Sunday, October 27, 2013

Wizardry VI: Won!


I had been expecting a twist ending to Bane of the Cosmic Forge--something that explained the true nature of the "pen" and perhaps that allowed the player to make some choices about how to use it. I frankly thought it would turn out to be some kind of meta-ending, in which the Cosmic Forge wasn't a literal pen but perhaps the programming interface used to create and edit the world.

With these expectations, I wasn't enamored of the ending, or endings, to the game. Instead of a solution to its mysteries and a true explanation of the Cosmic Forge, we get a cliffhanger and a setup for its sequel. I don't care how many of the enigmas are clarified in the sequel; I have to wait at least two years to play it.

The game also got a lot sillier towards the end.
 
There wasn't much physical space to the game after my last post, just a forest, a Temple of Ramm consisting of four small levels, and a Chamber of the Cosmic Forge with the final encounters. But regardless of the overall size, it took me a long time to traverse the areas because the difficulty of the combats increased significantly. In contrast to most of the other enemies in the game, whom I could generally conquer with fighting power alone (or perhaps coupled with a few sleepy-time tunes from the bard), these areas featured fearsome foes with mass-damage spellcasting, paralyzing, and stoning capabilities. I had to spend a lot more time plotting combat tactics--primarily spellcasting--than before, and my reload count increased significantly. Adding to the difficulty was a lack of fountains in the final areas.

I'm not sure whether my late-game class changes helped or hindered in the endgame. By the time it was over, each character had achieved a level in her new class equal to the one she'd held when she switched from her old class, and if I hadn't switched classes, I probably would have only achieved one more level. On the other hand, the resistances and extra attacks conveyed by that one extra level might have made the difference in a few combats, particularly the last one.

There wasn't much to the forest. I entered it by escaping the jail, which I did by showing my Dagger of Ramm to the guard. He was so freaked out that I had it that he summoned a bunch of allies, opened the door, and attacked. I checked the hint guide after I won, and I discovered that I could have escaped using the magic mushrooms I got from the giant caterpillar, too.

The primary mission in the forest turned out to be getting the Staff of Ramm from an Oracle, but to do that, I needed to answer some cryptic questions, which I couldn't do until I had conversed with Saeran, Queen of the Faeries. She and all of the other faeries were, of course, nude--bottomless as well as topless this time, though their animations were so fast that you'd have to take screen captures to see the few pubic pixels. That is not a phrase I was ever looking forward to typing in a review.

I guess that's as good an explanation as any.
In addition to the staff, the Oracle  granted me a vision of the final battle against the vampire king, in which I would have to use a "piece of shining glass," the silver cross, wooden stakes, and holy water. I never found the "shining glass" during my gameplay. I later discovered that I needed to chip them off a rock in the forest. I think this made the ending more difficult but, as we'll see, not impossible.

 
From there, I had trouble entering the Temple of Ramm and fought a dozen battles with gate guards before it occurred to me to try approaching the temple with some artifact of Ramm. The solution turned out to be wearing the goat's head mask I'd discovered ages ago in the castle.

The Temple consisted of three levels that were hard to map because it kept teleporting me among them. It was nonetheless a very linear process, delayed only by a succession of near-boss combats on each level. When I first arrived, I was greeted by the insane wizard Xorphitus and I had to use the Staff of Ramm from the forest to cross a pit of lava. Xorphitus also showed up at the end for a very pathetic confrontation in which I killed him in the first round.

With his dying breath, he asked why I'd killed him, and I said "YOU WERE IN MY WAY," which led me to the first of three endings I experienced; specifically, the "dumb boffo ending."


I'm sorry, but my ladies entered the castle to solve a 120-year-old mystery, not to obtain the Cosmic Forge for themselves. Nonetheless, knowing that this was the proper answer, I reloaded, defeated the wizard again, and answered "correctly" this time. His longer death speech bolstered my assumption that the Forge would turn out to be the tools used to program the game itself:

The world you see is an illusion, only a trick, a reflection of the operation of your own mind...You're searching for the Cosmic Forge, the pen of destiny, and it sounds like powerful magic... But what if it wasn't magic? What if it was...

And then he died before completing the thought.

No, I killed you because you attacked me when I stepped on the only square available.
 
I strode forward down a flight of stairs and was confronted by the vampire king who, in the dumbest twist ever, the game explicitly names as "Dracula." Or, I'm sorry, "D R A C U L A." The first time I stumbled into him, he summoned Rebecca to aid him. Unprepared, I was unable to even hit him in combat and was swiftly slaughtered.

On a reload, I equipped my stakes and holy water before facing him, cast some buffing spells, and used the silver cross during the first round. Weirdly, he didn't summon Rebecca this time. I was able to kill him in four rounds without significant damage to my party. He had a long death speech that indicated he had grown tired of undead existence and was grateful to my party for slaying him.

 
At this point, Rebecca appeared and expressed sadness over the death of Dracula. She told a different story than the ghost of the dead queen, claiming that it was the demented, evil queen who had ordered the death of the vicar and his mistress (Rebecca's mother), and who tried to kill Rebecca but slipped and fell on her own knife. The queen had said that the king had taken Rebecca as a lover and fathered a son, but Rebecca indicated that the king was only her "protector and benefactor" and that the son had been his with the queen. She warned me of his temperament and gave me a key to his lair behind the Cosmic Forge before departing.

Wherever you end up, there's a thing called a "shirt" that you might want to check out.

At that point, I was able to stride forward to the Cosmic Forge, where the game asked if I wanted to take it. On the first try, I said "yes," and met an abrupt ending in which a "strange voice" said "I'll take that!" and I got the end screen as above with no further explanation.

All that work deserves more than seven words and a generic end screen.

On a reload, I said "no" and continued through the chamber to the lair of Bela the Dragon. Why the son of the king and queen is a dragon is a little unexplained, but presumably it has something to do with the bane (curse) of the Cosmic Forge. He didn't give me a chance to talk with him and instead howled his agony over the death of his father, attacked me, and slaughtered me in the first round with a "nuclear blast" spell.

This is kind of a dumb name for a spell. A real "nuclear blast" would destroy the dungeon and kill everyone in the radius.

I wanted to defeat Bela to see what the alternate endgame had to offer, but it took me more than 20 reloads and I nearly gave up. Most of his attacks were capable of killing at least one character per round; some of them were capable of killing all of them, and he had more than 800 hit points--the most (I think) in the game. However, he also had a weak "acid spray" attack and the combined might of my fighters was capable of inflicting about 150 hit points of damage per round. Thus, I had to keep reloading until he favored his weaker attacks for a few rounds in a row, allowing me to ultimately defeat him with all but two of my characters slain. I resurrected them and proceeded forward.

Out of nowhere, the game gave me an odd and unwelcome turn towards science fiction. In the chamber beyond Bela's was a  spaceship, which my party perceived as a "slumbering beast" encased in armor. Despite their misgivings, my party entered its "mouth" and soon found itself among stars. At that point, I got the same end game screen as above.

Be careful what you promise, Sir-Tech.

I guess there was a third possibility, achievable if I had distrusted the queen's ghost and discarded the silver cross before my first meeting with the vampire king. In this ending--called the "best" by one of my commenters--the vampire king, after a silly speech, impales and kills himself. Rebecca says goodbye to the party as before, but Bela is not hostile when you approach him. Instead, he offers to take the party on a ride in the spaceship ("we can make fuel from the dinosaur remains up in the forest") to go chasing a "cosmic lord." I read the text of both the vampire's speech and Bela's speech in the hint guide, and I have to say they're both pretty dumb. I rather prefer the ending that I got.

