#not in terms of gameplay but decision-making

[katatty]

Shifting Priorities

Thank you for all the nice comments yesterday! Some really helpful perspectives that gave me a lot of ideas on how I can tackle my simmer's block :)

Mostly, I think I need to trim down the number of neighbourhoods I consider "active" and the amount of projects I am doing in general. I have a hard time letting go of neighbourhoods, especially if I am still somewhat invested in them! But I also need to face the fact that I only have so much free time, and do not want playing the sims to be the sole thing I do with that free time XD

For some neighbourhoods I will also be trying out a more stripped-down approach to blogging, similar to what I've been doing with Driftwood. It makes me a little sad because I like my sims to feel fleshed out as characters and giving them voices is a big part of that! But maybe I can save the prose/dialogue for times when it is particularly needed, rather than including it as a default.

Finally, I am going to prioritise based on what I actually have the most fun with, rather than letting popularity drive my decisions!! Some neighbourhoods I feel sad about potentially retiring because I know people enjoy them, or I feel bad admitting I am never going to finish projects people were excited for, but I have to remember simming is something I do for myself, not for popularity or for other people.

So, plans for my neighbourhoods:

Pleasantview Plus - will continue in its current form for the most part, but holdholds I found less inspiring will just get short summaries rather than extensive documentation. This hood is waaaaaaay too big and I think not that many people follow it all that closely, but it's also my one true love and I would like to start prioritising it again rather than it always being on the backburner

Uberhood Challenge (YouTube Series) - This is a short-term series, and will continue as planned until I finish the challenge, which I'm over halfway through :)

Hollyhead - I hate to say it because I know a lot of people love it, but I feel like I have sorta outgrown this neighbourhood? Some simmers like their settings to be an escape from the real world, and when I made Hollyhead I think it was what I needed too, but these days I find how upbeat & wholesome it is a bit, idk, constraining?? I crave drama and conflict in my stories!! I also have kinda lost interest in the BACC rules and have started to find it more book-keeping and hassle for what I get out of it... Whenever I do open the neighbourhood I still really enjoy actually playing it, and I love the characters so much, but I just haven't found the events interesting enough to want to write about. I think this neighbourhood will not be retired completely (yet), but I will move towards writing much shorter updates in the form of newspaper articles and see if that helps. If by the end of this season I still feel ehhh about it, I might formally end it <3

Driftwood - no complaints about this hood, I'll probably continue with the current style of documenting major events & new builds only

Spruceburg (YouTube series) - I would like to do another season of this next year, after I finish the uberhood challenge! But I will probably go for a schedule of like, one season of series per year, rather than posting consistantly. I enjoy YouTube a lot, but its a lot of work too and I think has majorly taken away from my blogging time this year, which I am mourning now lol!!

The Fiero Legacy - it is probably time to throw in the towel with this and admit I just don't enjoy playing legacy style or with story progression that much! I always enjoy the period where the heir is dating but once they settle down and have kids it becomes a chore and a grind, plus with story progression's time system I always feel rushed and like I can't take a sim out of the house for an outing without potentially missing important milestones - the urban setting feels so wasted when its all family gameplay, haha. Hallie should be at the club!! It was an interesting experiment and a nice change of pace, but idk if I really see myself returning to it. I love the sims themselves and the setting, but whenever I actually load up the neighbourhood I just feel kinda stressed and overwhelmed :(

As for my building projects like Belladonna Cove, perhaps at some point I will get really inspired and return to them but for now they are on indefinite break. I remember saying a few time in the past that I didn't really feel much need to make over Pleasantview and Strangetown because if I wanted nice makoevers I would use frottanas, and tbh I feel the same way about Belladonna Cove - if I was playing it I would just use plumbtales makeovers XD With my past neighbourhood makeovers I was really inspired to make them because there wasn't anything out there that was exactly what I wanted but, well, there's loooooads of nice Belladonna cove makeovers these days so I just don't feel much drive to make my own version I guess?? I think I also have lost interest in building a little becasue I am no longer into super heavily decorated lots - I prefer lighter lots that won't cause lag lol! So yeah, I am probably not retiring from building forever but its no longer a priority for me :)

[sarahlancashire]

installed dragon age legends & it's Bad but I Need All the Lore I Can Get; now i'm playing it while i get ready for work to put off all the difficult choices i'll have to make in my awakening replay

[tiredassmage]

party crashers compliation bc the servers are dead as my goodnight present, happy patch day lol

[icharchivist]

Oh yeah, since Icha is really into Dragon Age, Dragon Age Inquisition is currently up for free in the Epic game store until Thursday next week

Just download the thing, make an account and receive game for free forever

To whom it may concern

oh true!

that's indeed helpful if the free aspect helps.

Here's the link!

I hate Epic Game Store personally (the lack of game overlay like on steam pissed me off with my ff7r copy and it kept telling me i had to be online to play a solo game), but free game is always good game.

tho as a disclaimer if you get interested in DA because of me, do start with Dragon Age: Origins (take the Ultimate Edition, so you also have the Awakening DLC, the in game DLCs, as well as the others post game DLC to play after Awakening, Golem of Amgarrak and then Witch Hunt), and then Dragon Age 2 (again with the In Game DLC, Especially Legacy and Mark of The Assassin to play when the Main Quest's Storyline "The Last Straw" is first unlocked/when Act 3 starts). And then DAI.

Like of course grabbing DAI as it's free is a good thing if you make plans for later, but yeah to me personally DA is the type of games you'd want to play in order.

(DA4 is supposed to come out this year too so. well. jsyk.)

o7 good luck everyone, and thanks anon for that!

[project-sekai-facts]

i'm curious why you feel confident in saying that mizuki was trans, it feels like the story itself only explicitly stated that she's amab - i would really like for it to be confirmed but it feels a bit like jumping the gun

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but considering how uncomfortable Mizuki is with classmates calling her a boy, and how she's gone out of her way to not have N25 know this, and how she reacted to Ena being asked "If you're friends with Mizuki, are you [a cis girl] a boy too?", idk man I think I can jump the gun.

Plus everything in the trans Mizuki post. The blatant use of the trans flag colors, people calling younger Mizuki "weird" and asking "isn't it odd for you to wear that" when she goes into school in typically girly clothes for the first time, Mizuki having short hair and boys clothes in middle school but long hair and girls clothes in high school, her sister encouraging her to stop repressing and live her life on her own terms.

Like. This is Mizuki's reaction to classmates telling Ena that Mizuki is a guy. It's the fact they asked a cis girl if she was a boy to try and justify why she was friends with Mizuki. Like there's some sort of implication there that they think Mizuki is pretending to be a girl. Yeah sure maybe they'll turn around and say Mizuki is a crossdresser despite everything, but Mizuki being told "isn't it weird for you to dress [like a girl]", "it's just for attention" "it's just a phase". It resonates so much with the trans experience, these are word for word things that trans people hear, and then you can couple that with clpl saying they aim to portray their character's struggles realistically.

Like. Let's get this straight. The boys who ask Ena if "[she's] a guy too" are presumably the same ones who have been showing up in the story since the beginning, being portrayed as bullies. Them calling Mizuki a boy, and making fun of her for dressing in a feminine way, is presented as bullying. Going off that translation doc since sekaibest still doesn't have the script, they follow up that scene by saying that Ena is a "normal girl". Normal is the key word here. Ena is a "normal" (cis) girl to them which implies they view Mizuki as an "abnormal girl" (trans girl), or they outright just call her a guy. Yikes.

