Just Keep On Walkin'

Man, talk about brutal! The ostensible reason I gave myself for waiting to start Season 2 of The Walking Dead was so I could “binge play” it and get through all of the episodes without needing to wait for months in between. Frankly, though, I was probably at least somewhat influenced by a desire to avoid the inevitable anguish for as long as possible. The Walking Dead is a fantastic game, one of my absolute favorites of the last few years, but it’s also one of the bleakest and most heartbreaking.

On a technical level, the second season builds on the successes of the first. The overall art style is the same, although there’s a higher level of polish that makes the characters look more vivid, and the new settings are generally even more impressive than the relatively mundane ones of the first game. I also feel like they’ve really perfected the gameplay. Even over the course of the first season, they gradually de-emphasized the more traditional hunt-and-seek adventure game tropes, and correspondingly put more weight on in-depth conversations and quick-time events. Early in Season One, there were occasional spots where I would briefly feel stuck, and would get very slightly frustrated as I tried doing a bunch of random things to advance. That never happens any more. It isn’t completely on rails - there are optional things to do along the way, and some limited opportunities for exploration - but it’s always very clear how to proceed to the next sequence.

I recently heard someone describe TWD as more of an “interactive story” than a “game”. I initially bristled at that characterization, and then started wondering why I had that reaction. My gut reaction is that an “interactive story” is a cheap and uninteresting thing, while a “game” is high-quality and engaging. Really, though, practically all of my favorite games have compelling stories, and I’m always harping on it when a story disappoints me in some way.

It might be fair to say that TWD lies somewhere between a choose-your-own-adventure comic book / TV show, and a video game. It’s true that you do spend proportionally more time watching and listening to other characters; however, your actions can have profound impacts on the direction of that show. Unlike CYOA, which tends to be purely branching (you pick between mutually exclusive paths), TWD has a broader and richer state. You might have conversations with three different people one night, and then get in an argument with them the next day. Each one of those three will remember what you said the night before, but all of your choices were independent of one another. The result is a very organic-feeling adaptable structure which rarely calls attention to itself.

And, in a way, the diminishing of the “game” portion of this experience aligns nicely with my evolving preferences. Minute-for-minute, I get more enjoyment out of TWD than most games, just because I’m always seeing something completely new, always driving the story forwards. There’s no fighting multiple enemies to level up, no time spent fiddling with items in a giant inventory, no incremental upgrades of slightly-better weapons. Just a story that keeps punching me in the gut over and over again.

MINI SPOILERS (for TWD Season 2, MEGA SPOILERS for Season 1)

I’d remarked last year how odd it felt that we had three popular, successful, critically-acclaimed games that all featured gruff middle-aged men looking after young girls. Although their gameplay was different, The Walking Dead, The Last of Us and BioShock Infinite explored this trope in a lot of different ways, and with generally great results: the female characters felt fully developed and believable, they were helpful and didn’t die easily.

I don’t think I could have predicted that, more than a year on, all three of those games would have add-ons in which you actually played as that young girl. I’ve already written about my experiences with Elizabeth in BioShock: Burial at Sea Part 2; I haven’t yet played as Ellie in Left Behind, but did play as her for a good-sized stretch in The Last of Us. I’m pretty happy with how all of them have turned out. The gameplay is fun and rewarding; it recalls the original experience of playing as the male lead, so it isn’t as if you’re missing out or playing a simplified version; but at the same time, you’re controlling a very different character (most notably physically different), and the game mechanics change to reflect that. Ellie had an entirely separate set of moves from Joel: she couldn’t sneak up behind someone and put them in a chokehold, since she’s too short; but unlike Joel she could leap up onto their back and, uh, stab them in the throat with a knife. In Burial at Sea, particularly if you played in 1998 Mode, Elizabeth’s stealthy, pacifist modes of progress stood in stark contrast to Booker’s shoot-everything-that-moves-until-they-are-all-dead way of operating.

The Walking Dead is very different from those action games, and the in-game controls are the same for Clem in Season 2 as they were for Lee in Season 1. Nonetheless, it feels like the developers did a great job at reflecting the place you hold in this very dangerous world. Lee, a fairly strong man, could use his physical strength to smack back zombies and leap over fences. Clementine uses a pistol, hatchet or knife when she needs to engage with zombies, and is capable of crawling into tight spaces that Lee wouldn’t have been able to enter.

TWD has always been mostly about its conversations, and here too they continue to do a great job. It’s an interesting challenge: as the player character, we naturally expect to have a lot of autonomy in making decisions; however, as a young girl in a post-apocalyptic zombie-infested landscape, we would expect to be dependent upon others. The writing is consistently sharp, coming up with very natural and believable reasons for why Clem is being tasked with doing some particularly dangerous errand; they even lampshade it a few times later on, with characters saying things like, “You’re just a little girl, and you’ve done more for the group than anyone else!”

On a personal level, too, Clementine generally has a better time navigating group politics than Lee did. Most people like her, and few view her as a threat. As Lee, the tension often came from worrying that other people would act directly against you. As Clementine, the tension generally comes from worrying about dissent between other factions within the group: everyone wants you to be on their side, which might feel a little like a child caught between two parents in a divorce.

In keeping with the pattern established in Season One, the story can vary in a lot of different ways: you’ll still move through the same locations from one episode to the next, but different people can die or live at different points, which has ripple effects on the rest of the story. And there’s also everyone’s opinion to worry about; there’s not necessarily and “right” or “wrong” way to play the game, but my goal is usually to stay on good terms with as many people as I can for as long as I can. Of course, things fall apart, the center cannot hold, and any taste of victory will swiftly turn to ashes in your mouth… but that’s all part of the lovable charm that is The Walking Dead!

One of the most fascinating features of TWD from its very first episode has been the graph which shows at the end of each episode, describing what you decided for the major choices in the episode and how it compared to the average. Looking at this tends to make me actually feel really optimistic about the human race: while many of the choices are tough, there tend to be really solid majorities behind the choices that clearly demonstrate empathy or pure acts of kindness. It kind of flies in the face of the stereotype of gamers as immoral sociopaths, which is very encouraging. (Of course, I should note that the audience of The Walking Dead is self-selecting and probably not representative of gamers as a whole.)

The choices that tend to interest me the most are the ones where I’m in the minority, or where there’s an overwhelming majority. Neither happens all that often. There was one spot in the game where one person was about to harm another person. (Sorry, being vague here.) You had a choice to remain or to leave. I decided to remain; my thinking was that this way at least I could keep an eye on things, and intervene if the situation got too dire. At the end of the episode, I saw that most players had opted to leave. That made me realize that, of course, most people would probably think that sticking around would indicate complicity with or approval in this act of torture, and would vote to show their protest by removing their selves. To their credit, the developers didn’t enforce any particular interpretation on this: they keep a faithful record of what decision you make, but don’t require you to declare your motivation; therefore, in addition to the different game routes people will take based on their in-game choices, people will also come away with very different ideas of what happened in the game based on their own internal thought processes and ambitions for the character.

For example, late in the game I came to realize that the group I was traveling with was not stable. I began to plan in my mind about how to best manage its inevitable dissolution, so we could continue our lives with a minimum of collateral damage. I had even gone so far as to mentally select leaders, followers, and destinations for each faction. Of course, such well-laid plans are doomed to failure, and the group began splintering of its own accord. But it felt personally tragic because the people abandoning me were the very ones I was hoping would be in my faction. My private narration added a whole other layer of betrayal, on top of the one explicit within the game itself.

MEGA SPOILERS

So, big decision points:

I saved Nick at the end of Episode 1. It looked like Pete had been bitten, and if I’ve learned one thing from zombie movies, comics, TV shows and video games, it’s that there’s no hope for someone after they’re bitten. Of course, after that I started feeling guilty. After all, Pete had said “I’m fine!”, and he’s a solid, level-headed guy. What if he had just scratched himself on the weeds, and it looked like a bite to me? Which would be very ironic, since Pete was the only one who believed me when I said that my own injury was not the result of a zombie bite.

I sort of took Nick under my wing, trying to help him calm down and also stay engaged with life; he’s kind of a tough person to like, but he seemed to get better, and made it until near the end of the game.

As noted above, I generally tried to be as nice as possible to everyone and get them all to like me. Rebecca is one of the few who is strongly against you from the beginning; I stayed respectful, and didn’t blab about her child’s paternity, and she gradually came around. I was really happy to see Bonnie from 400 Days show up, and trusted her; that made it sting when she turned out to be in league with Carver, but she has a strong moral compass, and her guilt eventually transformed her into a helpful (though not eternal) ally.

I was initially delighted to see Kenny again: it was great to see a familiar face after so long, and I quickly restored our friendship. (Incidentally, I seriously loved all of the [Hug] options in dialogues, and took advantage of pretty much all of them.) I was happy to see him doing relatively well after the tragedy of losing Duck and Katja; but he’s still kind of on edge even when you first encounter him this season, and that edge just gets crueler and crueler as the game goes on. I supported him killing (but not torturing) Carver, not out of revenge but from sheer pragmatism: if I’ve learned one thing from The Governor, it’s that you don’t leave a charismatic sociopath in your wake.