No matter what your ending, the game somewhat nonsensically kicks you back to the Enchanted Forest once you've won and allows you to keep exploring and fighting. I messed around a bit to see if there was anything new to encounter, didn't find anything, and shut it down.

I browsed through the rest of the hint guide, and I was surprised to see that it recommended that characters be at least Level 15 before confronting Bela. That would have taken an absolutely staggering number of experience points, even without my class change. (I achieved a total of about 1.5 million experience points per character throughout the game; Level 15 for most classes requires around 2.5-2.8 million.) I guess some players are willing to do a lot more grinding. Other than that, the hint guide didn't tell me anything I hadn't already discovered through gameplay, except the uses of the "Rock of Reflection" and a couple of longer conversations with NPCs. Oh, and I guess I could have avoided killing the Queen of the Amazulus. I was actually more surprised to see that all of the NPC-related quests had "outs" if you chose to kill them instead, usually by finding some message or artifact on their bodies.

Again, I'm a bit disappointed in the cliffhanger ending, which promises the next game in 1991, but as we now know didn't come out until 1992. It's one thing to have a sequel to a game; it's another to split the plot between games. Yes, I know books and films do it, but I don't find it any more attractive there. Even in series, books, films, and games should try to tell a self-contained plot (if also offering a general series plot), lest the company go out of business or the creators die in between episodes.

I'll GIMLET this soon, and then move deeper into 1990. Perhaps if I'm lucky, I'll be able to play the sequel sometime before the end of 2016.


113 comments:

  1. Congratulations !

    You are brilliant, both at solving riddles and in combat.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I don't think it was a good idea to change classes at lvl 11, and for all/several of your characters to do it at the same time. For the extra skill points lvl 6 is about right.

    And I've never come across anyone else being so hung up on the nudity in the game...personally I didn't even notice the faeries were naked.

    I never saw the "best" ending in my playthroughs, and being greedy bastards my party grabbed the Cosmic Forge immediately, so I never encountered Bela. Something to consider for my inevitable replay of Wiz 6 and 7 before I play Wiz 8, I guess.

    Yeah, D R A C U L A was a stupid name, but OTOH there was something poetic about the first meeting with sweet little Becky: "And here she comes...".

    I'm surprised to hear your characters only accumulating 1.5 million XP each. My characters had from 1.85 to 2.2 million XP, and I definitely did not grind at all.
    My party's total Monster Kills were 2193. If your own partys' was significantly lower that may explain it.

    Incidentally my highest level character was my lvl 16 Valkyrie, while the others were lvl 13-14. Those extra levels really made a difference when fighting those nasty Sylphs and Ramm Priests, as she was the only one who was able to shrug off most of their spells.

    Good luck in Wiz 7. It's a huuuge game, with lots of naked sorority girls flying hovercars, so you'll love it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They're not naked; not even topless. They are kind of sorority girls, and vaguely cleavage-y. I don't think there's any nudity in the next one, actually. I think. There's probably some dryad/witch/whatever though that I've forgotten.

      As a kid, I think the Dracula thing struck me as more like ... 'this is A Dracula. You know, like, a big vampire boss, not actually tied to our world's legends of Dracula'. While in retrospect this is not the most coherent interpretation, I think I like it better.

      Your characters do seem low level. I usually left my samurai/ninja/valkyrie alone, and ruthlessly swapped around my spellcasters & thieves to pump up their magic skill ratings, since you tended to get more skill points to spend in that quick first 1-7 levels. Then once they started levelling slow.. swap again!

      Delete
    2. That isn't the worst error involving Dracula's name. There is a series that came out in Japan, where one of the characters is revealed to be Dracula....only, they screwed up the big reveal in the Japanese to English translation, which involved saying his name backwards....and they used the Japanese spelling, not the English one.

      Delete
    3. I believe you are referring to the Hellsing series, Canageek.

      That's not the only one, too. Another anime by the name of Peacock King also has an antagonist in one of its series going by the pseudonym of Arukado - or Alucard (preceding Hellsing by a couple of decades).

