Bottom post of the previous page:
But that's boringThe apparent insanity, even if it skirts the line of being lolsorandumb, makes it fun
Bottom post of the previous page:
But that's boringThough I'd be amused to see some sort of fish joke pop up somewhere, I doubt they'd do it. The BL1 references to confusion and lolrandum were decently interesting (Talking to a stop sign, interrogating the newsreader on the TV, that sort of thing.)Takeguru wrote:But that's boring
The apparent insanity, even if it skirts the line of being lolsorandumb, makes it fun
baby I don't careLumbermancer wrote:well at least you can be a transvamp now
I mean, my World of Darkness tabletop game was HEAVILY motivated by my politics, and you seemed to enjoy that!XSI wrote:That [Soapboxing about politics in video games] tends to be a bad sign
reminder that changeling the dreaming literally had a thing in its history called the "night of iron knives" in which the sidhe conducted a purge of commoner leaders and sparked off a civil warDrynwyn wrote:That said: WoD has always been a pretty political game
You're mixing metaphors though. Nobody is claiming that WoD doesn't have internal political elements. That was a lot of what made Bloodlines interesting to begin with: factions politicking each other and the player as a sort of go-between patsy. People just get turned off quickly by injections of current events that will age poorly or just exist to draw attention to the writer's personal political faction.Drynwyn wrote:I mean, my World of Darkness tabletop game was HEAVILY motivated by my politics, and you seemed to enjoy that!XSI wrote:That [Soapboxing about politics in video games] tends to be a bad sign![]()
That said: WoD has always been a pretty political game- the three main vampire factions are extraordinarily transparent metaphors for existing political ideologies. (I mean, shit, one of the Anarchs in the original was running around in a che guevara hat if I recall correctly) "How do you cope and survive individually in the context of a system whose primary players are all grotesque" is the big question of the games. And given the increasing relevance of that question- I'd be frankly disappointed if it wasn't making a clear political point.
Watchdogs 2-tier "orange-man-but-not-in-name bad" references, unironic deferences to Gamergate, etcGrazyn wrote:What exactly is gonna age poorly? Sex/gender politics, which have been around since the sixties, order vs anarchy, left vs right?
I'm not saying it's necessarily good, I can see how negative references to those things can be annoying to some. But if Trump's presidency is really gonna have a GREAT impact on America with lasting consequences, I doubt those references to current events will age poorly. Imagine an early 2000s game not mentioning the war on terror, or a game set in the 60s not referencing the cold war, civil rights issues etc.cedarbridge wrote:Watchdogs 2-tier "orange-man-but-not-in-name bad" references, unironic deferences to Gamergate, etcGrazyn wrote:What exactly is gonna age poorly? Sex/gender politics, which have been around since the sixties, order vs anarchy, left vs right?
Devs have been doing that shit for years and its all very tedious and tiresome. You can have factional politics without injecting political events from the C U R R E N T Y E A R into the game too.
Lots of early 2000s games managed to not mention terrorism at all.Grazyn wrote:I'm not saying it's necessarily good, I can see how negative references to those things can be annoying to some. But if Trump's presidency is really gonna have a GREAT impact on America with lasting consequences, I doubt those references to current events will age poorly. Imagine an early 2000s game not mentioning the war on terror, or a game set in the 60s not referencing the cold war, civil rights issues etc.cedarbridge wrote:Watchdogs 2-tier "orange-man-but-not-in-name bad" references, unironic deferences to Gamergate, etcGrazyn wrote:What exactly is gonna age poorly? Sex/gender politics, which have been around since the sixties, order vs anarchy, left vs right?
Devs have been doing that shit for years and its all very tedious and tiresome. You can have factional politics without injecting political events from the C U R R E N T Y E A R into the game too.
It's hard to see History when you're inside it.
Holy shit do you think the war on terror happened in a vacuum? Do you even know that your country bombed Baghdad in '98/99 or so?Super Aggro Crag wrote:Soldier of fortune came out before the iraq war dumpass
In 99 i was playing Unreal Tournament, a game in which, surprisingly enough, they dont mention Iraq OR the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal.Grazyn wrote:Holy shit do you think the war on terror happened in a vacuum? Do you even know that your country bombed Baghdad in '98/99 or so?Super Aggro Crag wrote:Soldier of fortune came out before the iraq war dumpass
inb4 "We bomb so many countries it's hard to keep track"
Yeah that's a bad way to insert a reference. Because he took a current event, then used it to create a situation which is the complete opposite of it. If the government is banning transgender bathrooms NOW, why would you have them in the FUTURE? If anything, you could use it to describe a future where lgbt people are put in death camps or something.cedarbridge wrote:You're all kinda missing the point of my original post though. Its entirely possible (as Bloodlines 1 and multitudes of games have already) do inter-group politics in contemporary settings without a need to go full fucking Cliffy B: https://img.fireden.net/v/image/1502/34 ... 991867.png
Bit late because the forum gave me shit not resetting my password until now(And I haven't bothered to check the games section for a while)Drynwyn wrote:I mean, my World of Darkness tabletop game was HEAVILY motivated by my politics, and you seemed to enjoy that!XSI wrote:That [Soapboxing about politics in video games] tends to be a bad sign![]()
That said: WoD has always been a pretty political game- the three main vampire factions are extraordinarily transparent metaphors for existing political ideologies. (I mean, shit, one of the Anarchs in the original was running around in a che guevara hat if I recall correctly) "How do you cope and survive individually in the context of a system whose primary players are all grotesque" is the big question of the games. And given the increasing relevance of that question- I'd be frankly disappointed if it wasn't making a clear political point.
I mean in fairness the 'a game of personal horror' concept was fucked from the beginning because the devs didn't understand the tabletop game they'd made. The unspoken assumptions of the mechanics just don't support telling that kind of story (though later editions of the game are much better at it).Anonmare wrote:I miss Vampire being about the personal horror of a kindred, what they've become, the predatations of vampire society and the things they need to do to survive. I hate superheroes with fangs
You could, but it was explicit in that there was zero pleasure for the PC. Vampires can't feel pleasures like kine can anymore, conversely, drinking blood is like having sex while snorting a line of cocaine, eating your favourite meal and drinking your favourite drink all at once. Everything a vampire does is for the pursuit of blood, even Elders, Methuselahs and Antideluvians need blood and they're double fucked in they need to feed on other vampires. Hell, Methuselahs can only feed on other Elder vampires and Antideluvians can only feed on Methuselahs, and because drinking another vampire's blood can bind you to that vampire - they feed until their victim's drained completely and not risk becoming bonded to them.Super Aggro Crag wrote:you could fuck in bloodlines 1
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot]