Search Results

AND ALAN TUDYK IS KING CANDY

Hey man how many people actually look up the cast list or pay attention to the posters of Disney films

The only guy I know who's played it started with 2

Of course bb = 3= When I said I love you long time I meant i-*brick'd*

But yes you must catch me up on your life sometime dahling, I' usually bum around Skype in the afternoon/evening hours and I'm always open to texts~

Want me to give you some wicked pretentious gamer jargon to spit at them? I've got hours of material :'D

Bb all I'm sayin' is if anybody ever makes fun of you for who you make bed with I'll punch them

Next you're gonna tell me I don't make Sprothe jokes enough

Ok good red alert rescinded

Still vehemently disagree wrt the narrative but I can live with that

I'm strapped for examples because I'm locked in Disgaea Mode

Good thing I've got a brother to back me up for occasions like this ;D

Wrong, wrong, wrong, extra wrong with a side of wrong sauce. The most memorable moments to a gamer are the ones where the game appears to be aware of their presence; instances in the story where the gamer feels exactly what the perspective character feels, acknowledgement in-game of something the player is thinking about it, the plot using gaming abstractions to move forward, so on and so forth. When gameplay and story are incongruous, it damages the story's credibility. When they are in sync, it enriches the player's experience.

Gameplay is storytelling, not story all on its own. Though the most satisfying gameplay can be a story in itself, through the many varied experiences of its players, a game must first set out to tell a story. But the first step can be as simple as that wave of relief an RPG player feels as they emerge on the other side of a challenging dungeon, into the warm light of a save point.

Mario does have a story. It's the story of a plumber who saves a kidnapped princess from a giant dinosaur-turtle monster. How successful they are in roping the player into that little mythos varies between games, but not because of differences in the plot or characters; it's the differences in the way environments are laid out, how many tools the player has to explore them, how difficult are the challenges that lie before them and whether they make the player sweat or give them a lukewarm sense of accomplishment.

Super Mario World is heralded as one of the pillars of the platforming genre, and it's more than just running and jumping; there's a little bit of backtracking, some instances where the player must combine the precision and technique they've learned with a little dash of cleverness to discover a new path, there are unlockables which dramatically change the landscape of the stages... The world feels alive, because it responds to the player, it invites them to be a part of it and to affect change in it. It evokes deep emotions from its players, and invests them in seeing it through to the end. And it accomplishes all of this without any masterfully delivered dialogue, any expertly crafted plot, or any sort of narrative hand-holding. Just a brief primer on what you're doing in the world at the beginning, and a little status update after surviving each castle.

No, not every game needs a story, but most of them end up with one. Whether it's the one the developers intended or put forth, or one forged by the players themselves. And the latter tend to be more enjoyable, at least in my experience.

See the examples above. I'm not going to bother elaborating further, because after reading this...

...it's pretty clear I've already wasted more than enough breath for how little you respect the point you're debating.

Tragically qft. Most games only achieve good synergy between the two by accident (See: Pokémon).

All I remember is seeing the movie and kinda liking it then deciding I gave it too much credit and mostly remembering it for getting me addicted to saying whatcha got for me? also that scene where the bad guy's surrounded by gremlin people and shouts I HAVE RE-TURNED!

Also for starring John C. Reilly who is raw as shit

DID YOU KNOW HE ALSO PLAYED WRECK-IT RALPH?

The Rocket Power cast frowns with the force of a thousand suns

DON'T MIND ME JUST QUOTIN' EVERY DAMN THING NEEEEEEEE

Atta girl

ALSO HI WELCOME BACK WE SHOULD HANG OUT

I WON LIKE 4 AWARDS THIS YEAR SO I'M OFFICIALLY POPULAR B] MAJOR BOOST 2 UR CRED. *brick'dnovashutupmostofthoseweremockingyou*

Idk man I think that was mostly because it was expected to be a super-dark twist on Mickey ALSO HI TER DANK

*foams at the mouth*

Please at least tell me you think these things in spades about KH2 or I might have to flip some tables