Again. Mizuki's reaction to the bullying speaks volumes. Mizuki had gone through such lengths to hide this from her friends. It feels way too much for them to just say she's a gnc cis boy at the end of it. Listen, if gender wasn't related here, she wouldn't have nearly this much issue with her friend being told she's a gender the story has repeatedly proven that she doesn't want to identify as and have other people identify her with. Simply from the perspective of a screenwriter.

...also mizuki is literally grouped as a girl for gameplay purposes and always has been? And ensekai at least at launch made the executive decision to use she/her for Mizuki.

But if I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

[inbarfink]

I think a lot about the Concept of ‘choices that matter’ in video games. Like, in terms of what it is that makes a choice ‘really matter’, what do we perceive as a choice that matters or has a consequence, how do different games with different amounts of branching or non-branching storylines play with those ideas…  Especially because Undertale is one of my favorite games of all time, and it has often been hyped as ‘a game where your choices REALLY matter’ and… honestly, I dunno if all of this hype was fully conducive to Undertale.  Because the way it handles the concept of Video Game Choices is actually a lot more interesting and complex than that simplistic descriptor makes it seem.

Because Undertale actually has a lot of choices that ‘don’t really matter’! Lots of dialogue choices and silly little decisions that on a first playthrough seem like they’re some sort of moral choice or a branching plotline but end up always leading to basically the same result regardless of what you do!

And the game doesn’t really try to hide the fact that these choices are kinda 'Fake'. I mean, on a first playthrough a player might assume there’s gonna be some Massive Consequences for picking the ‘wrong’ drink on Undyne’s date, but the game’s narrative expects for there to be multiple playthroughs and pretty much every Choice that Doesn’t Matter is peppered with that Undertale brand of wacky character-focused humor that inherently makes the moment memorable. Papyrus leading Undyne straight to you no matter what you do is basically a cross-timeline running gag.

On some level I see this as a sort of gag that serves as meta-commentary about the expectations around Choices That Matter in Video Games. As in, a lot of games have their Moral Choices happen in clearly easily marked ‘this is a Moral Choice!’ moments within the story, while the actual gameplay (and any violence the player might cause as part of said gameplay) is basically entirely divorced from any element of narrative-branching and doesn't effect the story at all. Undertale basically entirely inverts this dynamic; the most important factor for which Route you’re own is how you handle your FIGHTs, and what seems like clearly-marked and obvious Moral Choices are just goofy insubstantial minor changes in dialogue. 

But also… there is also a level where you must ask yourself ‘what does it mean when we say that these choices Don’t Matter’. I mean, it’s not like they didn't change anything about the game, the Player still made the character say that other thing, the choice probably led to an alternate piece of dialogue, probably a joke with a call-back at the end of the game… The line between a one-off joke and an actual story-changing moment can be a little blurry if you look at it too deeply.

For example, near the end of the Waterfall part of the game, the Player is given the choice to save Monster Kid even at the risk of having to face down Undyne.

Pretty much anyone who isn’t deliberately trying to be an asshole is going to rush to save them and obviously that includes the Pacifist Route Players. But you can actually leave Monster Kid to die without it 'mattering' in the sense that it wouldn't divert you from the Pacifist Route. Undyne saves them instead of you, and ends up with slightly less HP for her battle (which might Matter for Runs when you try and FIGHT her but obviously not in Pacifist Runs) and… by the end of the game, during the extremely happy True Pacifist Ending, they still clearly remember that you abandoned them and are upset by it.

So… does saving Monster Kid ‘matter’ or not? On one hand, choosing not to save them mostly just changes a few lines of dialogue but… these lines of dialogue kinda recontextualize this happy ending and the Player’s actions in general. Despite the True Pacifist Ending otherwise portraying the Player/Frisk as a kind-hearted and brave hero... they still did this undeniably cowardly (and perhaps even cruel) act to one of their friends .

Was running away and leaving Monster Kid to die a brief but significant moment of weakness that the Player regrets and has cost them what could’ve been the start of a lovely friendship? Or is that simply that being a True Pacifist was always more of a matter of pragmatism rather than ideals? Were they only acting as a Pacifist to get that promised 'Best Ending', and only Monster Kid has an inkling they are not as heroic or kind as everyone thinks they are?

And then there’s the Snowman ‘quest’.

A free healing item given early in the game, with your mission being to carry it along in your inventory for as long as you can without ever consuming it. The only reward you will ever see from it is a few lines of dialogue…

But for many, it is more than enough of an incentive to preserve the Snowman’s Piece. You can do whatever you want with the Snowman without it ‘mattering’ in terms of Ending or consequences. You could carry it through all of your adventures with care and kindness... or you could eat it while he can’t see you and then go back to him and tell him that you ‘lost’ it and then get another piece and eat that as well, you could eat it right in front of his face, horrifying him. 

And much like with Monster Kid, you can STILL get the True Pacifist Ending after doing that, all that would change is a few optional pieces of dialogue from the Snowman… 

And a total recontextualization of the Player’s behavior and the ending. The Snowman sees the Player as a cruel and heartless person who is just pretending to be good so they can be liked - the way they acted with this immobile, powerless Snowman who could do nothing for them and their reputation reveals their true self. And he says their friends will realize that too one day...

Doing a True Reset on the Pacifist Ending is, by definition, a (almost) consequence-free action and yet it changes future Pacifist Routes immeasurably. Turning the Player into a Hypocrite doing the exact same thing they were trying to stop Flowey/Asriel from doing - trapping all of their friends into a time-loop so they can play with them forever while never actually letting them to enjoy freedom on the surface, simply because they are not willing to move on or put their friends' wishes and agency above their own. Nothing in the game actually changes, not one character can even suspect that you did something like that, and yet for the Player - this choice makes the entire Meaning of the game flip on its head. 

Even the most famous and heavily-toted Big Consequence in the whole game - selling your soul to Chara after completing a Murder Route… mostly what it does is just… recontextualize the ending of the Game.

As a game, ‘Undertale’ is very much about the ways in which a Player engages with a game can radically recontextualize it. The huge chasm of difference between the Pacifist and Muder Routes is just the most literal example of it. But, in a way, even the tiny little Dialogue Options - where the lack of real choice and consequences is Obviously a Joke - matter. Because of the way they can recontextualize the Player Character’s behavior.

(Okay, maybe not this one, but hear me out…)

Do you trust Papyrus to not betray you, even after you spied on him with Undyne?

Do you have the integrity to admit you forgot something or got it wrong even when there’s no consequences for just lying about it?

Are you a hypocrite for trying to get Alphys to be truthful with Undyne only to then immediately turn around and lie to Undyne yourself?  

None of these choices matter for the ending, some of them don’t even get, like, a call-back joke or anything, but… if you are engaged in this story as a narrative, if you are invested in these characters as if they were people, if you are honestly trying to be the best person you can be, if you are trying to self-reflect at the way you approach this game… even the silliest little dialogue option can suddenly be imbued with deep implications and you can make them matter. 

Undertale is one of the best demonstrations of this concept, but this is absolutely not exclusive to it. For example….

‘Ace Attorney’ is pretty much as far away as you can get from a ‘branching narrative’ within the video game sphere. It is a heavily-linear Visual Novel where 70% of the time it won’t even let you talk to random characters at anything but the exact order it expects you to and any ‘Bad Endings’ are basically just glorified Game Over Screens. (... because this is the Internet and something something piss on the poor, I should probably specify that I am talking about ‘Ace Attorney’ because I love Ace Attorney and these are neutral descriptions of the game and not complaints. There’s nothing wrong with a game being linear.) 

If there’s any Dialogue Choice in AA, it’s generally a very basic ‘right answer-wrong answer’ choice between Progress and a Penalty, or a total non-choice that just gets you to the same final result regardless. Except… Well… as we just talked about, getting to the same final result doesn’t necessarily mean a choice is ‘meaningless’, does it?

There’s actually a lot of great storytelling moments where Ace Attorney, despite its otherwise strict linearity, uses this exact sort of recontextualizing mindset I’ve talked about with Undertale to make choices with some really powerful emotional impact…. Even if technically, the ending is the same ending. It can be something as basic as ‘even if picking this Wrong Answer doesn’t get me a penalty, it still embarrassed my character and disappointed my friends/rivals and thus I feel bad for picking it’. Consequences as recontextualizing your character as more incompetent than they should’ve come across at that moment.

And then there’s moments like the iconic ending of ‘Justice for All’. That moment before Franziska bursts into the Courtroom with the case-making evidence and saves the day. The moment where it seems like Phoenix really is gonna have to pick between protecting his best friend and carrying out a rightful sentence.

The player gets to pick between the two options, but Phoenix never gets to say his choice out loud before Franziska comes running in... and yet… he, and the player, still made that choice. Even if no one ever has to experience the consequences of your choice, even if the rest of the world has no idea what Phoenix Wright would’ve chosen if the Miracle hadn’t happened, we know what we picked and that knowledge of the choice matters. Because of how we feel about this choice and what it says about our interpretation of Phoenix… and about us.

There’s also a bit of this ludonarrative device in ‘The Great Ace Attorney: Adventures’. During “The Adventures of the Runaway Room”, when you investigate the Omnibus for the second time and start finding things that… don’t quite fit together. When you’re finally starting to make progress with proving McGilded’s innocence, while also maybe starting to notice that something is… wrong with these pieces of evidence. 

The unchanging linear narrative of the game is that Ryunosuke does eventually realizes McGilded's trickery, puts truth ahead of victory in court and yet, despite his effort and good intentions - the case still ends with a false Not Guilty verdict. And yet, the Player has the choice to... tweak the details.

There are several points where Ryunosuke can object, where he can call out the inconsistencies even though they help his case, where he can support Van Zieks in his accusations of tempered evidence... or he can not. Not necessarily intentionally misleading the Court as much as subconsciously trying to ignore the inconsistencies in the name of trusting his client.

And yet… in the end it doesn’t matter. Maybe Susato calls out the inconsistency instead of him, maybe Van Zieks does, maybe it remains uncontested but... no matter what you do, the case will end with a Not Guilty verdict (I mean, I guess you can deliberately fail the game but that will not progress the plot), McGilded doesn’t seem like he held a grudge (in the few minutes he had left to live), and a few cases later - Ryunosuke would always be punished for his part at this false verdict.

So it doesn’t really matter what Ryunosuke did back then? Does it matter if he did his best and called out every single inconsistencies or if he kinda half-assed it until he (and the Player) had to? He’s still going to suffer the same consequences down the line. And yet….

And yet, I think there’s something so powerful about giving us that option. About knowing that Ryunosuke, and we, did try and do something about McGilded's dirty tricks- even if it didn’t work. Or alternative, knowing that there was more that Ryunosuke and us could’ve done even if it was not nearly enough. Even if in the eyes of the game and the British Justice system there is no difference, the fact that we know what did and what we could’ve done can radically change the way the player feels about all of the later scenes concerning the truth about McGilded’s trial. It can radically change the way the player interpret Ryunosuke’s feelings about it as well.

Because even though the game itself keeps playing along with the same script regardless, that trial had irrevocable consequences for the Player.

[markrosewater]

As someone who only recently got properly into Magic this year my stance on the recent UB Standard legality is that so long as the mechanics are good, fun to play, and work well with the other Standard legal sets then I don't particularly care if Final Fantasy is legal.

But.

There is something about the Marvel Universe being Standard Legal that feels off. Final Fantasy shares many aesthetic and gameplay similarities to Magic that make it slide into the general ecosystem better from a Look/Feel perspective. Meanwhile, as much of a Spider-Man fan as I am, it is going to be incredibly weird seeing Peter Parker or Miles Morales face off against the critters of Bloomburrow, even more than Thunder Junction or Duskmourn do.

I will attend the Final Fantasy and Spider-Man prereleases because I love playing Magic and I am interested in both sets, but I cannot shake the feeling that this decision makes the overall play experience strange, especially since SIX Standard sets of a year is way overdoing it (maybe 3 In-Universe sets and 1 UB set would be a better balance?)

I understand the decision from a logical standpoint but the emotional reaction to Magic losing some of its Qualia is something that I can't ignore

I have read many of the responses to my request for emotional responses yesterday (I will continue reading - there are just a lot of people sharing). A common through line is the feeling of loss, that the decisions we’ve been making are taking things away from them.

So, I wanted to take a moment to talk about something that I believe Universes Beyond is adding to the game. I’m not talking about value to other people that aren’t you, but something that is upside to the enfranchised players that are the backbone of the game.

As I’m head designer, my focus is on mechanics and the core gameplay experience of playing the game. Universes Beyond has been a bolt of energy for the design of the game.

Because so many of you are sharing personal stories, I’ll use my own experiences as a way to illustrate my point.

One day, when I was seven or eight, I woke up and went downstairs to see that my Dad had bought me a comic book and left it out on the counter for me as a surprise. It was Spider-Man.

I must have read that comic ten times. It was the start of a life long love of comic books. I’m not quite sure why the superhero genre, in particular, spoke to me so strongly, but it did.

As a teenager I was a bit of an outcast, and when I stumbled upon the X-Men, it felt like a story that was core to my lived experience. I too was an outsider, but out there were people like me and if I could find those people, we could bond over our similarities.

I enjoy designing Magic. I mean really, really enjoy designing Magic. I don’t throw around the term “dream job” lightly. It is truly a lifelong passion. I spend so much time writing about it because it is something that brings me so much joy, and there is a desire to share that joy with others, my found family that shares my similarities.

Designing Marvel cards has been electrifying. I have spent years mastering the art of Magic design. Getting to combine that with my love of Marvel characters has been inspirational. It has inspired to make designs I would have never thought of.

It has pushed me in directions I couldn’t have predicted and resulted in designs that tickle both my inner Mel and Vorthoses.

And it hasn’t just affected my own designs. I have given more notes on card designs than I have in my twenty nine years at Wizards.

For example, the amount of back and forth with Aaron who designed the five Secret Lair cards we recently revealed at New York ComicCon was exhaustive. He and I have long bonded over our shared love of Marvel, so getting to translate that into Magic with him has been amazing.

And each Universes Beyond product we’re making has people as equally passionate about that property.

My point is from purely a design perspective, Universes Beyond has had huge dividends. It has inspired us to make fresh new designs. It has sparked creativity. We are making awesome card designs, mechanics, themes, and sets, things that most likely wouldn’t have come into existence otherwise.

The passion that beloved characters and worlds has inspired in us is translated into amazing Magic design, something that will make the act of playing Magic better for anyone who enjoys the nuts and bolts of the raw gameplay of Magic.

[thedaythatwas]

I’m just thinking long and hard about the way Akiren and Akechi are written as foils for each other. Because of course, the game drives it home for us that the two are narrative foils: Akiren is the champion of free will who finds power through his friendships, Akechi represents the ways society binds us. He is chained by his desire to be wanted (importantly, by the wrong people– I’ll get to that).

At first glance, Akiren and Akechi’s point of divergence has to do with their relationships– Akiren has confidants, Akechi doesn’t, and this is the deciding factor in Akiren’s victory over Akechi on November 20th and in the engine room. Still, while this is certainly part of what makes their relationship important as a narrative device, it’s not the full picture. That, I think, has more to do with the fact that they both desperately want the very relationships that are used to foil them. They have common ground, and that’s what makes the emotional beats of their differences hit as hard as they do.

Even though Akechi doesn’t have the close bonds that Akiren does with his friends, he is defined as a character by his desire to belong. He wants to be praised and given everything he feels he was denied by Shido’s callous disregard for his mother and society’s unjust treatment of him after her death. He was a self-proclaimed “undesirable child” who spent his young adult life doing everything in his power to never feel unwanted again. He literally spells it out in his engine room monologue– “I was extremely particular about my life, my grades, my public image, so someone would want me around!”

Akiren, like Akechi, begins his character arc as a social outcast. Unlike Akechi, who appeals to systemic power to claim social clout and chase his own sense of belonging (the Shido revenge plot, which would, uhm, theoretically end with Shido acknowledging his son’s worth), Akiren finds family with other outcasts. All of the Phantom Thieves understand his struggle, and because of this they foster a sense of understanding and community that Akechi never gets to experience.

It is important to note that these bonds are deepened when Akiren helps those around him. While there’s absolutely nothing bad about doing things for the people you care about– in fact, most would argue that this is what makes a friendship a good one– we can take a reasonable guess that Akiren craves the love of those around him just a bit more than is healthy for him. He plays therapist for half of Tokyo– he stretches himself absurdly thin for the sake of his friends. That’s a bit much to ask of one person, but Akiren seems to demand it of himself. This is the nature of confidant routes as a game mechanic, of course, but hey, reading into game mechanics is important to getting a solid reading of who Akiren is behind the mask!

The crux of it is, Akiren and Akechi are both lonely characters. Their desire to be loved quite literally drives the narrative of the game, both in terms of plot and gameplay. What makes their foiling so tragic is the fact that Akechi so obviously wants what he has himself determined he can’t have. He says as much in the engine room when he questions why Akiren has things that he doesn’t, despite being (as he says) criminal trash living in an attic.

And yet, Akechi’s isolation is frankly the result of his own decisions. He is the one who chooses to work for Shido. He is the one who acts on a worldview that requires he keep his cards close to his chest to win— against Shido and against the world that wronged him— and to be considered desirable (even despite the fact that this mindset obviously works against satiating his hunger to be loved. He really needs to go to therapy, but I digress).

I don’t think Akechi even knows how to go about claiming what Akiren managed to. Akechi has agency in the actions he takes, absolutely– he would be furious about any suggestion to the contrary– but in many ways, the choices he feels himself able to make are constrained by his circumstances and the lessons imparted to him by his past.

All this to say, Akechi and Akiren aren’t different because Akechi doesn’t want teammates, or even friends. He sincerely wants everything Akiren has. He tells us this in the engine room. He shoots himself in the foot by prioritizing approval from society and love from Shido above other relationships. But thinking from inside his shoes, what else was he going to do? Where else would he have thought to turn to find what he wanted? He was dealt a horrible hand and he played his cards according to the rule book he was given. If the world were just, Akiren and Akechi wouldn’t be foils. It’s the injustice implicit in that that really drives home the point I think P5 is trying to make when it foils Akiren and Akechi in the first place. It also, personally, has been making me want to scream all day.

On a related note, this is also the exact reason that Akechi being the one to bring up that things might have been different if only he met Akiren a few years sooner makes me want to throw things, but this post is long enough. I’ll save all that for later!

[galacticncrazy]

Loid Forger and Weakness (Analysis)

I was watching gameplay footage of What Remains of Edith Finch and towards the ending I thought about the idea of memories, and one thing led to another and I thought of Spy x Family, specifically Loid. It made me wonder if he ever did confront his past and what exactly weakness means to him.

(These thoughts may not be organized since it happened so late at night but bear with me.)

Initial Thoughts

I always thought about being taught that the idea of, "you have to be strong" which often goes hand in hand with this idea of "you can't show emotions". I feel like Loid constantly tells himself he can't be weak, buy what does that mean if his idea of being strong is to not show any emotion?

Memories

I don't believe it being so long ago is the reason he doesn't remember his parents faces, I want to believe he purposefully forgot what they looked like, and this probably applies to his actual name too. His home was destroyed, any and all photos of his family were lost in the debris, he burned his identification papers so there's also no record of him ever having existed. He said it himself that there is no one left who knows his name.

I should also mention how he remembers the faces of his friends and croquette lady. Loid remembering his friends faces are a given since he believed they had died during the first bombing but he later reunited with them when he was a teenager, only to lose them during a botched military operation, leaving nothing behind but dog tags.

While it may be random to include the croquette lady I feel that remembering her face is still significant given that she was the last person he spoke to before the bombs dropped, as well as being the first casualty he saw.

Memories (continued)

It may not mean anything but find it interesting that his name is hidden like this, maybe I'm thinking it about it too much but it's almost as if it were blocked out, much like how classified files have certain sentences edited out because of their sensitive nature. If he had forgotten his name it liked would've been blurred but instead it's redacted, this paired with not remembering his parents faces, it's almost as if he made himself forget, but why?

Weakness

I think his parents faces specifically his mother and his actual name are all that connects him to who was before, he likely still remembered up until he joined WISE where he was possibly taught to let go of the past, not because they didn't care about what happened to him but because it likely would've had an impact on his work, and he passed on that same mentality to Fiona, about spies not showing emotion, to stay alert and not be ignorant, because to him those two things are what make someone weak.

I find it interesting to believe that Twilight wasn't always this way but rather he adapted his own experiences and the mindset he was taught into him and realized that his emotions and overall ignorance is what led him to participate in a war, without even knowing why. The reason he did so was because of those weaknesses and that he needed to discard them. So it's no surprise that during his fight with Wheeler, but mostly Yuri, that he came to terms with the fact he's getting weak, because instead of doing what he would normally do if it was anyone else, he instead chose to spare him. If he was the Twilight that he was prior to Strix then he absolutely would've killed Yuri because he wouldn't have any reason not to, but he does, and in doing so that decision to spare him almost cost him his life.

"You're getting weak"

It all comes to a head when he recalls the event, he acknowledges that Wheeler is for lack of a better word, perfect. Someone that he himself used to be but somewhere along the away something changed. Twilight acknowledged that he was getting weak and the source of that weakness, was his small but still very present feelings for Yor, if those feelings weren't there and if Yor was just another person to use for the sake of the mission, then he wouldn't have spared Yuri but he did, for her sake.

While he may have been thinking about doubting himself while thinking about the encounter with Yuri I believe the panel still holds some weight, Loid knows he's starting to slip up and this time was too close of a call, he knows he's experiencing.

It may have happened long ago but it still relevant to how Loid is as a character thus far, that being Fiona's observation that his smile had a shred of genuineness to it when she visited, that bit of emotion being a result of spending time with his family, and learning to form connections again so it's only a matter of time before he actually expresses his own emotions directly in some capacity.

Closing Thoughts

This entire post came as a result of What Remains of Edith Finch, which I highly recommend people play as it has a nice mystery element to it as well as its overall themes of death and memories and being presented in such a unique way. The concept of keeping your emotions hidden and locked away is something I relate to which is all the more reason as to why I'd like to see Loid be more open about the way he feels or genuinely breaks down and lets all those bottled up emotions out, allowing himself to fall apart be vulnerable around people, specifically his family. There's this really nice artwork I saw once of Yor and Anya hugging a child Loid, and I always thought that externally Loid is a grown man but internally he's a child wanting someone to lift him up and tell him, "it's going to be okay".