When Sarita got bitten at the end of Episode 3, I quickly hacked her arm off with a knife, figuring that way she at least had a fraction of a chance. But no, it was hopeless. Kenny spiraled even deeper after that. The one thing that seems to bring him back to normalcy is the baby Alvin Jr., but I felt like by the end of the story, even that paternal feeling of love has been corrupted into a dark source of hatred: he can justify any cruel action to himself if he thinks it’s for the benefit of the child.

In contrast, I was quickly simpatico with Jane. She reminds me a lot of Michonne, who might be my favorite character from the comic and TV show: she’s practical, no-nonsense, smart, resourceful, and independent. On a practical level, she’s managed to survive for several years both in groups and on her own, and has actually paid attention during that time, figuring out what had worked and what hadn’t. Best of all, she seems to like Clem and genuinely respect her. I decided that I’d hitch my wagon to her; it wasn’t always a smooth ride, but it seems like the best possible outcome in the very dire situation you find yourself.

Anyways… as noted above, I’d realized a while before that our group wasn’t working out. I’d initially fantasized about Kenny, Bonnie and AJ taking one group while myself, Jane and Mike took another, but of course that didn’t happen. I was more confident about staying silent in this season than the one before, and during several stretches I showed my disapproval of Kenny by refusing to engage with him. (Silence also worked wonders with Carver, who has a bizarre conception of who you are and will talk you up by himself if you keep quiet.) I was pretty sure that it would end with either Kenny or Jane going down, and at the very end I was the one who pulled the trigger.

I was slightly disappointed that this automatically segued into a return to Howe’s; getting away from Kenny had been my top priority, but I was actually intrigued by the idea of living in a cold area that slowed down zombies. On the flip side, neither Jane nor Clementine were about to breast-feed AJ, so I’m glad they returned to a place where they knew they could get formula for her.

And, that’s pretty much where it ended! I hesitated pretty heavily at the final choices, but ultimately decided to let the others in. Frankly, I’m not sure if it makes sense to try and remain in Howe’s and build it back up or not; I’m always perplexed in the comic and TV show when the survivors try to repair and shore up a place that has already been decimated by an earlier attack. I think the best-case scenario would be to get a small but sustainable group of folks in there, including someone to look after AJ, and then hit the road again with Jane.

END SPOILERS

All in all, I’d say that TWD Season 2 improves on the first one: the gameplay is more fun, the story is even more focused, and the stakes have gotten incredibly high, building on top of all the emotional investment from the first season. It doesn’t feel quite as revolutionary this time around, but that’s just because I’ve come to expect great things from Telltale.

It probably goes without saying that this video game series is, hands down, the best aspect of the Walking Dead franchise. It has the visceral immediacy of the comics, but refuses to allow you to simply be a spectator for this dark story: you must become complicit in its construction, which makes the experience even more powerful.

At this point, I’m pretty much totally committed to whatever Telltale feels like doing. A third season of TWD has been announced, which I’ll definitely be grabbing. There’s currently no word on a follow-up to The Wolf Among Us, but it seems to have been well-received and I’m optimistic they will continue that story as well. And a Telltale Games entry based on the Game of Thrones HBO show? Sign me up!

Elves and Hobbits and Zombies, Oh My!

After yet another long delay, I have finished the next act of Neverwinter Nights 2. I’ve put together another of my typical albums with some scattered screenshots from throughout the act.

MINI SPOILERS for NWN Act 2

Now that the plot is coming together, in some ways it seems a bit more cliche than I was hoping. There is an Ancient Evil Force that was Defeated Long Ago but Not Fully Destroyed, and is now Gathering Its Power and will Return to Destroy the World. Only your party - let us think of them as a Fellowship of sorts - can hope to Defeat this Evil before it Reclaims Its Powers.

But, there’s plenty here to keep it from being just another retread of Lord of the Rings. For example, while I’m not through the plot yet and can’t say this for certain, it seems like the reason why you the hero are important is not because of your lineage, or prophecy, or any particular powers you possess: it’s because there’s a SWORD INSIDE OF YOU. (I do kind of like Obsidian’s habit of placing inanimate objects inside of living creatures and vice versa.) That’s something that kind of surprised me, and surprises are always welcome in my fantasy RPGs.

Like I said in my writeup of Part 1, though, it’s really the companions that shine, and elevate this from a game about collecting artifacts and fighting into something really engaging. The party actually continues to evolve more than I expected; you have a core team in place fairly early on, but major new party members are joining you throughout Act 2 as well. Rivalries are always great fun, and ones like the Qara/Sand dynamic add a lot of energy, even though I rarely have those two in my party.

My lineup for Act 1 was usually Toman, Khelgar, Neeshka, and Elanee. In Act 2, Shandra Jerro is a non-removable companion for most of the act, and I really liked having her… she’s both practical and compassionate, exasperated at the craziness around her while also stepping up to deal with it. For the first part of the act, I replaced Khelgar with Sand, who is plot-required for most of the trial-related content. I hadn’t liked Sand much during our interactions in Act 1, but he really grew on me as a companion: you can start to see past his arrogance and see what he cares about.

I go into some more detail on the trial in my album, but basically: it was awesome. I love it when an RPG lets you do something besides fight, and there was a ton of stuff that led into the trial; it’s not quite as complex as the Landsmeet in Dragon Age Origins, but that’s probably the closest comparison I can find, as it draws a lot on various choices you’ve made throughout the game, optional side-quests you might have completed, allies and enemies you’ve attracted, loyalty among your companions, and your specific dialogue choices during the trial itself. I replayed it a few times, not to change the actual outcome, but to see all the ways it would go in different directions as it unfolded.

I’d thought that the trial was going to be my highlight for this act, but it ended up being surpassed by the next major development: taking command of your own fortress. This was a lot of fun to play out. It’s initially held by your enemies, so you join forces with an attack squad and launch a surprise attack during the changing of the guard, then fight your way through the courtyard into the keep, and then break into the basement to defeat your enemies. Afterwards, Lord Nasher appoints you the Captain and grants you funds to begin its rehabilitation.

Now, this isn’t the first time we’ve had a similar concept in an RPG. Baldur’s Gate 2 had the Stronghold system, and the de’Arnise keep was most similar to Crossroads Keep. Dragon Age Origins: Awakening added Vigil's Keep, which you had responsibility for and would make some judgments and preparation. The keep in NWN2 has similar concepts, but executed even better than those two excellent comparisons. You need to constantly juggle priorities and determine the best overall strategy to take towards the keep. Do you follow Lord Nasher’s prerogative and immediately focus on reinforcing the fortress walls? Or do you improve the road quality and safety, in the hopes of attracting more merchant trade and therefore help fund later projects? Do you limit your expenditures to what the realm provides, or do you dip into your personal pockets to expand, or exercise your legal right to tax your subjects for funds? Do you want a large and unruly army, or a small and disciplined one?

In addition to all of these major strategic decisions you make by talking with your advisors, you also have a set of throne room-type conversations that let you make interesting story decisions and rule on controversial issues. Will you allow a black marketer to trade in your keep? Will you offer clemency to a Luskan agent who tried to have you murdered? Will you encourage some reckless adventurers in their quest? (This last bit particularly tickled me, and reminded me of the fantastic encounter in the beholder cave in Throne of Bhaal.)

As of the end of Act 2, my castle still hasn’t seen any action, but I strongly suspect that there will be some sort of battle or siege coming in the endgame, and I’m happily dumping my vast amounts of surplus gold into its improvement. I’ve totally prioritized developing the economy, and only started propping up its military defenses once I exhausted my mercantile base. My guard is currently small, but I’m investing heavily in their equipment and training. At the moment they’re primarily focused on keeping the roads safe. Once their numbers increase some more, I hope to start patrolling the surrounding lands and take care of our bandit problem. I’m looking forward to seeing what develops next!

END MINI SPOILERS

In other nerdy fantasy news, I’m currently working my way through the special features on The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. I am shocked at how in-depth they are; I’ve learned more about filmmaking by watching these features than I have in the entire rest of my life. (To be fair, I’ve never attended film school or made a movie or anything; but given the various documentaries I’ve watched on disastrous movie shoots, I was a bit surprised by how much I didn’t know.)

They go over EVERYTHING. The financing process, the delayed green light they got, the casting process, assembling the crew, all the way down to the details of how they make prosthetics (and why they need to throw them away each day), how they insert CGI creatures into the middle of live-action scenes, how they trained actors to speak Khudzul, and so on. I’m sure most people would be bored to tears by it, but it’s presented very engagingly, with each feature (typically varying from 5 minutes to 1 hour) staying focused on a particular topic or time period, and a combination of terrific behind-the-scenes footage and eloquent talking heads. It’s great to hear from, say, Ian McKellan and Martin Freeman (who is absolutely delightful), but I’ve also kind of fallen in love with the dialect coach, am fascinated by the movement coordinator, and impressed at the small army needed to put everyone in costume and makeup. The biggest impression I’m left with is the sheer scale of effort needed to do this; it seems somewhat similar to ruling a country.

I’d also watched all of the similar features for the Lord of the Rings movies back in the day, and was intrigued by all the things that had stayed the same (the New Zealand setting, the core creative team) and changed (almost all of the technology, most actors, Peter Jackson’s waist size). One recurring theme was how much more digital content was present in The Hobbit, but in many cases, it was only a last-ditch effort after they had started shooting with people in the appropriate costumes (goblins, orcs) and determined that it wasn’t working. It was also interesting to think about how in some cases the progress of technology had made things harder, not easier. LotR used a variety of tricks to establish the different sizes of hobbits and men, one of the coolest of which was the use of forced perspective, where Ian McKellan would be placed much closer to the camera than Elijah Wood and thus appear bigger. However, as Peter Jackson points out, you can’t use that technique when you’re shooting in 3D, because in 3D you know exactly how far both of those actors are from the camera. So, entirely new methods needed to be developed to solve these old problems.

Those methods seemed occasionally painful. Again, I’m a bit surprised at just how in-depth they go in these things: it’s not just a case of “rah rah, look at how great we are”, but they acknowledge the mistakes they made, the roadblocks they ran into, the people they upset. I cringed during one portion where they showed Ian McKellan struggling to adapt to the new system of shooting. McKellan is a fantastic actor, but the style of acting they were asking him to do was unlike anything he had done before, and he couldn’t take any pleasure from it: he had to sit all by himself in a completely green-covered, downscaled replica of Bag End, while all of the other actors were on an entirely separate set. He would hear their voices piped in through an earpiece, but had no eyes to look into, just little colored dots that indicated eyelines. The documentary format doesn’t gloss over his frustration: with himself, with Peter, with the entire project. It’s somewhat salvaged later on by a touching display of affection from the crew, but still, I was impressed at how they didn’t shy away from showing a mini-meltdown of a beloved actor caused in part by the film’s director.

So later, when they advance to shooting the White Council meeting in Rivendell, you can practically feel the waves of relief emanating from McKellan. At last, he gets to interact with other actors, on a stage! And good actors, too; as McKellan observes, he, Cate Blanchett, and Hugo Weaving all started in theater, and they all share a stage actor’s sensibility. It’s fascinating to watch footage of those actors preparing for this scene: in contrast to a lot of other shooting, which seems to consist of the director giving instruction to the actors and the actors carrying it out, these guys drive the process, asking copious questions about their characters’ motivations, background, and thought process, trying to embed themselves within the character.

I could keep going, but I won’t. If you’re interested in filmmaking or the Lord of the Rings, I highly recommend checking these things out!

Other random thoughts, with mild spoilers within each topic:

I quite enjoyed the current season of Sherlock. The current incarnation of the story has been strongly defined by its "modernity": taking many plot and character elements from the original stories, but instead of recreating a Victorian atmosphere, it embraces modern technology, style, and morals. (Leading, for example, to some amusement as to the nature of Sherlock and Watson's relationship. The assumptions one made about two unmarried gentlemen sharing lodgings in the 19th century are quite different from the assumptions one makes today.) However, I've felt like the crimes themselves hew quite closely to the originals: art theft, impossible murders, blackmail. In contrast, the final episode of this season felt like it had a ripped-from-the-headlines quality to its crime. It's impossible to think of Magnusson as anyone other than a Rupert Murdoch stand-in, and I thought they did a fantastic job at tapping into the raw outrage that Britain has felt over the News of the World and similar offenses from the Murdoch empire. It had an immediacy and sense of purpose that felt unusual for this show, but was very welcome.

Archer is back! It looks incredible! That is all.

I belatedly caught up to the current half-season of The Walking Dead. The chronology between the comics and the show never lines up, but I think that it's now definitely past everything that I'd read in the books, so from here on out everything will be a surprise to me. I think I'll keep it that way; I don't have the unreserved love for the show that I have for the Telltale game, but I love it more than the books. Anyways. I was a bit surprised that they brought back the Governor and spent so much time exclusively with his storyline, considering where the story went, but it was also pretty cool, and that actor did a great job at showing the ways in which the character changes, and the ways he still stays the same man.

While on the topic: I'm hearing good things about the next season of the Telltale Games Walking Dead, but I think I'll probably wait for the season to end before buying the pack. Not that I mistrust them, exactly, but they've taken on a LOT more work lately and have already slipped a few dates, which makes me slightly nervous about pre-ordering for the season. I'll do my best to avoid spoilers between now and the end.

The Berlin expansion for Shadowrun Returns should be dropping later this month! I'm quite excited about that. The little I've seen so far looks great, and I dig the stuff they've talked about delivering (more personable companion runners, greater autonomy in determining mission order, etc.)

I've wrapped up Season 2 of Misfits. That show is so ridiculous, I love it. The Christmas Special in particular was one of the most delightfully awful things I've seen.  Season 1 seemed to be mostly about how the characters don't change: they get super-powers, but are still the same lowlifes they always were. Season 2 seems to be about the characters do change: they start to consider whether they have any responsibilities, and how they can use their powers to make changes in the world. I've just started Season 3, and the show seems to be shifting yet again with at least one cast change. It'll be interesting to see the other ways they continue to shake things up.

I may or may not do a full writeup at some point, but I've finished reading RASL, the new comic from Jeff Smith, the creator of Bone. It was awesome, and pretty much the complete opposite of Bone in almost every conceivable way. Bone is fantasy, RASL is science fiction. Bone has a simple art style, RASL has a lush style. Bone starts out with a very straightforward plot and only gradually delves into mythology, RASL starts in the middle of a very complex plot with an elaborate mythology. Bone's protagonists are cheerful and reflexively lovable, RASL's protagonist is kind of a jerk. Of course, both stories are incredible. RASL ends satisfyingly, but there are a few lingering questions left at the end, and I'm curious if we're meant to just ponder them, or if those characters might crop up again in the future.

Now go forth, and do likewise!

Random Roundup Time!

I recently finished reading the novelization of Neverwhere by Neil Gaiman. I'd previously read the comic adaptation, and was a bit surprised to note just how similar they are. I think that pretty much every single character and story beat is the same in both versions. Which is pretty impressive, I guess. It's a good story… it definitely doesn't replace American Gods as my favorite Gaiman novel, but it's fairly high up the list. I have no immediate plans to check out the BBC television version, but imagine I'll hit it sooner or later. (Whoa: looking at that link now, I have learned that Natalie Dormer plays Door! OK. That moves it a few spots higher up the queue. Plus Anthony Head, Benedict Cumberbatch, and Christopher Lee? Well, all right then.) It's funny to see another story that, like the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, has gone through a number of incarnations in a surprisingly large variety of media.

I recently tore through The Stolen Throne, a novel written by David Gaider that serves as a sort-of prequel to Dragon Age: Origins. I enjoyed it. It could have used a bit more love from an editor (or maybe the eBook version I was reading hadn't been corrected), but the actual story was propulsive and engaging, and showcased some nice lore for DA fans like myself. At first glance it seems like a hack-and-slash sword-and-sorcery fantasy novel, with some intricately described bloody fight scenes and melodramatic revenge plots; but it features a core of four very well-drawn and interesting characters (Maric, the rebel prince; Loghain, a common-born commander; Rowan, an awesome warrior woman and Maric's betrothed; and Katriel, an Orlesian elf bard), and together they give the story a very welcome emotional depth. I kind of feel a bit like David Gaider enjoyed the unfiltered platform he had as a novelist, and could make the kind of sad, melancholy, bittersweet story that he wants to, without an organization pushing him to sand off the harsh edges and make a more palatable heroic tale. Anyways, I thoroughly enjoyed it, and from what I've heard the later novels are even better, so I'm sure I'll get to those soon as well.

I picked up 400 Days, the first expansion to Telltale Games' phenomenal The Walking Dead adventure game series. I'm increasingly convinced that The Walking Dead was the best game of the past year, and have been excited to see whether they could continue the quality. 400 Days is very different in form from the previous installments, but is really engaging nonetheless. Instead of a single linear (albeit branching) story with a single protagonist, 400 Days contains five smaller stories, each set at different times after the apocalypse started and featuring a different main character. By necessity, these stories are shorter and so we don't dive into them as thoroughly as we embraced the lives of Lee and Clementine, yet I was thoroughly impressed at just how well the game is able to communicate these characters' situations and personalities. There's no real exposition, just incredibly well-crafted dialogue that brings you up to speed while you create their futures. I think that 400 Days would be fine as an introduction to the series, but if you continue a game from Season One there's some nice and very subtle nods back to decisions you made in that game (and some even more subtle, even chilling, links between the various stories within 400 Days). I expect that we'll see more of these people in Season Two, and I'm already curious about just how that will be presented. It's a little disconcerting to think that, by strengthening some of these characters' positions, I could actually be making life more difficult for Clem in the future.

I'll do a full write-up on Hordes of the Underdark later, but for now I'll just briefly mention that it's been my favorite installment of the series yet.

From current games to future games… we're just about a week away from the launch of Shadowrun Returns! It was originally scheduled for June, then pushed back a month for some final polish. This will be the first major game that I've Kickstarted to have been released (I'm not counting The Silver Tree), and I'm excited and nervous to see how they've done. The previews and demos I've seen are looking really sharp - I was really happy to see that they went ahead and implemented the Matrix for real, which removes any hesitation I might have had to play as a Decker. Anyways, here's a nifty preview for it.

I'm getting the game for free thanks to my Kickstarter backing (along with some fancy swag), and will probably be playing it fairly heavily after it drops. Expect one or more Shadowrun-specific posts in late July or early August.

Also in future game news: Chris Gardiner's Below is approaching its public release. If anyone would like to try the private beta, drop me a line - Chris will probably do one more round of beta testing to get fresh eyes on the latest changes he's made. I've been playing the beta since, well, forever, and I'm really excited to see it reach this step. Below is a unique game that draws inspiration from a lot of different sources (roguelikes, adventure games, fantasy novels, etc.), and hits that sweet spot of something that's easy to pick up and play and yet satisfyingly rewards planning and strategy. Once the final version is released, I'll probably write up a separate post covering my own personal techniques for the game, which have served me very well thus far.

In less explicable Storynexus news, Spacemarine9 has created "Rat Sending Simulator 2K1". It's awesome. It's so gleefully unbalanced, thoroughly deranged in its approach to all aspects of gameplay, that I can't help but smile while playing it. Definitely right up there with Doghunt for my favorite comedic Storynexus games.

I'm up to the current season of Doctor Who. That show still kind of baffles me. The best episodes of it are really, really good. The worst episodes are incredibly corny, anachronistic, and infuriating. I've really dug Amy (probably my second-favorite companion behind Martha), and Rory has grown on me as the show continued. I'm a bit intrigued by the mini-reboot the current season pulled off in its pilot, but based on scuttlebutt from Dr. Who fans, I'm not exactly looking forward to the rest of the season. Eh. I increasingly agree with people who say that Doctor Who is such a quintessentially British invention that we Yanks will never really understand it.

I've recently started digging into Adventure Time, and am absolutely loving it. I've finished all three comics compilations, the first season of the show, and am about a quarter of the way into its second season. It's such a perfect show for me… I love its combination of absurdity, fantasy tropes, goofy good-natured humor, non-sequitor transitions, and loose continuity. I also think its characters are surprisingly complex; the Ice King in particular is such a fascinating villain, and I can't really think of any good analogies to other similar characters.

Hm, I guess that's it for now! Expect more focused (though no more noteworthy) posts to follow!

Never Winter, Always Spring

Here's a mini-post on some works-in-progress games, plus various odds and ends from the wonderful world of television.

I'm cranking through Neverwinter Nights. I found an old forum post that said something like, "This game bores me to tears, but I can't stop playing it." That's a pretty fair assessment of my opinion so far. That's been a big part of why it's taken me so long to take another serious crack at it. From what I understand, the story gets much more interesting in the expansions, but my completist personality won't let me jump to the better stuff without suffering through the lengthy introduction. The fact that I was doing much of this for the second time made it all the more painful. I actually bought NWN back in 2003: to their great credit, Bioware released the game for Linux, and because I was at the height of my Linux fantaticism, I automatically purchased any major commercial game with a native Linux client (hence the reason why I have "Soldier of Fortune" and "Return to Castle Wolfenstein" on my gaming shelf). As I recall, they did a great technical job with it: the game ran smoothly on my PC, and I enjoyed playing it for hours.

That all changed, though, when I suffered a game-killing bug. In the Neverwinter Woods, I got involved in a quest with a witch and a nymph. I forget the details now, but the quest trigger was somehow broken: the person I took the quest from wouldn't acknowledge that I had accepted, let alone completed, the quest, and so I was stuck. Because I had violated the cardinal rule of RPGs and relied on my quicksave for most of the game, I would have lost days of progress, maybe going all the way back to the start of Chapter 2. I was absolutely furious, and swore off the game, eventually deleting it from my hard drive. In retrospect, I probably should have just done some research online and used the console to un-stick it; having access to the console is the best advantage we PC gamers have, and allows us to fix otherwise insurmountable problems. In all honesty, though, I wonder whether my subconscious had seized upon the incident as an excuse to quit a fairly boring, time-consuming game.

Once or twice before now, I've attempted to start the game over again. Unfortunately, the earlier you are in the game the worse it is. The tutorial introduction, while not terribly long, is mind-numbingly dull. All of Chapter 1 involves running through a dark, depressing city, endlessly crossing and re-crossing the same empty streets over and over again; this is broken up by dungeon crawls, where you descend through five or so levels and fight hundreds of nearly-identical monsters. There's a bit of story in there, but way too little to sustain the amount of time invested.

That's a repeating motif throughout the entire game, at least all that I've experienced so far (up to the start of Chapter 3). Everything needs to be done so many times! It isn't even, "You must go forth and find the MacGuffin!" It's, "You must collect four MacGuffins! One lies to the north, one to the south, one to the east, one to the west. Each lies in a separate dungeon. Each dungeon contains multiple floors. Each floor has a boss. Any one of those MacGuffins would feel like a perfectly fine quest on its own, but you won't feel like you've accomplished anything or advanced the story until they're all reclaimed." It's even true for frickin' side-quests! "Would you help me collect the Five Tomes of Sidequest? They are the Tome of Wind, the Tome of Fire, the Tome of Earth, the Tome of Water, and the Tome of Boredom. They are located in five separate towers, each with multiple floors, each guarded by a boss. Collect all the tomes and return them to me." It feels like an incredibly transparent attempt to increase the running time of the game without expanding the story at all. It also makes me feel profoundly appreciative for what Dragon Age accomplished, where even the side-quests seemed important, and could actually be something you did on a lark rather than investing hours of play-time.

Things start picking up more at the end of the first chapter, so I'm enjoying myself a bit more now, which is to say I'm enjoying myself at all. I'll save my comments on the story proper for my end-game write-up, so for now I'll just note that there are some mildly interesting plot turns and character developments. One of the biggest wasted opportunities, though, is with the henchmen. I remember how, even at the time, this felt like a huge step back from the immediate predecessors like Baldur's Gate 2, which had a rich and varied party system, with characters who not only had their own personalities and ambitions, but who would interact in amusing ways and occasionally interject themselves into your own conversations. NWN's henchmen, in comparison, are so dull. Each of them has their own story, some of which are better than others, but they all exist purely in isolation. You just talk with them, and your only dialog options are a nice, empathetic response or a mean, impatient one. Then you find an item and give it to them, and get another item in return. Over and over again. They don't even comment on the item when you find it. And they never have anything to say about anything going on in the game, even if it seems like they should. And, since you can only have one henchman at a time, you never see them interact with anyone else.

I increasingly think that BG's six-person party was kind of the best thing ever. What was great was, with six people, you could afford to keep one or two useless people in your party, picking them for their personality instead of their effectiveness. So, for example, there's really never a reason to have two thieves in a party, but if you like both of them you can take them, and not suffer too much from it. NWN, on the other hand, pretty much forces you to pick from one of the couple of viable henchmen for your particular character. For example, if you aren't a thief (single- or multi-classed), then you pretty much need to take Tomi or Sharwyn, and you're kind of screwing yourself (gameplay-wise) if you don't take Tomi. I really like the character of Sharwyn, and try to take her when I can, but since I play as a Rogue she is a poor match for my character. Linu is a much better match, and is also pretty fun to travel with. Hands down, though, the best companion is Daelan Red Tiger, who is boring but is so laughably powerful that I really should never bother taking anyone else. I'm serious: I've been in multiple fights where Sharwyn and I will die almost immediately; Linu and I will fight for close to five minutes, chugging multiple potions along the way, only to die near the end; and then I'll grab Daelan, and he'll just hit it with a stick until it dies, some fifteen seconds later. If the party was bigger, I'd be happy to take Daelan and someone more humorous, but as it was, I need to pick between who I need and who I like.

The other reason I keep taken Daelan is because the henchman AI is so poor, and a poor melee AI is far better than a poor archer or caster AI. Unlike Baldur's Gate and Dragon Age, where the game runs your companion AI but you can always step in and issue specific orders, NWN takes a very hands-off approach. Outside of combat, you can assign some very broad guidelines, such as whether they should use melee or ranged weapons, and how frequently they should heal you. In combat, the only orders you can give are broad commands like "Stand your ground," "Follow me," and "Heal me." Other than that, they're on their own, and they're really stupid. Sharwyn will continue casting Fear on enemies who have no chance of succumbing. Linu will kill sixteen zombies with her mace, and once she's down to just one remaining, THEN cast Turn Undead. And they never, ever, ever disengage from combat. I just hate it when Linu is surrounded by a dozen weak enemies, doing fine, and then, once her health drops down to 49%, cast a healing spell on herself, which of course provokes an immediate Attack of Opportunity from everyone, so of course some of them hit her, so of course she loses her concentration and loses the spell. That's the sort of stuff that no intelligent human player would ever do. It just frustrates me that you can't even override the poor AI, since there's no option to say, "Go over THERE." And they're just generally wasteful. I don't totally understand how henchman consumables work, but I get the impression that they have a limited number of healing potions, so it drives me mad when Daelan will chug one when he's at 30% health, fighting the last enemy of a big group, who is down to Near Death. We're gonna rest as soon as he's dead, big buddy, so save that potion for the boss fight!