Why does everyone have so much trouble with these places I don't understand

IS THE BEST RIGHT? :D

The beautiful beautiful theming

Hey don't judge

If Feary wants to fuck a whale she's got the strength and the right

I'm just gonna skip the rest of the thread and address this because it's important to me

It is not wrong for a game to focus on storytelling, but it should not sacrifice gameplay to do so, because in a game, gameplay is storytelling. It is the most unique and thus most essential aspect of a game, one that is mostly exclusive to it and at the very least its specialty. When people say a game (especially an old one) "had a good story," but when you quiz them they admit that the characters were flat and the setting is kind of dull, what they probably meant is that it immersed them through its interactivity. The story they liked wasn't told or witnessed, it was played.

A game can achieve immersion without being terribly interactive - Indeed, every other form of entertainment gets on with it well enough - but games have the expectation of being interactive, and without that element the medium becomes a hindrance more than an advantage, the controller naught but a funny-looking remote where the buttons don't work right sometimes. The review doesn't surprise me, nor does the verdict, and it's why I didn't buy the games to begin with, but I think it's more than just personal preference. I think it's in the games' nature.

Quantic is trying to do something inherently difficult to enjoy. It's like putting jelly on a hot dog: maybe the first time you'll get a few people to say they like it, but before long it becomes a question of, are you doing it to be different, or do you really think there's potential there? And while I admit to having no first-hand experience, from what I have seen and read it sounds like Quantic would make only passable films, too, if they were in that industry. So a merely passable non-interactive story is having poor interactive elements smooshed into it? Outlook bleak.

And besides that Metal Gear Rising does what Quantic keeps trying to but better-*brick'd*

Aaaand my top 3 are deadlocked at two votes apiece

This is tragic

5-3=2
Half Life 2 confirmed
2+2=4

HALF LIFE 4 CONFIRMED

A bad one?

Don't get snippy with me, I gave you plenty. That's what was in those paragraphs you were raggin' on. Did you skip them?

I thought you meant the 'dream within a dream' bit but suddenly I realize they kind of are performing actual inception on him aren't they?

One of these days I'll take that "Never argue with fools" axiom to heart...

You're trying to compare an acceptable change to an unacceptable one. What would you call that, if not defense?

Not that it's any of your business, but I'm a little too hot-headed for the "turn the other cheek" approach. Besides, my attitude doesn't make you less wrong.

It was more your ignorance that pissed me off, but no biggie, continue to generalize like you accuse me of doing.

BEN
YOUR #1 SOURCE OF LAME

E: Oh Hel guys don't like this it was so mean

They're trying to implant an idea in his head?

#KSing KS

>I could get just as pissed at your by saying

Your sentence are grammatical incorrect

I have no idea if you meant to say 'you' or if something was supposed to follow 'your' and precede 'by,' and either way it still doesn't make much sense.

Yes. It also referred to one "addicted to social pleasures and dissipations. Often euphemistically: Of loose and immoral life"•. Thus it's not hard to figure out from there that its use as a term for homosexual people was originally intended as a slur. Having since been reclaimed, it's pretty fuckin' discouraging to see it take a step backwards because, yes, some DUMB IDIOT KIDS couldn't think of another of the thousands of perfectly serviceable words to describe their inexplicable CoD losing streak. The English language does not need another insult, especially not one that takes people for granted. It's already packed full of those.

Except it's a stupid example because now it is in among a great number of equally pointless synonyms for NO REASON. Not to mention, as it is also used as a means of personal identity, using it so frivolously is hurtful to people who identify that way. It has nothing to do with the word we're talking about, because nobody but the most insanely militant word-policing hipsters will ever be damaged by people using 'literally' facetiously to emphasize a point. Stop defending that sickening trend and maybe I won't aggress you.

It's really hard to understand you but I gather you're either twisting my words, or legitimately didn't understand me. Instead of repeating myself I'm just going to ask you to give it another look. Or fix your damn grammar, one of the two.

Except 'gay' in that usage never meant anything. It was just a bunch of lazy idiot kids who decided to trump up a slur for their own amusement. If you think that equates to using 'literally' in a contrary fashion for emphasis you can fuck right off.