Extra Credits

I also thought of Fire Emblem, but for a different reason: support conversations. A mechanic that brings gameplay bonuses and character development at the same time. Helps the player get connected to an army that's supposed to be like a band of brothers.

That sort of feature being linked to mechanics can backfire, though, in terms of role-playing immersion. For example, the social links in Persona 3/4. I could choose the dialog option that corresponds to how my character would act, but in the end I just choose the dialog option that most efficiently maxes out the social link. Especially since the game tells you how favorably the character responds with a chime and a number of yellow musical notes.

True. That is why, ideally, such mechanics shouldn't have a clear "right path".

Same. It have some gamey elements to it, since it makes the characters stronger thus incentiveting you pair characters based on strategy, rather than role play. But a lot of times (it depends on the game), the bonuses are not that critical and the extra characterization really makes you to care for the characters and want you to have two friends helping each other on the battlefield, even if not optimal strategically.

Yeah, they explicitly criticized the Fire Emblem model. In FE a death of a character is more often than not an extra failure state. You just reload you save and try again. Depending on the specific game, losing a fully level up character would be such a set back that you barely have other choice. I personally like the mechanic because it forces me to be more careful in my games, adding to the challenge, but it does take the immersion away at parts.

PS:You know, a thinking on that "Persona 3/4" problem, in which players would often just try to get the best dialog option to gain reputation with NPC, I realized the "kick to the head" theory would be excellently applied there. Like, a game could have you spend part of the early game interacting with multiple NPC, and showing that there is a clear dialog tree path to gain the favor for each of them. The NPC would be fairly distinct in personality, but you could identify that easily and always choose the "best" option for each of them, even though they are contradictory to each other^note like meeting a jingoist guy and agreeing that war is awesome but then latter discussing with a hippie about the evils of war. Except that, if you do that, they will call you out on it, as you opinions are clearly fake and manufactured. That would make players realize that, instead of trying to gather favor with everyone, it is best to stick with a characterization and keep true to it.

edited 25th Feb '15 8:42:31 PM by Heatth

the extra characterization really makes you to care for the characters and want you to have two friends helping each other on the battlefield

Not to mention joined epilogues.

For me, it was probably The Walking Dead that made me roleplay the most. Especially during season 2, because I find it harder to project myself on the character you play in this one, so I had to "think" as the character to make my choices.

Also, despite the fact that I had a "bad" ending in season 2, I resisted to replay the last chapter and change it around. Because, as one of my friend said: "These are the choices you've made. You may regret them, but if you go back, that means you never have to suffer the consequences of your choices. That cheapens the whole point, don't you think?".

And he was right.

There is more than one ending in Season 2? I wasn't aware. I need to finish it sometime.

For some reason, I can't find as much motivation for getting into character as Clementine in season 2 as I could with Lee in season 1. (Granted, I've only gotten as far as the first episode.) I think it may be because I'd accepted the role of deciding what kind of character Lee was going to be since he started as a relatively blank slate. With Clem, on the other hand, I'd already spent a season with her as a character completely out of my control, so when the game now asks "What does Clementine do here?" it feels less like role-playing and more like a quiz.

As for replaying a chapter, I've had a similar experience. In my case, it was in episode 4 of the first season, where you have to decide whether or not to save Ben. I very quickly regretted leaving him behind, even before the game told me off for it, and it stuck with me for days afterward, but I'd already promised myself since the start of the game to never go back and undo a prior decision I'd made.

edited 26th Feb '15 1:59:44 PM by KylerThatch

Heatth:Kinda reminds me Of this article.

I'll be honest, this kind of financial hocus pocus has a tendency to make my head spin before long, so I'm hoping they'll do a good job of keeping everything in this series relatable.

Well, that is certainly an out there topic. But I am glad they are doing it, even though I am not sure I am following too well. I am quite curious about this Blunt fellow. If I understood things right, he basically stole money and land from the government, and then managed to receive credit for the money he lend back to the government, even though it was originally the government money to begin with. and then Britain hired this guy to solve their financial problems. No wonder this whole thing became a economic crisis.

The Fantastic - How to Make Compelling Games Set in the Real World

The title is a bit misleading. It is not about games set in real world, but games that use the concept of The Fantastic (most of them set in the real world, true). Other games set in "reality" but that are more straightforward "mundane" have no place in this discussion.

Anyway, good episode. I really like these types of stories, I would really like more games like that. It was one of the main reasons I enjoyed Fahrenheit initially, and also why my engagement dropped once the game moved beyond the "Fantastic" space.

Personally, the best use of The Fantastic I have personally seem was in Higurashi When They Cry. It menages to really keep you on toes about whether there is or not a rational explanation for everything. And once you come to a conclusion, the game turns it around on your head and you start questioning again. Over half of the game goes by without you knowing for sure. Its sister series, Umineko, does something similar, with that question being a central theme in the narrative. But it mostly dives into the "meta textual meaning" instead.

edited 4th Mar '15 12:10:33 PM by Heatth

Huh, it's non-war history.

Sweet.

edited 6th Mar '15 8:07:51 PM by Ekuran

The EC team has launched a Curators list on Steam for educational purposes.

New episode.

They also released a new Extra History.

Seems they got another artist in their crew. Her name is Heather, and they expect the work-process to speed up nicely thanks to her.

edited 21st Mar '15 9:50:54 PM by Alucard

At this point, "bubble" is selling it short. "Ticking time bomb" may be a bit more accurate.

...Yeah, I'm just going to go ahead and rewatch the entire series again, in hopes of getting it this time. This sorts of financial wizardry is way beyond me.

The only thing that I actually understood is that the SSC had absolutely no source of revenue other than the selling of their stocks, yet through smoke and mirrors made themselves seem like a thriving company.

Or something like that. Good god, this has got to be one of the densest schemes I've ever tried to wrap my head around.

Yeah, I am not understanding very well what exactly is happening either. What I do understand, though, is that the SSC is "making" money out of thin air and, thus, something wrong is clearly going on. Can't wait to see how the bubble will burst. And who exactly will be the ultimate victim of this whole scheme.

Sounds like they're trading stocks for debt, and then artificially inflating the worth of said stocks so they can sell them off for more than they should be worth.

At least, that's as far as I get before the whole scheme turns into trading money for money so they can sell money and I get lost.

Love that description.

The important thing was that the scheme relied on the price of SSC to be continuously rising, and Blunt made some desperate moves to make that happen. Since there is a limit to the amount of money in the world, it was bound to come crashing down eventually.

edited 28th Mar '15 2:36:33 PM by Kayeka

Technically, there isn't a limit on the amount of money there is in the world, specially when we are dealng with virdual money such as 'stocks' and 'debt' and I think that is partially why Blunt's scheme is working so far. But ultimately 'money' is only limited by the government's and people's belief and trust. The thing is that there is a limit on how much said trust will continue. Eventually Blunt won't be able to fool people into thinking the SSC worth shit anymore, and the whole thing will crash down.

The bubble burst.

We have one last video after this.

Also video on video game romances

Why aren't we talking about this anyway?