Oh, and the pathing! Ugh. It's horrible. Even for the PC, if I click on the other side of a wall, he often won't be able to figure out that he needs to walk around it, so I need to baby-sit him while clicking on intermediate points. And henchmen can easily get stuck not only behind walls, but even around doors, or in some cases behind chests. Once of twice I've actually saved and re-loaded a game, just because it's faster than going back and un-sticking my henchman.

The bad AI is a shame, because on the whole, I think the ruleset of NWN may be my favorite. Feats are really interesting, and make character-building a lot more interesting than it was in BG. I really like the resting system, which is more flexible (and safer!) than the camp system of BG, and more realistic than the regenerating health/mana/stamina of Dragon Age. The set of skills is wide, varied, and useful; as a Rogue I get to invest a ton of points in here, and even so I need to pick and choose between different useful areas. I think I actually prefer the more limited item set in NWN compared to the much broader selection in DA. Typically, you have a weapon, then +1, +2, and (I assume) eventually +3 versions of each weapon, which makes the upgrade path very clear. There are occasional artifact weapons, but they're fairly rare, and it's usually clear whether it will be better than the one you're wielding. DA has tons of weapons, with a much smoother upgrade path, and I end up spending a lot of time in that game trying to figure out whether a given item is better than the one I currently wield. Oh, and although I am a rogue and thus don't care about this, I do appreciate the flexibility of being able to bash open locked doors and chests, which opens up more options for combat-focused characters.

That flexibility is another thing to appreciate: while it seems incredibly limiting to have a maximum of two adventurers, the 3rd edition D&D ruleset makes it very easy, and potentially rewarding, to add multiple classes. So, while you might only have two people, you could play as a Thief/Mage/Monk, and travel with Linu as a Cleric/Fighter, and thus be prepared for any type of situation. That sort of dual- and multi-classing was also possible in 2nd edition D&D as in Baldur's Gate, but I prefer the style of NWN, which lets you pick each class as you level, and thus lets your character evolve over time, unlike dual-classing, which required careful advance planning, or multi-classing, which tightly and eternally locked you into a particular distribution.

One final complaint: the graphics. That shouldn't be surprising. The game came out a decade ago, after all, and we've come a long way since then; since I've most recently played Mass Effect 3 and Dragon Age 2, it's particularly jarring to jump back to this, Bioware's first 3D title. What's weird, though, is that I think it actually looks worse than the earlier Baldur's Gate games did. That's a trend I've noticed. More primitive graphics often hold up much better than slightly-old graphics do. I can still play and enjoy ancient sprite-based games like Super Mario Brothers, Final Fantasy, and even (after a brief period of re-acclimation) Ultima. Those games are all incredibly ancient and low-resolution, but something about that blocky, vaguely cartoony style still works for me. On the other hand, though, early 3D games like NWN, the original Tomb Raider, the original Doom, and so on, leave me completely cold. Which is funny, because I still remember how when I first played them, back when they were released, I thought they looked great. Like, way, way better than those dumb old flat sprite-based games. Now, though, all I see is low-poly models, low-res textures, cheap or absent lighting, and it makes me want to claw my eyes out. Few things look grosser than the way NWN characters talk to each other, which is this weird little head-bobbling thing, where their hair seems to move independently of their skull, and the entire head is a total of maybe twelve polygons. Now that I know what 3D is capable of, I can't stand to even look at these early efforts.

All right, that's enough ranting for now. I think I got it out of my system, so once I finally beat the original campaign, I should be able to do a post on just the story itself. I'm looking forward to the expansions, which is whether it's supposed to start getting really good (and, I believe, finally let you bring along multiple henchmen at once).

Now, on to happier times: Sil! I continue to obsess about this game. I'm getting a little better every day. I had one character make it all the way down to 900', whereupon he swiftly died. I must say, this game is not very forgiving at all, and even a single mistake can prove almost immediately fatal. In my case, it wasn't even a strategic mistake, or a tactical one, merely a mechanical space: I meant to move to the upper-left, and instead moved to the lower-left, and so I was stuck, and so I was slain by Turkano, Balrog of the Hosts. It was fun, though!

I've been sticking with and refining my "archer assassin" concept. I've come to think of it as a high-risk, high-reward approach: only a handful of my characters survive past 400', but if they do, I have sufficient XP to put together an awesome set of abilities that make them virtually unkillable (provided I don't pick any stupid fights). That lets me survive for a long time, and I can usually find some really good pieces of kit that supplement my missing skills.

I'm sure this will continue to be refined as I hopefully figure out how to actually get down to Morgoth, and what I'll do once I get there, but for now, here's my basic approach:

I always roll a Noldor elf of the House of Feanor. This isn't so much for the Smithing affinity as for the extra point of Dexterity. Dex is the most crucial statistic for this character, so everything helps. I always end up going 2/5/4/3. 1 STR would probably be sufficient, given the bows I end up finding, but 2 is nice on the rare games where I find a good longbow, and on my very long game I did appreciate the extra carry capacity. Once I'm more comfortable, I think I might switch around the values for CON and GRA: CON has been a huge help as I learn the ropes, but the extra hit points become less important as I get better about avoiding dumb fights. I used to avoid GRA since I don't use much Song, and so Voice isn't important, but the skill boost would come in useful.

For skills, I put 2 into Smithing, enough Archery to get Precision, a little into Evasion, and everything else into Perception. At Depth 50, I take my free abilities in Precision and Weaponsmithing, although neither will be useful yet. I'll carefully explore all of 50' and 100'. If I find a bow, terrific; otherwise I'll make one at the forge. I'll also craft a mattock, then use any extra forge options on arrows. And, that's it. It does seem like a bit of a waste of my smithing skill, but it doesn't require any XP or stat points. (I did have one game where I found a bunch of forges very deep down, and spent a bunch of XP to get Jeweler and Artifice. That let me make a Feanorean Lamp, the only one I've gotten in all my play-throughs. It was awesome, but I do hate sacrificing stat points for it.) As I descend, if I find safe forges, I just make more Arrows.

My main goal is still to get Lore-Master. As I'd noted previously, this helps a ton with XP generation: you'll get a chunk back immediately from all the un-identified stuff in your inventory, and will automatically gain more XP as you continue to find new items. I've been pleasantly surprised, though, to find out that the other part of the ability, which I had just dismissed, is arguably just as useful: you can immediately see complete information about every new enemy you encounter. Typically, you only get some general information about your enemy and some flavor text, and further details are added as this particular character experiences them. So, for example, you won't know how many hit dice they have until you slay one, won't know how much damage they do until they hit you, won't know any special attacks until they use them, etc. Having access to this information is crucially important for an archer assassin like me. The first time I found a sleeping Cat Archer, I saw that it had 4D4 hit dice. I knew that I could safely take it out without waking the neighbors. When I found a sleeping Cave Troll, I saw it had... I forget, something like 8D12 hit dice. I could probably take one one-on-one, but not a group, so I let it go.

The single most important skill, though, may be Listen, which is yet another Perception ability. Listen lets you see where monsters are. You won't necessarily know what they are (though this information does occasionally pop up), but will usually see asterisks indicating their position. This information alone has saved my life many times. If there are no stars around, I won't bother sneaking, and will sprint around looking at everything. If I see a single star, I'll switch to stealth, and sneak up until I can check it out better. If I see a huge cluster of stars behind a closed door, I just leave it shut, and go on my way. Plenty of other fish in the sea.

Perception is hand-down my favorite tree of abilities. I would take every single option here if it didn't get so expensive. The other one I go for is Keen Senses, which lets you see enemies just beyond your pool of light (especially useful in early stages while you're still using torches) and makes it easier to find hidden enemies (although this is somewhat redundant with Listen).

After I get Lore Master and Listen, I switch back to building up the rest of my skills. I generally try to keep Archery, Evasion, and Stealth roughly equal up until around 8 or so. It's a slightly weird build... as a stealth archer, I don't have a whole lot of use for Evasion (my build is focused around avoiding fights, and if I get into one, running away as quickly as I can), but the abilities in the Evasion tree are very useful. Conversely, Stealth is incredibly handy, but most of the abilities in this tree are more melee-oriented, and not very useful to me. I actually tend to minimize Archery at this stage: by picking my fights carefully, I can usually kill a decent amount without needing a very high score just yet.

