose. It takes a while to unlock all the game's expansive worlds but even on the first, there's lots of sights to see and discoveries to make. Whilst there's also a lot of busy work, the stream lined quest structure means few feel like a chore. Most important of all, the mechanics that make up your time are so enjoyable.

Combat is something you'll be doing quite a bit of, though it felt like it made up a lot less of the experience than the action heavy Mass Effect 2/3. Where their combat was fairly bog standard third person shooting with a sprinkling of interesting powers, Andromeda's combat is a genuinely brilliant affair. The large environments have encouraged Bioware to move away from tight linear corridors and instead emphasise movement to go toe to toe with enemies. Using Ryder's jet pack we can leap not just into the air but also horizontally, combining both movements, till you're zipping between cover and enemies with a pace that almost feels like Bloodborne in the form of a third person shooter. It's remarkably inspired for a series where the combat always felt functional rather than exemplary.

A lot of time will be spent behind the wheel of the Nomad, a space rover and slick re-imagining of the original game's clumsy Mako. This coupled with the jet-pack platforming makes navigation simple but very enjoyable. It helps too that the planets you visit, whilst not spectacularly alien, are pretty stunning with some cracking vistas. Views from your ship as you travel between worlds are also frequently spectacular, reflecting your chosen location on the Galaxy Map. There's variety too, not just visually but in the types of terrain and hazards. I was happy to seek out more quests in spite of some so-so design because I like spending time in this world. One memorable moment came about on a planet with a dangerous, scorching heat where I couldn't find a way to get the rover through a canyon. So I crossed a huge desert flat on foot, dashing between boulders and the shade to recover life support. It was a small moment but gave a thrill to exploration that many similar games lack.

The purpose of all this exploring is to establish outposts on worlds. First you have to make each world viable for colonists, by activating ancient alien structures belonging to an absent civilization the “Remnant” and terraforming the world. These ruins are still cared for by automated machines and they were my favourite among the foes, with distinct classes and behaviours in their ranks. Once you've established a colony and raised the viability of the world, new areas open up for you to explore so that this act of terraforming feels like more than just ticking off a box. It helps too that all this busy work is, unlike Inquisition, entirely optional and the player is free to pursue the main quest as they wish. Though doing so will change how the game's finale plays out, with decisions from various side-quests coming to play in the conclusion.

Of course it's here that Andromeda stumbles, drawing as it does on unsavoury colonialism. Whilst there's some acknowledgement throughout of the issues of colonising alien worlds, including an optional rebuttal against colonialist interests near the end, the game never goes far enough in confronting the implications there-in. It's far more interested in being a thrilling space adventure and to that end it succeeds but as a piece of thoughtful science fiction, it's muddled at best.

But what of the things Mass Effect is renowned for? Well the main story isn't up to much. It's mostly fine, enjoyable and kept me engaged to the end but there's nothing remarkable about it. You go up against some baddies, you give them a thrashing, the end. There's some nice conflicts between the cast and various factions as well as some big exciting set-pieces at key points but the narrative's main thrust is fairly tried and tested. It works well but it isn't great.

The companions that make up your ship's crew on the other hand manage to measure up to the iconic members of the Normandy team. Whilst I doubt they'll go on to become as beloved as the cast of the originals, they're nonetheless mostly well written and developed with a care that's much richer than the previous titles. Rather than merely prompting them for exposition until reaching the requisite loyalty missions, you end up much more involved with a series of missions leading to something more substantial .There's also a great implied life to them, you get the feeling the crew exists when Ryder's not around. They chat between themselves on board the Tempest and when on missions, giving hints of their relationships with each other. Peebee and Drack were the stand outs for me and the chatter between them on missions regularly put a smile on my face.

Even most of the core supporting cast are engaging, with some good performances from Natalie Dormer and Kumail Nanjiani, imbuing their roles with welcome nuance. The minor NPCs that litter the world are far less compelling and the further you go from the main cast, the worse and more tiresome the writing becomes. The biggest flaw with the writing is consistency, with plenty of moving scenes and memorable moments but also plenty of clunky exposition, awkward emoting, especially in the game's opening hours. Hindered too by the already much discussed facial animations which are it must be said mostly a step-up for Bioware but are sadly quite behind most of the competition. Though there's nothing quite as lifeless as the likes of Deus Ex Mankind Divided either.

Perhaps the most surprising member of the cast is Ryder. Playing as either sibling, Scott or Sara (as a nice touch you get to customise both and the other plays a part in the story), Ryder comes across as a younger, more flawed and ultimately more human lead than Commander Shepard. Shepard was always an icon, a hero the galaxy could rally behind. People doubt Ryder throughout and they too seem to doubt themselves, able to show vulnerability. Fryda Wolff and Tom Taylorson voice Ryder in a way that more than lives up to the legacy of Jennifer Hale and Mark Meer.

Thankfully the binary paragon and renegade split in dialogue choices is gone so instead we can much more freely move between various tones and options. This allows you to give Ryder a dynamism that wasn't available with Shepard, where instead consistency was much more greatly rewarded. Neither is Ryder swinging between “good” and “evil”. You feel like you can be rude, cheeky and smug yet still able to make the smart, noble call when the moment calls for it. I had a lot of fun as Ryder, I made her brash, cocky but also deeply uncomfortable with her responsibility. In the end I'm much more attached to her than I was Shepard.

In her boots I got to have fun and an optimistic tone is refreshing after Mass Effect 3. The trilogy's final part is still a standout game but I never quite appreciated how wearying the tone of it was till I got to Andromeda. Here your journey isn't a burden, it is an adventure. It lacks the stakes of Shepard's story but it's also freeing. I felt invigorated when the story came to a close and I'm surprised to find myself keen to spend more time with Ryder and company.

Minor complaints that I found myself able to easily overlook might prove more irritating for others. The user interface for instance often feels needlessly convoluted, with important options buried in menus separate to where they could be more readily relevant. Having to run around the ship to check different menus at different locations, all to see how much of one resource a new blueprint requires is bothersome. There's a also still at this point a lot of bugs in the game though none I experienced were game breaking.

My biggest complaint might seem inconsequential to some but for me the lacklustre score is a real sore point given the memorable themes of the original trilogy. The game's main theme is pleasant enough but so much of the score fails to make an impression. It's effective in creating a suitable atmosphere but it's telling that my favourite piece of music in the game is the reworked galaxy map music from the original trilogy. If Bioware intend to follow this up with sequels, they might want to find stronger music to define this new galaxy and give its cast a stronger identity.

Compared against the titans of the last few years Andromeda feels as much an unwelcome underdog as Ryder does, struggling to find a place in a new galaxy. How much fans of the series will enjoy this new entry will largely depend on just what it was about the previous games that they liked best. There is still compelling characters and an enjoyable plot but there's no Virmire or Curing the Genophage to propel it skyward. Yet there is a consistent thrill of exploration, of small scale drama and neat discoveries. If you want to feel like the hero in a battle against godlike machines, then there's nothing so compelling here. But if you want to feel like a scrappy space adventurer, getting lost in a expansive galaxy with some baddies at your heels, Andromeda is frequently thrilling.

I loved it far more than I ever expected to and though any recommendation comes with a warning of its numerous flaws, I nonetheless endorse it wholeheartedly. Andromeda's too much fun not to.