[thydungeongal]

Hey there! I just say your post about dungeon crawlers. I was curious about your second bullet point, "Dungeon-crawling challenge games actually kind of own if you're willing to engage with them on their own terms! There's a lot of potential for cool gameplay if you let go of silly reductive notions like "roleplaying" being just being when you play-act your character or social interaction!" I was curious if you'd mind telling me more about how you feel roleplay should be handled in these types of games. I am genuinely interested to hear your thoughts. :)

Okay, first of all, I have a very broad and admittedly circular definition of role-playing (in the context of role-playing game): role-playing is when you're playing a role-playing game.

As said, it's circular, but ultimately, throughout my years of playing role-playing games I've found that all other definitions are unsatisfying. To conclude that role-playing is the parts where the mechanics aren't used (the roll-playing and role-playing dichotomy) implies that mechanics are somehow inherently contrary to a good role-playing game experience, which is simply untrue, because good mechanics can actually enhance the narrative! Saying that only the social parts of play are role-playing undermines the fact that players will be still making decisions for their characters in various other situations where the personal and emotional stakes can be even greater than in social situations!

Ultimately, role-playing games as a medium are defined by the possibility space, and specifically that possibility space being near infinite. There's an old line I keep bringing up from some painfully twee eighties RPG ad which goes like "Role-playing games are like board games but you can move outside the board!" and ultimately that is the thing that defines a role-playing game. It's a game where the players collaborate in a shared fictional space to produce cool little narratives although sometimes the cool little narratives aren't the point but it's literally like a lil challenge that the players try to overcome by interfacing with the fiction and engaging with the mechanics.

To tie this into dungeon crawlers: even a traditional dungeon crawler is ultimately a role-playing game because it has the players engaging, via their characters, with the shared fiction, sometimes mediated by the rules. A lot of people assume that a dungeon crawler must mean that the gameplay is nothing but a meat grinder, but this is actually ahistorical and not actually reflective of how old-school dungeon crawling RPGs play out!

Even the most basic dungeon is still a location in the setting it's part of, so there is plenty of narrative content to be found there. The characters might just be motivated by greed, but there is plenty of narratively satisfying content that can happen in the pursuit of that goal once one accepts that there need not be a linear narrative where the characters must hit certain story beats, but the story itself can just be "the characters went into a place, explored, interacted with the locals, found out some secrets about the dungeon, fought some monsters." That is still role-playing.

None of this is to say that the play-acting part of play (which I sometimes call characterization) is in any way bad: in fact, it can very much enhance the gameplay. But that is in and of itself not the end-all-be-all of role-playing!

Anyway role-playing is so much more than describing your cool elf kissing other cool elves, it can also be your cool elf finding a cool sword in a dungeon and giving it a name. Dungeon crawlers kick ass because the GM can craft a whole narrative about how the dungeon used to be and then reveal it slowly to the players through their characters finding fantasy audiologs and that is already narratively satisfying in and of itself!

[blueskittlesart]

I've heard that while most people really really love BotW and TotK, some people hate those two for going open-world, and some people hate TotK specifically for something about the story. As the resident Zelda expert I know of, what do you think of those takes?

"something about the story" is a bit too vague for me to answer--if you look at my totk liveblog tag from back when the game was newly released or my general zelda analysis tag you may be able to find some of my in-depth thoughts about the story of totk, but in general i liked it.

the open world thing though is something i can and will talk about for hours. (I am obsessed with loz and game design and this is an essay now <3) breath of the wild is a game that was so well-received that a lot of the criticism from older fans who were expecting something closer to the classic zelda formula was just kind of immediately drowned out and ignored, and while i don't think it's a valid criticism to suggest that botw strayed too far from its origins in going open-world, i am more than willing to look into those criticisms, why they exist, and why i think going open-world was ultimately the best decision botw devs could have made. (totk is a slightly different story, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.)

Loz is a franchise with a ton of history and a ton of really, REALLY dedicated fans. it's probably second only to mario in terms of recognizability and impact in nintendo's catalog. To us younger fans, the older games can sometimes seem, like, prehistoric when compared to what we're used to nowadays, but it's important to remember just how YOUNG the gaming industry is and how rapidly it's changed and grown. the first zelda game was released in 1986, which was 31 years before botw came out in 2017. What this means for nintendo and its developers is that they have to walk a very fine line between catering to older fans in their 30s and 40s now who would have been in nintendo's prime demographic when the first few games in the franchise were coming out AND making a game that's engaging to their MODERN target demographic and that age group's expectations for what a gaming experience should look like.

LOZ is in kind of a tough spot when it comes to modernizing, because a lot of its core gameplay elements are very much staples of early RPGs, and a lot of those gameplay elements have been phased out of modern RPGs for one reason or another. gathering collectibles, fighting one's way through multilevel, mapless dungeons, and especially classic zelda's relative lack of guidance through the story are all things that date games and which modern audiences tend to get frustrated with. for the last few releases before botw, the devs had kind of been playing with this -- skyward sword in particular is what i consider their big experiment and what (i think) became the driving force behind a lot of what happened with botw. Skyward sword attempted to solve the issues I listed by, basically, making the map small and the story much, much more blatantly linear. Skyward sword feels much more like other modern rpgs to me than most zelda games in terms of its playstyle, because the game is constantly pushing you to do specific things. this is a common storytelling style in modern RPGs--obviously, the player usually needs to take specific actions in order to progress the story, and so when there's downtime between story sections the supporting characters push the player towards the next goal. but this actually isn't what loz games usually do. in the standard loz formula, you as the player are generally directly given at most 4 objectives. these objectives will (roughly) be as follows: 1. go through some dungeons and defeat their bosses, 2. claim the master sword, 3. go through another set of dungeons and defeat their bosses, 4. defeat the final boss of the game. (not necessarily in that order, although that order is the standard formula.) the ONLY time the player will be expressly pushed by supporting characters towards a certain action (excluding guide characters) is when the game is first presenting them with those objectives. in-between dungeons and other gameplay segments, there's no sense of urgency, no one pushing you onto the next task. this method of storytelling encourages players to take their time and explore the world they're in, which in turn helps them find the collectibles and puzzles traditionally hidden around the map that will make it easier for them to continue on. Skyward sword, as previously mentioned, experimented with breaking this formula a bit--its overworld was small and unlocked sequentially, so you couldn't explore it fully without progressing the narrative, and it gave players a "home base" to return to in skyloft which housed many of the puzzles and collectibles rather than scattering them throughout the overworld. This method worked... to an extent, but it also meant that skyward sword felt drastically different in its storytelling and how its narrative was presented to the player than its predecessors. this isn't necessarily a BAD thing, but i am of the opinion that one of zelda's strongest elements has always been the level of immersion and relatability its stories have, and the constant push to continue the narrative has the potential to pull players out of your story a bit, making skyward sword slightly less engaging to the viewer than other games in the franchise. (to address the elephant in the room, there were also obviously some other major issues with the design of sksw that messed with player immersion, but imo even if the control scheme had been perfect on the first try, the hyperlinear method would STILL have been less engaging to a player than the standard exploration-based zeldas.)

So when people say that botw was the first open-world zelda, I'm not actually sure how true I personally believe that is. I think a lot of the initial hype surrounding botw's open map were tainted by what came before it--compared to the truly linear, intensely restricted map of skyward sword, botw's map feels INSANE. but strictly speaking, botw actually sticks pretty closely to the standard zelda gameplay experience, at least as far as the overworld map is concerned. from the beginning, one of the draws of loz is that there's a large, populated map that you as the player can explore (relatively) freely. it was UNUSUAL for the player to not have access to almost the entire map either immediately or very quickly after beginning a new zelda game. (the size and population of these maps was restricted by software and storage capabilities in earlier games, but pretty muhc every zelda game has what would have been considered a large & well populated map at the time of its release.) what truly made botw different was two things; the first being the sheer SIZE of the map and the second being the lack of dungeons and collectibles in a traditional sense. Everything that needs to be said about the size of the map already has been said: it's huge and it's crazy and it's executed PERFECTLY and it's never been done before and every game since has been trying to replicate it. nothing much else to say there. but I do want to talk about the percieved difference in gameplay as it relates to the open-world collectibles and dungeons, because, again, i don't think it's actually as big of a difference as people seem to think it is.

Once again, let's look at the classic formula. I'm going to start with the collectibles and lead into the dungeons. The main classic collectible that's a staple of every zelda game pre-botw is the heart piece. This is a quarter of a heart that will usually be sitting out somewhere in the open world or in a dungeon, and will require the player to either solve a puzzle or perform a specific action to get. botw is the first game to not include heart pieces... TECHNICALLY. but in practice, they're still there, just renamed. they're spirit orbs now, and rather than being hidden in puzzles within the overworld (with no explanation as to how or why they ended up there, mind you) they're hidden within shrines, and they're given a clear purpose for existing throughout hyrule and for requiring puzzle-solving skills to access. Functionally, these two items are exactly the same--it's an object that gives you an extra heart container once you collect four of them. no major difference beyond a reskin and renaming to make the object make sense within the greater world instead of just having a little ❤️ floating randomly in the middle of their otherwise hyperrealistic scenery. the heart piece vs spirit orb i think is a good microcosm of the "it's too different" criticisms of botw as a whole--is it ACTUALLY that different, or is it just repackaged in a way that doesn't make it immediately obvious what you're looking at anymore? I think it's worth noting that botw gives a narrative reason for that visual/linguistic disconnect from other games, too--it's set at minimum TEN THOUSAND YEARS after any other given game. while we don't have any concrete information about how much time passes between new-incarnation games, it's safe to assume that botw is significantly further removed from other incarnations of hyrule/link/zelda/etc than any other game on the timeline. It's not at all inconceivable within the context of the game that heart pieces may have changed form or come to be known by a different name. most of the changes between botw and other games can be reasoned away this way, because most of them have SOME obvious origins in a previous game mechanic, it's just been updated for botw's specific setting and narrative.

The dungeons ARE an actual departure from the classic formula, i will grant you. the usual way a zelda dungeon works is that link enters the dungeon, solves a few puzzles, fights a mini boss at about the halfway point, and after defeating the mini boss he gets a dungeon item which makes the second half of the dungeon accessible. He then uses that item in the dungeon's final boss fight, which is specifically engineered with that item in mind as the catalyst to win it. Botw's dungeons are the divine beasts. we've removed the presence of mini-bosses entirely, because the 'dungeon items' aren't something link needs to get within the dungeon itself--he alredy has them. they're the sheikah slate runes: magnesis, cryonis, stasis, and remote bombs. Each of the divine beast blight battles is actually built around using one of these runes to win it--cryonis to break waterblight's ice projectiles, magnesis to strike down thunderblight with its own lightning rods, remote bombs to take out fireblight's shield. (i ASSUME there's some way to use stasis effectively against windblight, mostly because it's obvious to me that that's how all the other fights were designed, but in practice it's the best strategy for that fight is to just slow down time via aerial archery, so i've never tried to win that way lol.) So even though we've removed traditional dungeon items and mini-boss fights, the bones of the franchise remain unchanged underneath. this is what makes botw such an ingenious move for this franchise imo; the fact that it manages to update itself into such a beautiful, engaging, MODERN game while still retaining the underlying structure that defines its franchise and the games that came before it. botw is an effective modern installment to this 30-year-old franchise because it takes what made the old games great and updates it in a way that still stays true to the core of the franchise.

I did mention totk in my opening paragraph and you mention it in your ask so i have to come back to it somehow. Do i think that totk did the gigantic-open-world thing as well as botw did? no. But i also don't really think there was any other direction to go with that game specifically. botw literally changed the landscape of game development when it was released. I KNOW you all remember how for a good year or two after botw's release, EVERY SINGLE GAME that came out HAD to have a massive open-world map, regardless of whether or not that actually made sense for that game. (pokemon is still suffering from the effects of that botw-driven open world craze to this day. rip scarlet/violet your gameplay was SUCH dogshit) I'm not sure to what degree nintendo and the botw devs anticipated that success, (I remember the open world and the versatility in terms of problem-solving being the two main advertising angles pre-release, but it's been 7 years. oh jesus christ it's been SEVEN YEARS. anyways) but in any case, there's basically NO WAY that they anticipated their specific gameplay style taking off to that degree. That's not something you can predict. When creating totk, they were once again walking that line between old and new, but because they were only 3ish years out from botw when totk went into development, they were REALLY under pressure to stay true to what it was that had made botw such an insane success. I think that's probably what led to the expanded map in the sky and depths as well as the fuse/build mechanics--they basically took their two big draws from botw, big map and versatility, and said ok BIGGER MAP and MORE VERSATILITY. Was this effective? yeah. do i think they maybe could have made a more engaging and well-rounded game if they'd been willing to diverge a little more from botw? also yeah. I won't say that I wanted totk to be skyward sword-style linear, because literally no one wanted that, but I do think that because of the insane wave of success that botw's huge open world brought in the developers were under pressure to stay very true to botw in their designing the gameplay of totk, and I think that both the gameplay and story might have been a bit more engaging if they had been allowed to experiment a little more in their delivery of the material.

[ohnoitstbskyen]

hello ! do you have any thoughts about the new dragon age game and the info that's come out for it?

Some. Based on the limited footage I've been looking at (and for context, I haven't kept up with the promotion beyond the 20 minute snippet of gameplay footage they showed after the disastrous first trailer), it looks like it's trying to follow the legacy of Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age 2 in terms of gameplay structure. Mission-based, fairly linear, constructed around setpieces and combat encounters with relatively minimal exploration and puzzles.

Which isn't necessarily a bad thing - Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age 2 are the best games in each franchise - but I also get a sense that the combat gameplay has been streamlined down the point that it's functionally indistinguishable from any other standard 3D action hack-and-slash (somewhat in the mold of FF16), which feels very much like a play for mainstream triple-A broad audience appeal.

In the context that BioWare is pretty commonly considered to be on the EA chopping block should their next games flop, that feels like they didn't choose that combat style because it's what they really wanted, or what their core audience is interested in, or even because it's what's best for the game and its narrative and feeling. It feels like they chose it because they need John Gamer™, who buys 2-3 big triple-A game titles a year and who's never touched an RPG before, to spend some money on their game by convincing him that it's a cool fantasy hack-and-slash all about doing badass backflip jump slashes with a tone like Guardians of the Galaxy, and not a big, cheesy, lore-heavy fantasy soap opera / horny dating sim with a combat system bolted onto the side.

It feels like a creative decision pushed by someone in a suit jacket and graphic tee citing the need to be "data informed" about design decisions, and who, up until the moment Baldur's Gate 3 came out, was convinced that hard systems-driven RPGs were a niche product for a tiny audience that could never make real money because they surveyed 6000 Call of Duty players who said fantasy is for queers and losers.

Perfectly happy to be wrong about all of this, mind you, and since it'll be on GamePass, I will obviously be playing it, because even when Dragon Age is not very good, it is still Dragon Age and that's my goddamn trash right there.