My next priority is the Sprinting skill from Evasion. After I get this, I start slowing down on Evasion investment; I'd love to get that DEX point, but there's no way I'm investing 20 points into the skill. At Stealth, I only start getting the good abilities above 8 points. Vanish, combined with Sprinting, lets me get out of trouble. I also always try to pick up Exchange Places. Honestly, I hardly ever use this... but if I use it only once in a game, it was worthwhile, because it's probably getting me out of a situation that would otherwise have meant (permanent!) death. It's critical for those cases where you're stuck in a room and a foe is blocking the doorway, or if you're trapped in the middle of a hall (though that rarely happens after I get Listen).

From then on, I try to get the DEX boosts from Stealth and Archery, and otherwise start shifting most of my points into Archery. I used to buy a lot more abilities in Archery than I do now: my last few long-running games, I've only taken Precision, Flaming Arrows, and Dexterity. Careful Shot isn't  useful if you're using Flaming Arrows. I found Versatility extremely helpful when I was first learning to play this character type (and Sil in general), but I don't really need it now. Thanks to my decently high evasion, I don't need to worry much about Point Blank Archery. I'm a bit intrigued by Crippling Shot, but I get the feeling that the monsters I'd really want to use it on are probably highly resistant. I haven't tried Rapid Shot yet.

On the one game where I made it to 900', I finally invested in Song. It took a lot, but I bought a ton of points (I want to say... 10, maybe?) to get the Song of Sharpness (from the Song of Slaying). This was to overcome a particular problem: how to handle Grotesques. These are fascinating monsters. That's another thing I love about Sil: there are dozens of enemies, and each one has a unique and interesting set of mechanics, whether it's the flocking behavior of giant bats or the patrols of orc soldiers or the weakening of violet molds or whatever. In the case of Grotesques, they basically behave like the Weeping Angels from Doctor Who. They only move when you aren't looking, and so you can stare one in the face for hours without taking any damage, but as soon as you turn your back, you are in huge trouble. Worse, they are Mindless, and will never stop pursuing you after you encounter them, which of course can prove deadly. I'd gotten in the habit of simply running to the nearest set of stairs when I encountered one: they have ludicrously high protection, and are completely immune to criticals, so I couldn't damage them at all.

Well, the Song of Sharpness solves that! It lets you cut through armor - or, more specifically, it reduces the amount of protection an enemy has. For some reason, it didn't seem to work with my flaming arrows, but I think that may just be a math thing - I usually rely on criticals to do damage with my arrows. Instead, I start singing the song, and whack it as hard and as often as I can with my sword. It's always very close, down to one or two stars by the time my Voice gets down to the single digits. Twice I managed to destroy it in time (leaving behind a very cool pile of rubble). Once my voice gave out first; so I just sat down there and rested, never taking my eyes off the grotesque, not looking away, never blinking, until my voice was restored. Then I started hitting it again, and this time triumphed.

I haven't yet figured out the optimal rate of descent. I tend to be pretty thorough, and will try to explore every single room on a level (even if just peeking my head in for rooms filled with monsters). But I don't back-track, either. I used by be pretty close to my minimum depth, but I think that my 900' hero had a min depth of just 750' or so. The exception: if I happen to fall through a false floor, I'll usually head up the first flight of stairs I find. If the monsters on a particular level seem too difficult (where, like, I wouldn't even be able to beat one in a one-on-one fight), I'll head up a level. My goal is actually not so much to get more XP (which always has diminishing returns) as it is to find better gear. I'm usually well-equipped by the time I reach 500', assuming I make it that far, and looking to upgrade already-decent pieces. So far, the favorite gear I've found for this character type are:

• The arrow 'Dailir'. This may be my single favorite piece of equipment: it gives +11 (!!!) to attack. There's only a single arrow, but it's indestructible. Which means (mild exploit) that you can set it aflame for the extra die of damage, without destroying it. As a one-shot-kill stealth archer, it's absolutely perfect. If I'm in a room full of sleeping cat warriors, I can stand in the door, assassinate one of them, creep in, reclaim the arrow, creep back to the doors, shoot the second, and so on. Against tougher opponents, this is usually my opening shot, which can often get them down to 50-25% health. From then on I'll use standard Flaming Arrows; since I don't need to use my arrows for most fights, though, I don't really worry about ever running out if I have 'Dailir'.
• The Bow of... Celeborn, maybe? There are two really good artifact bows I've found; I forget which is which, but both have a little nice lore around them (one was from an elf who hunted with Orome himself). My 900' character found a bow that was (+1, 1d9) and slew wolves; it penalized Grace, but was still probably my best bow ever. Another great bow was (0, 2d7) [-1]. It slew... Dragons and Raukar, maybe? Sadly, I died pretty soon after getting that one.
• Shadow Cloak! I was ecstatic the first time I found one of these, at around 700'. Now I seem to find them on every sub-500' game, and often find many in a single game. They come in a variety of stats, but my favorite is probably [+3] <+4>, with a significant boost to Evasion and pretty much the best-ever boost to Stealth. The downside: it reduces your light radius by 1. This is sort of micro-manage-y, but I like to take the cloak off while I'm exploring, and put it back on when I'm approaching monsters. It's really cool how it is shrouded in darkness even when lying on the ground, which makes them hard to find in the first place, but also can make you realize that there MUST be a Shadow Cloak there (assuming you have Listen and know that it isn't a monster!).
• {item} of Clarity. I tend to run with very-low-Will characters, so the nice set of resistances this gives (I think it's Hallucination, Confusion, and... maybe Stunning?) are extremely useful.
• Brass Lantern of True Sight. My 900' character had this thing. Very useful. I still want to find a Feanorian lamp sometime, though.
• Rings. Any rings. I usually don't find any until I'm several hundred feet down. It's nice that you have two slots, so you can find and use multiple good ones.
• Dried Meat. You wouldn't think so, right? But (perhaps as a side-product of my habit of methodically searching every floor) I often run low on food. I've never actually run out while I was hungry, but I've gotten awfully close several times. I now tend to either use an {item} of Sustenance or invest XP into Mind over Body to keep afloat.
• Mail Corslet of Fingon. I agonized for ages over whether to replace a nice Leather Armor of Stealth [0, 1d6] <+2> with this. On the surface, it's horrible for my character, since it hurts my evasion and required surrendering some stealth. However, it boosts both CON and GRA plus it provides resistance to fear, which comes in incredibly useful when facing rauko and drakes on the lower levels. A+++, would loot again.

Of course, any given game will have a variety of cool and useful stuff. I generally prioritize equipment that boosts my stats, then equipment that provides resistances to negative effects, then equipment that boosts my useful skills (Archery, Stealth, Evasion, Will, Perception), and finally pick the best numbers, generally preferring lighter weapons over heavier. I still have trouble figuring out how to compare disparate items... for example, I couldn't decide whether a ring of evasion <+1> was better than a ring of protection [1d2]. I also need to do a better job of managing my inventory. By the time I get down to about 600', my pack is practically full, plus I like keeping a spare slot free so I can doff my cloak or switch to the mattock for digging. I tend to keep all the "good" potions I find: potions that boost stats, that heal, Miruvor (heal + clear conditions), or slow poison. I keep a full quiver, plus an extra stack of normal arrows and whatever other special arrows I have. (If I'm using 'Dailir', this means my Poisoned and <+3> arrows are in inventory.) I keep food. I'll have my Mattock. I'll have some spare light sources (torches or another lantern or flasks of oil). If I've found a useful trumpet or staff, I'll bring it along. (Staff of Light is useful, as is the Trumpet of Blasting.) And that's usually about all I can carry. I'd love just a few more slots, so I could carry an extra hand weapon for attacking Grotesques and some alternate pieces of armor, but there just isn't room. Heck, even weight got to be an issue at one point.

Oh, and a total tangent: I fired the game up on Sunday, March 31st, and my inventory brought a smile to my face.

Isn't that neat? Ordinarily those are labeled as "herbs", not "easter eggs". Very cool. I'm impressed that programmers would take the time to put in something like that, which will only be accessible 0.27% of the time. 

So! I'm still loving this game. The atmosphere is incredible, despite (or, arguably, because of) the nonexistent graphics. Returning briefly to NWN, this is another example of how sometimes less is more, and a little is worse than nothing. When I see primitively animated 3D models jerking around on the screen, it's impossible for me to suspend my disbelief. When I see that H standing still in the corridor, my heart freezes in fear. When I notice that v silently yet absentmindedly floating through the room, I give a little grin as I quietly draw back my arrow. And few sights seem as powerful or mysterious as sneaking into an isolated chamber and discovering a grey 0 at its center. When that 0 is golden, you know that the Valar smile upon you.

Moving from Tolkien to Martin... Game of Thrones premiere was Sunday night! I really liked it!

MINI SPOILERS for GAME OF THRONES S3E1, + STORM OF SWORDS

It was a more low-key episode, as you would expect: there's some scene-setting, introductions to new characters, and a bit of well-delivered exposition. (Dany's time in Astapor was particularly well done. It constantly communicated important information, while still feeling dramatic.) I'm still amazed at just how good these actors are. I think this is the first time we've seen Peter Dinklage and Charles Dance share a scene since Season 1, and it's incredible: it feels short, but totally captures so much about their relationship. Bronn gives fantastic line readings. And so on, and so forth.

I think it was very smart for the show to directly introduce Ser Barristan the way that they did. In the book, it's a more mysterious thing: a robed figure shows up, enters Dany's service, and we go through much of the book before learning who he really is. That works very well on the printed page, but not so much on the screen, where we the viewers would quickly be able to just see who he is. So, well done.

I'm very curious to see exactly what goes down in Harrenhall now. I wonder if they will move some of the stuff that happened in A Clash of Kings into this season, perhaps fleshing out (ha!) Roose Bolton's character a bit more. I was surprised (albeit pleased) to see that they included Qyburn; I'd thought they would write around him. Of course, with Arya gone, they can't just do all the Clash of Kings stories, so maybe they'll jump ahead? I dunno.

Did you notice how the opening credits now show Winterfell burning? That's very cool, and very sad. No Theon this episode. I haven't checked to see if Alfie Allen is even cast this season. He disappears from the books entirely at this point for quite a while, but given what they did with Jaime in Season 2, I suspect that they will check in on Theon to show what he's up to. This could have some... powerful resonance with later events this season.

Mance Rayder seems very well-cast. My brother and I both noted what a great job they did at his introduction, which plays out basically like it did in the books, but so effectively that we both were "fooled" by it.

And, there's a ton more to come! Based on what I've read, we'll also be meeting the Reeds, Thoros of Myr, a new Berric, Stannis' wife and daughter, Olenna Martell, Edmure, and (finally!) the Blackfish. It's incredibly cool that HBO has brought in so many beloved characters who were cut from the earlier seasons. Since they've given themselves two seasons for Storm of Swords, they should have time to tell their stories now.

END SPOILERS for GAME OF THRONES / STORM OF SWORDS

I also caught the finale to The Walking Dead. It was good. This season was hands-down my favorite of the show so far. The show has always had brilliant episodes, but they've often been surrounded by episodes with too much whining or pointless digressions. This season has been fantastic, with a steady dose of action, lots of tension, huge moments, character deaths and evolutions, and arcs that were both satisfying and disturbing. It's an incredibly bleak show, but one that's very well done.

MEGA SPOILERS for THE WALKING DEAD

Man, they sure did a great job at pulling off Andrea's death. The way the episode played out, I was sure she would escape... the way Milton tried to kill the governor, then the way he set up her release, and the close timing between cutting her bonds and Milton reaching her... it was shocking to realize that she'd been bitten after all, after all of that. It's a repudiation of how we expect these stories to play out, and I'm always happy to be surprised.

I've never really understood the dislike for Andrea that so many fans have. Next to Michonne, she's probably my favorite female character. She's capable, and a great shot, willing to work hard and willing to speak her mind. She got her rude awakening early in the first season, and has been part of the "survival faction" since then. Sure, she has made plenty of bad decisions along the way, but no more than, say, Rick has.

I'm happy to see Tyrese back together with Rick's group. Tyrese was one of my favorite characters in the comics, where he was a presence for much longer than he's been on the show. I can't believe it took me this long to figure out that that actor is the same guy who played Cutty on "The Wire" - now I like him even more! His character is somewhat different from the comics, though, and the stuff with Woodbury was very different. That whole arc ultimately felt a little anticlimactic; I was expecting there to be more dramatic consequences to his time on the inside of Woodbury. I suppose that might come into play in the next season.

Speaking of which: I'm not sure if I totally understand why the Woodbury survivors would move into the prison, instead of the prison folks moving into Woodbury. Given everything that has happened this episode (fence torn down, gate busted open, walls and guard towers shot with a frikkin' bazooka), the prison hardly seems the strong, defensible place it once was. In contrast, Woodbury's infrastructure seems intact. I'm not even thinking about the quality of life, just the height and strength of its walls. But, there may be tactical considerations I'm overlooking here. Maybe Woodbury requires a larger military force to man all the stations than the prison does, and the demise of the Woodbury army could mean that there are no longer enough bodies to maintain it. I dunno.

END SPOILERS for THE WALKING DEAD

That's it for now!

Increasing Randomness in a Chaotic World

Another grab-bag of thoughts about half-finished games, finished short books, and half-baked theories about choice in games…

I am furious at The Walking Dead! I'm in Episode 3, and got so mad at the story that I nearly hurled my tablet at the wall. Which I guess is a testament to what they're doing here - it's rare for a game to get me that worked up.

The game fills an interesting niche within the Walking Dead franchise. I've been pretty happy so far to see that it doesn't exhibit the same streak of sadism that can be found in the comics, which largely turned me off from reading them after the first few collections. At the same time, though, it's an unabashedly adult game, complete with the bad language and shocking violence that implies.

MINI SPOILERS for Walking Dead (Game, but also a bit for the show and comics):

The game, particularly the first episode, is set during the very start of the zombie apocalypse, and so you can witness first-hand the chaos and the breakdown in social order that Rick Grimes slept through. You encounter several ancillary characters from the main story, but for the most part you're striking a new path in another part of the same world.

That said, the overall arcs of the game feel quite familiar to those of TWD's Rick Grimes story. A small and close-knit group, including several families, forms. Internal tensions within the group threaten to tear them apart. The group works to overcome their differences, certain members die, and things enter an uneasy status quo. Just when it seems like the walkers might be stoppable, though, other groups of human survivors enter the picture, threatening the safety of the group. The group spills from crisis to crisis, and ultimately betrayal and violence threatens to destroy the group.

There's also a healthy dose of the macabre. The first episode was relatively tame, meaning that it just included the stuff you would typically expect from a zombie movie. (I played this on an airplane, next to a middle-aged woman, and felt a bit self-conscious when a part of the game had me repeatedly tapping the screen to cave in the skull of a ravening zombie with a hammer.) The second episode takes a sickening turn; I kind of suspected where the story was going halfway through, but refused to believe it until it was too far. The third episode… well, let's just say that it was a gut-punch, and at this point I'm not sure if I'll be able to keep playing. Telltale Games already has my money, though.

The impact of that gut-punch really got me thinking, though. After all, I'm decently well acquainted with the tropes of the zombie movie. I expect that good people will die and bad decisions will be made. Being a participant in the story changes things, though, and being able to help shape the story changes them even more: I feel invested in this group of survivors in a way that I never would by simply watching a group of idiots running around on the big screen. I might curse the writer of a movie if a character I liked gets killed; but I kind of expect it, and understand that this loss is part of the contract for a zombie movie. When a character in a game dies, I definitely curse the game creators, but I also kind of blame myself a little as well. I shouldn't - there is no way I can save this person - but there are enough other lives I've been able to save within the game that it FEELS like I could have, should have done something differently to preserve this one.

On a related note: anyone who has ever watched any variation of a zombie instantly becomes an armchair quarterback, dispensing the essential pieces of wisdom to beleaguered characters. Typically, this is one of the following:
1. "He/she has been bitten! You have to shoot them in the head NOW!"
2. "That person can't be trusted / relied upon! Get rid of them now, before they get everyone killed!"
3. "Don't split up!"
Consider #1. As the viewer of a movie, it's an easy call to make. You know the calculus: there is no hope, and once someone has been bitten, that's it. Why prolong the misery and risk them turning at an inopportune time?

Of course, if this were real life, that would be an impossible call to make, especially if the person in question were a relative or a close friend, perhaps someone who has saved your life numerous times in the past. We have deeply ingrained senses of empathy, loyalty, and optimism that would keep us from following through.

The game puts me at a midpoint between those two perspectives. I saw one of my companions get bitten. This is someone who I had traveled with for three episodes, covering many hours of gameplay. I had gone to great lengths in the past to save their life and keep them safe. I'd shared precious, limited food with them. I knew people who cared about them.

And so, what did I do? I knew how it had to end - with a bullet in the head - but I wanted them to experience every remaining human moment they could have. So we journeyed onward, keeping an eye on them, knowing the great risk we were taking, but unwilling to make the tough call and end it immediately. I have become the sort of person who I would yell at in a movie. Becoming a character in a zombie story has helped me understand why they can sometimes do foolish things for perfectly good reasons.

END SPOILERS

A brief gaming note: I have "beaten" Fallen London! Okay, okay… not really, but I have wrapped up the last few pieces of content that I hadn't completed yet, including a really fun Christmas-themed arc that played out last month. I've also acquired the outfit I wanted. At this point I'd just be grinding materials and Echoes, so I'm going to cheerfully set it aside for a while and wait for the next phase of the story to unlock. It'll be interesting to see what comes next - lately, Failbetter has seemed to be focusing on expansions that players at a wide range of levels can enjoy, instead of extending the story towards its conclusion (publishing the next phases of the Ambitions, expanding the level cap, etc.). That's probably a wise decision, since it gives players even more stuff to do; on the other hand, I never felt like I needed to grind until well after I became a Person of Some Importance, so the players at the level cap probably appreciate it even more than those who are at lower level do.

I just finished reading "The Running Man", a short novel by Stephen King. It was a pretty good read… very pulpy, and in many ways uncomfortably prescient, with its anticipation of competitive reality shows the least of its disturbing premonitions. It's also pretty disturbing to read what appears to be a positive portrayal of Stockholm Syndrome.