[r3dcam3llias]

Brainstorming Ideas for Step 5 Mod...

Recently, I've been in my finalizing planning step (it's messy) for this mod, and I wanted to brain-dump some ideas for the logistical side of things. I decided there would be two main routes to focus on right away: Pregnancy and Adoption. While I plan on making a 3rd route to let players choose neither and just have fluffy, child-free moments with their husband/boyfriend Cove, that is not my main focus for the mod initially. Additionally, I would LOVE to make a surrogacy option, but again, it is not my main focus and will have to be something I consider after the 2 main routes are finished.

Also, for simply the sake of maintaining my sanity, Step 5 is going to have to be fully linear, meaning moments will happen in chronological order. Although they will still be able to be fully skipped and will include content warnings (if applicable) at the beginning of each one! (with the exception of a few key moments, to be expanded on later…) Now to get into the brainstorming itself, I'd like to share the outlines I've cooked up for these routes:

Pregnancy Route

During the pregnancy route, the MC and Cove will be able to have a biological child together through the MC becoming pregnant. This route is only avaliable if the player chooses that the MC was assigned female at birth or is intersex and assumes the MC still has female reproductive organs and anatomy conducive to pregnancy. Although the player can choose during gameplay whether or not they ever developed breasts/had them removed. I plan on making this route be split up into five optional moments, over the course of 9 months, with at least one optional moment before the MC becomes pregnant (not related to pregnancy at all) and at least two non-skippable moments after their baby is born. Additionally, I want as many people as possible to be able to play and enjoy this mod and also be comfortable and feel represented while doing so!!

Because of this, I know not everyone is comfortable with in-depth depictions of things such as pregnancy or talk of medical conditions, yet still want to have the experience. While obviously, there will be no outright graphic or disturbing things in the mod, I still want people to be comfortable playing. For this reason, I want to implement a “Safe” mode that cuts out any and all potentially triggering subjects for a fully wholesome, discomfort-free experience. When the mod is finished, I plan to have full documentation of what these moments are so players can give a quick read-through at their discretion before playing. Additionally, I may implement an additional system to cut out small, unneeded references to the MC’s pregnancy by family members, Cove, etc, for those uncomfortable with the fact being shoved in their face during gameplay, allowing a sort of “High” or “Low” reference mode (similar to initiative levels, I suppose!).

Adoption Route

I don't have a whole lot to say on the adoption route, as I feel like it's a whole lot more straightforward (and will give me less headaches hopefully...) But I plan to give it a similar story structure to the former. This play style will be open to any MC, regardless of identity. The MC and Cove do not need to be married for this option to occur, but they have to have been in a long-term relationship at least since before Step 4. Like the pregnancy route, there'll be at least one optional moment before Cove and the player decide to adopt a child, followed by 3-5 moments as Cove and the MC make this decision and navigate the process of becoming parents. They will be followed by at least two moments after their child is adopted. As for the child Cove and the MC adopt, I'm considering making their appearance randomized from a few looks and you'll also get to decide to do a domestic or international adoption, although this won't have an impact on their child's looks. ANYWAY... That concludes my rants, thanks for reading. Do you have any concerns, comments, or questions? Suggestions for how I could make this mod better/more inclusive?

[demon-prosecutor-milesedgeworth]

Playing through Ace Attorney for the first time and I'm on the second game and I'm just deeply in love with how things that are essentially just gameplay features impact and interact with the world of the game. I'm not sure if this makes sense but like:

Mia Fey is, in terms of game play, basically just the tutorial. She's there to show the player how the game works and what buttons to press and give hints when the case gets complicated, but the decision to have her

A. become the next murder victim that Phoenix must investigate

B. continuing to show up as a sort of "hint" system in court, but also being a major part of the story (namely in Farewell, My Turnabout where she's the way to interact with Maya while she's kidnapped, and also her being tied to the concept of spirit mediums in general which are so important in a lot of the cases)

is like, SO GOOD because it just the world of the game feel so much more alive than just the gameplay functions that specific things are tied to.

The same thing is true for the magatama, in that, like, not only can the player see the chains and locks that appear, but it's made very clear that Phoenix himself is seeing the exact same thing and comments on it often. It's not just a gameplay feature for the benefit of the player, it's something that exists and is talked about in the world.

I feel like the way the tutorial works in the second game also fits into this category, because rather than just suck it up and go through the gameplay again for anyone that hadn't played the first game, they decided Phoenix had to be *hit on the head with a fire extinguisher* and lose all of his memories, and rather than tell anyone, realize he's a lawyer and then without even being fully aware of what his name is, still wins a trial.

This is such a long post already, but the writing of the games also seem so aware of what makes the game function well and then how to twist that to its advantage to make the game more interesting. Like, of course, starting out, Phoenix has to win all of his cases. All of his clients have to be found 'Not Guilty', or else the game wouldn't be satisfying, but then you reach the Matt Engarde, and Phoenix's belief in his client's innocence becomes a defining character trait instead of just something that is necessary for the game to function properly. All of his other clients have been innocent, so when the setup with Matt looks the same, of course he believes it.

Can you tell I like these games? I really like these games.

[feenick]

JRPG, CRPG, WRPG... these aren't very useful subgenres, and geologically recent arguments have heated up the debate around them even more. So I propose throwing them out and replacing them with these 26 new, flawless categories:

ARPG - Action RPG: Do you perfom actions? Or are you stuck watching the title sequence over and over because the main menu doesn't work? BRPG - Bethesdic RPG: Can you pick up every wheel of cheese in the game and put it into a single room? Does the game needing to keep track of that eventually ruin saves? Then the game's a BRPG. CRPG - Computer RPG/Console RPG: Everyone will know exactly what you mean when you use this acronym. If need be, refer to games like Ultima IV or Final Fantasy VII, games that exclusively exist on either a personal computer or a console. DRPG - Dungeon RPG: Do you go into the prison cells underneath a castle? If you don't, are you really an RPG of any type, much less a DRPG? ERPG - Erotic RPG: A game where you find love. Did you talk to someone on an internet forum about Final Fantasy IV and get into a relationship through that? That goes here. FRPG - French RPG: Wakfu exists. I'm sure there's others. GRPG - Good RPG: They all go in here :) HRPG - Homeric RPG: Is the plot of the RPG directly ripping off 1) The Iliad 2) The Odyssey 3) A Simpsons episode? IRPG - Idle RPG: Okay, honest question. How much do you idle in these games anyway? Certainly you're setting up equipment and parties that'll auto-grind for you, right? The entire subgenre isn't just Progress Quest, right? JRPG - Judeo-Christian RPG: This category is exclusively for the 2008 game The You Testament. I'm sorry, I don't make the rules. KRPG - Kinetic RPG: You know Kinetic Novels, ie a VN that doesn't have any choices at all? Throw any RPG you want to disparge for not giving you choices in here. Alternatively, this is for any RPG that has Kinect support. LRPG - Luddite RPG: Was it released on a console 20 years after that console ceased getting games? Does it look and act like it should have been released 20 years ago? MRPG - Monster-catching RPG: Any game where you catch monsters and have them battle for you. Notably, Shin Megami Tensei is excluded; you talk, bribe, and cajole demons into working for you, which is totally different. NRPG - Natalist RPG: Does the word 'breeding' come up at any point in the game description? ORPG - Orre-game-esque RPG: Like Pokemon Colosseum or Pokemon XD Gale of Darkness, is this game a spinoff of a larger RPG series that changes a major mechanic and has a small but vocal fanbase? PRPG - Panzer Dragoon Saga-like RPG: games that make SHMUP gameplay more approachable by combining them with an RPG. Other games that fit into this category are Undertale and Sigma Star Saga. QRPG - Questionnaire-having RPG: Does the game, at some point, ask you a series of questions in order to determine something? In that case, all other categories are overwritten by this one. RRPG - 'Real' RPG: You know, in your heart of hearts, what belongs here, and everyone else is wrong. SRPG - Strategic RPG: A game in which short-term tactical gameplay decisions [strategy] are the main focus. TRPG - Tactics RPG: A game in which long-term, strategic gameplay decisions [tactics] are the main focus. URPG - Ultraviolent RPG: Can you kill a guy and have a fountain of blood erupt from them? VRPG - VIPRPG: A category reserved for any game made by someone who frequents 2ch's VIP board, or features that :3 cat person that originated there. WRPG - Weeaboo RPG: Was it made by someone outside of Asia but still have anime stylings? XRPG - eXploratory RPG: A generous term for an RPG that throws you out into the world with little direction and expects you to figure out where the game is. YRPG - Yslike RPG: Does it have bump combat? Then there you go! ZRPG - Zero-loving RPG: Are the damage numbers padded to make them look more impressive? Alternatively, does Zero from Mega Man X show up?

[talenlee]

Game Pile: Apiary

Something that I’m keenly aware of when dealing with students talking about games is the way that games are a genre with their own language and jargon and how sometimes things that are very complicated the first time you see anything like them become standardised pieces after you’re familiar with them.

Consider that when I point to a game called Apiary which is about bees in space and whose theme feels like it’s spray-painted on without that being any kind of detriment to the game. I’ve played it once, I didn’t win, and I had a lot of fun even when I found it frustrating.

Alright, let’s just pull the lid off this game, strip away the fictional framework and talk about the raw mechanisms. Apiary is a worker-placement game with bumping, gating workers, and depleting workers. You have your own personal build space, which has limitations and perks, and you build things in them by spending workers on those actions, out of resources A, B, C, and special resources D and E. You can spend resources on upgrading parts of your engine or adding to your board space.

Okay, some extrapolation on those terms if they don’t mean anything to you:

Worker placement is a game where to take actions you have to put your workers in one of a limited number of slots. Every action in the game is limited by how many workers you have available. If all your workers are on the table, you have to spend a turn bringing them back.

Bumping refers to a system where when someone places a worker, it pushes previous workers out of their spot and sends them back to their player – meaning that players can’t permanently block spaces.

Depleting workers means that workers wear out; in Apiary they ‘build up’ – going from a level 1 worker to a level 4 worker, whereupon the level 4 worker retires to hibernate and you need to spend a worker action to get a new worker.

Gating workers means that there are tasks that need workers of a certain quality or level to do some actions.

This means that in Apiary, you place a worker, but a level 1 worker can’t do as many or as effective a thing as a level 3 worker, and one of the options, a victory-point gainer, is only doable with a level 4 worker. This creates gameplay situations where you want to do everything at once, and you can’t, and you also want to anticipate what other players are doing. If you put yourself in the right spot, another player will potentially bump your worker back to you, which will increase its level and give you better options on your next turn.

There’s a trap in this design, where the game rules give you two options for your turn. One of them is placing a worker, which gives you a whole extra set of decisions to make, but the other option is retrieve all your workers, and each returning worker can trigger one of your farm tiles.

In the game I played, I saw two retrieve actions done. Bumping happened all the time, meaning that it was much easier to just find something else to do with your turn while you waited for someone else to give you one of your workers back. I wasn’t planning for the turn I had coming up, I was planning for one turn after that, because the turn I had coming up was pretty much locked in; I knew I was about to do something that bumped someone else, and that I would in turn, get bumped.

It’s a good feeling but it is also incredibly confining. There were actions I simply never took in the game, because I never needed to with my options, which meant that the players who were doing those actions were often bumping one another. The action that gets you victory condition tiles require a level 4 worker, which means they get bumped very rarely – and then when they bumped, they go to hibernation (usually).

At most you’ll have four workers out there, and unless you have four farms, retrieval isn’t going to get you resources from every one. One worker, one farm, two workers, two farms – it feels like a real tricky choice to plan for. So much so that unless there’s some Hive reason to really care about farms, those feel like it’s not worth your time to get them… but I say that as someone who was getting victory points from his recruits. I was being biased in one direction, there’s obviously a way to be biased in other ways.

Now I may have discussed the game rules in a pretty lore-agnostic way but I think it’s pretty reasonable to treat it as a lore-agnostic game because what the hell is this lore? It’s about bees in space which is while a great idea, and I love it a lot, it’s also an idea that fels kinda like it was tripped over. Like the only reason this game looks the way it is, is themed the way it is, is because someone at a meeting misheard something, an artist generated a bunch of work based on that mishearing, and when they were done, the designers just rolled with it rather than re-do a bunch of art assets.

There’s some odd things at work here, too, where the lore sort of implies something that isn’t in the game. See, there’s talk about how all the bees are growing older faster and there’s a need to put the bees in hibernation because they’re sleepy (beepy). There’s talk about a reason for it, a sort of coming plague that’s slowly creeping at their population, and with all the technology and enhancement happening, I thought that maybe the endgame signalled some sort of successful overcoming of the plague.

But no, it’s a classic: The winner is the player with the most points. The end game is when you run out of game.

It’s hardly my place to complain about that, I mean I love Wingspan to pieces, and that is a game that plays until the pieces run out and the scoring happens. It’s an abstracted system game, and complaining that a Stonemeier game is not deep on a fictional entrenchment for its mechanics is a bit like complaining that bicycles aren’t good planes. These games are merely excellent in other ways and just good in others. That’s okay!

A particular detail about Apiary that feels present that isn’t in Wingspan is the constriction. Wingspan turns feel precious because you know how many you have but you also are all growing at roughly the same speed. It’s easy to look around the table at Wingspan and see people whose boards are roughly as developed as yours (though it’s just as possible for things to go poorly, part of that game’s skill floor), but in Apiary the board is full of signs of what’s going on. It can be hard to tell how close the end game is, and I know it snuck up on me.

But at the same time, because I’m planning two steps ahead, any time something I wanted finally arrived on my player board, because I could afford it, and the worker to get it and the space to get it set up it was a little party. I didn’t remember why I wanted that Carve action in particularly but when I had the time to do it I threw a little party. I wasn’t sure if what I was doing was the right thing at the end of the game, but putting down the last two tiles on my board in the last turn was a real thrill, feeling like I had used every drop of what the game offered me.

The game holds on tight, and that means that doing things within that constraint brings with it a great pressure but also the pressure made all the successes feel more gratifying.

Apiary is a type of game you know if you need it in your life when you hear the pitch. It’s a Stonemeier Worker Placement game about Bees In Space. The Stonemeier formula is polished and exquisite, it’s thoughtfully produced, it’s got a good rulebook and rules appendix, its player guide is excellent, it’s just going to do all the things you expect a game of its type to do well.

It’s not a game to consider for its ‘point’ or its ‘direction.’ It’s a game that’s good and interesting because of its in-the-moment experience. The moment when you’re planning your turns and hoping for the next one. It’s a game that really shows where friction can come from though; one slow player slows down every player, and that can mean a game of relatively quick decisions can be pretty frustrating while I’m just waiting, waiting, waiting, to do one thing and move one piece because it’s the turn after this one that interests me.

Basically, the complexity load on this one is a real thing, and don’t expect a story.

I know, shocking, Jamie’s done it again.

Check it out on PRESS.exe to see it with images and links!