I've finished my second play-through of Dragon Age: Origins. Rather than lay out yet another impenetrable blob of expository text, I shall lay out an impenetrable blob of expository screen-grabs, EACH WITH ITS OWN IMPENETRABLE EXPOSITION. You're welcome! (For once, I captured images from the entire run of a game, from start to finish. Spoilers in abundance.)

I then continued on in playing the Witch Hunt expansion, following my originally published plan through the new DLC. That was fun, but I realized after beating it that I had misjudged the intended order. There wasn't an option to import my post-Witch Hunt save into Golems, and after doing some research online, I realized that the intended order is actually DA:O -> Awakening -> Golems -> Witch Hunt. So, I'm now starting off on Awakening. I'll save my thoughts on Witch Hunt for when I'm through with all of the DLC.

However, I will share a few thoughts on Awakening (potential spoilers have been replaced with incredibly vague allusions):

• I really like how they've added entirely new abilities and skills. The feeling is very reminiscent of BG expansions, where you could grab some precious new spell tiers that significantly change how you play the game. I was initially a bit annoyed that I had dumped so many skill points into marginally useful skills like Herbalism now that they had added some newer and more useful skills; but it looks like there's an item that should let me re-allocate everything, so I'll eventually need to take the fifteen minutes or whatever it takes to re-build my character.
• I got a very nice note in my inventory at the start of the game, which affirmed a crucial character choice I had made throughout the main game; this was a great gesture, that should really help soften the blow of the corresponding character likely not appearing in the expansion.
• On the flip side, though, the dialog from Mhairi near the start of the game directly contradicts another crucial choice I'd made near the end of the game; she references a person, of a certain gender, holding a certain position. Well, that's not how it happened! A single word could have been changed to make this work. Ah, well. It goes to show how failing to follow-through on player choice can be more annoying than denying them choice in the first place.

After taking a break, I started watching season three of Doctor Who. I THINK I like Donna more than Rose, but I'm just one episode in so far, and will reserve judgment.

New season of Archer is off to a fantastic start! Second half of Parks opened strong! I'm waiting with nervous trepidation for Community's delayed opening (can't wait for that Halloween episode to air on Valentine's Day!). And the 49ers are going to the Super Bowl! That'll keep me occupied for a while.

Branching Narrative

My recent gaming experiences have deepened a longstanding obsession over agency in video games: the ability of the player to make meaningful choices that change the game. This week Gameological Society published an intriguing think-piece/interview with a game designer that directly addresses some of the problems I've noticed with modern story-based games.

The great expression Charles Amis comes up with in this interview is the "uncanny valley of choice." The term "uncanny valley" is often used when describing simulations of humans in digital media (games, CGI movies, etc.). In general, the more realistic a simulation is, the more we like it. However, once it reaches a certain point, increasing realism actually repels us. (For example, a stylized robot might look "better" than a purely chrome robot; but if that robot gains realistic human skin, while still retaining robotic movements and unblinking eyes, we will feel freaked out.)

When it comes to gaming, we generally (and I certainly) prefer having more choice. I love feeling like the decisions I make are having a real impact on the story of the game. As Amis points out, though, we may actually end up with a greater sense of agency in a more constrained environment than we do in a free one. If we are using a simple gamepad with four arrows and two action buttons, we will think of all our choices as flowing logically from our limited means of interaction. But, in modern games that give us characters who can seemingly go anywhere and do anything, it feels a bit shocking when we run up against the edge of what designers have planned for, and realize that we actually are in a maze after all.

This reminded me of a recent experience in Skyrim (minor spoilers follow in this paragraph). One quest that I was initially quite excited about was a murder mystery in the city of Winterhold. You can investigate a crime scene, interview witnesses, and do other things that one would expect a detective to do. I was quite pleased with myself when I discovered who the killer was: I entered his shop, and snuck around while his back was turned, eventually picking the lock on a chest and finding definitive proof inside of his culpability. Sadly, though, the game couldn't acknowledge what I'd done: the quest was designed to unfold in a very linear sequence, from A to B to C and so on, and I couldn't simply jump ahead to step G without having first activated all intervening triggers. So, I had to go back and retrace all the earlier parts of the quest, which led to even more maddening sequences when my character had to say he was ignorant of who the killer was.

A big part of the reason why this was so frustrating was because of the thing I love so much about Skyrim: how it's so very large and you can go anywhere and do anything in any order that you want. If the game as a whole was more constrained and structured, it would not have seemed odd, since I wouldn't have had any opportunities to "jump ahead" in the story.

I just finished playing Episode One of the Walking Dead game, by Telltale Games. It's a pretty stunning experience. I watch the TV show and have read the first three collections of comics. I have mixed feelings towards the Walking Dead franchise... when it's good, it's one of the best things ever, and when it's bad, it's incredibly annoying. So far, the game is probably my favorite manifestation of the franchise, and a big part of that is due to Telltale's approach to storytelling. Structurally, Walking Dead is an adventure game: you have a character who you move around the screen, you chat with other characters, you collect items for your inventory, and solve puzzles to progress the game. However, where most adventure games tend to run on rails (there's only one way to escape the garbage freighter in Space Quest III, Rosella will always make the same choice at the end of King's Quest IV, Manny and Hector will never become friends in Grim Fandango), Walking Dead lets you make choices that can radically influence the tone of the game and the direction of its plot

When games do allow meaningful choices, the impact of your decisions is generally conveyed in one of two ways. The first is a branching narrative. I recently encountered this in my current re-play of Dragon Age: would I fight a virtuous yet misguided opponent, or would I surrender to them?  Depending on my choice, I will play through entirely different sections of the game. The path I didn't choose is closed off to me, at least until I re-play the game later. The second way to communicate the impact of choice is through flavor. If I steal from people, guards will address me as an untrustworthy thief; if I refrain from theft and act kindly, then guards will hail my presence. In this case, the actual gameplay remains unchanged, but my emotional reaction to it will shift based on the feedback I'm receiving.

The Walking Dead has been very interesting: I haven't re-played it yet, but as far as I can tell, it seems like your choices impact the CONTENT of the game, but not the STRUCTURE of the game. In other words, you may get to choose between saving person A or person B. You'll still go to the same destination after that is done; but only one person will be there when you arrive. Of course, each person will have their own unique dialog, and other characters will respond differently based on the choice you made.

Now that I write this out, I guess that it isn't that unusual of a structure - it's quite similar to what Mass Effect accomplishes. The difference may be that, with The Walking Dead's more constrained structure, it feels like you are constantly making choices that have deep repercussions. Mass Effect's choices are just as sweeping, but perhaps get buried within the larger context of the action game around it, so minute-by-minute your decisions don't seem to make as large of an impact.

Since I started typing this up, I received a link to a fascinating new magazine called Haywire. Its most recent issue is dedicated to exactly this topic: choice. The whole thing looks pretty interesting, but the bit I've glommed onto is a long interview with Chris Gardiner, the creator of BELOW and one of the main writers in Fallen London. Chris gives a cogent overview of Failbetter Games' philosophy towards choice, which is both pragmatic and effective. As he points out, it is wasteful and frustrating to make choices that permanently close off experiences to players. At the same time, you want to help players feel like their decisions have significance. Failbetter uses several techniques to balance these tensions. First, about 90% of each game should be accessible by everyone; that makes the remaining 10% that's unique (e.g., content related to Ambitions or your faction alignment) feel particularly special. Secondly, it seeks to acknowledge your decision, while not necessarily creating unique story for each decision. For example, after completing the Affair of the Box in Mahogany Hall, you will always move on to Spite regardless of the decision you make in the Hall, but the game gives you an opportunity to reflect on your choice afterwards. Third, Failbetter uses "qualities" to track progress within the game, so instead of a pure binary position (did you save the princess or not? did you ally with the Dothraki or the Stormlords?), you can measure your progress along a scale (how much does the princess like you? how deeply do the Dothraki respect you? how many times have you aided the Stormlords?). This in turn can drive other content in the game: advancing a quality to a certain point may open new possibilities for you, or provide different flavor. (Fallen London has a good example of this: every player can start the Theological Husbandry storyline, but your Aligned: Church quality will affect the flavor text describing how you begin it.)

Ultimately, there's no one right way to do choice in a game. Some games are going to be able to provide seemingly endless possibilities and reward players for thinking outside the box. Other games will deliberately restrict themselves by designing limited interfaces, and create compelling choices from the few options they provide. While there's no single right way to create good choice systems, there are many ways to make bad ones. Teasing a gamer into thinking they have the freedom to come up with their own solutions, only to reveal that they are actually constrained in a narrower system, will doubtless frustrate people. Reneging on the consequences of a player's choice will also anger gamers (witness the debacle over Flemeth's fate from Dragon Age Origins to the sequel). Choice is a compelling factor, but also a delicate illusion, and the more a game relies on choice to drive its emotional impact, the greater the threat of disappointment when the illusion fails.