      I remember doing a double take when I first heard them saying his name, "WTF? Avocado? Does he suck on guacamoles?"

      Delete
    4. Yep, that was Hellsing, though I wasn't saying the name on purpose, since it could be a spoiler.

      Delete
  3. Yeah, I am somewhat surprised as to the level of "prudery" displayed, Chet old boy. As for the constant demand for the NPCs to wear clothing... I am quite sure they would have had something to say about your insistence on wearing clothing :) What I am trying to say is that casual nudity is not a bad thing- it's almost considered a sign of advanced culture.

    Now as for the game... Sigh. I do have to say that reading your blog all this time has ruined all the crpgs I used to love :) I used to look back on them with joy and a sense of nostalgia and a desire to play them all one day. Now, I look upon the ones you have blogged upon with contempt and near hatred and I'd rather bite my own legs off then ever play any of them.

    Sigh.

    Well, such am be the life. Keep up the good work, my boy. Mention me by name in your book! Dedicate it to me!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't really get Chet problem with the nudity either, it's a fantasy game with races and entities from societies that may be radically different from our own. Why should they all automatically conform to our societies requirements or ideals?

      From an artistic point of view it could just be the result of someone drawing inspiration from classical works of art (Full of sex, violence and nudity) - It's not like they had access to image search back in the 90s.

      Although the nudity is gone in W7 (I think), it's back in W8 and W&W.

      Delete
    2. It seems like Chet objected to the nudity because it reminded him that this was a game made for teenage boys by men who wish they still were teenage boys. Which is the same reason he is mildly embarrassed whenever his CRPG playing intersects with his "real life" and why he temporarily quit way back when.

      Delete
    3. Bravely anonymous commenter: The extent to which you can go screw yourself cannot be overstated.

      But you're right about one thing: this game was made by adult men, almost entirely for teenage boys--which makes it feel like the equivalent of a creepy middle-aged guy who invites the neighborhood kids over to see his Penthouse collection. THAT--not some kind of prudery or whatever pop psychology BS you were ineptly suggesting--is behind my objection to all the nudity.

      Delete
    4. it's a fantasy game with races and entities from societies that may be radically different from our own. Why should they all automatically conform to our societies requirements or ideals?

      ...radically different in a way that perfectly conforms with male fantasy from our OWN society. What a coincidence!

      Delete
    5. @Vic: What is "W&W"? I don't remember nudity in W7 or W8, but it's been a while and I never finished W7.

      The abundance of topless women in the game is tacky at best. I'm not dead-set against partial nudity in games, but there's no point if it doesn't really add anything to the game. Of course, it's a moot point these days because games with even this level of nudity would not be allowed on store shelves in the U.S.

      Delete
    6. I just had a "30 going on 13" birthday party! In addition to the retro Nintendo games, we played 4-player Doom 2 deathmatch over LAN! There's nothing wrong with every once and a while wishing you were still a teenage boy.

      Delete
    7. W&W is Wizards & Warriors, kinda a unofficial Wizardry 9, but a different setting.

      Delete
    8. How is W&W compared to Wiz6-8?

      Delete
    9. How is W&W compared to Wiz6-8?
      Simpler and more linear. Combat is kinda blobber-style RTwP, which somehow works. Story is stupid as hell (though not MM9-level stupid). But simply GREAT level design, quite possibly the best I've ever seen in RPGs.

      Delete
    10. W&W was great, unfortunately rather buggy and hard to get it to work on modern machines.
      And then D.W. Bradley went down the drain with Dungeon Lords :(

      Delete
    11. Bravely anonymous commenter here.

      I wasn't trying to be a jerk, but I certainly succeeded! If something stronger than jerk can make it through the filter, I deserve it. I wrote that post as I rushed from point A to point B and had I taken the team to reread it before I hit post, I hope I would have had the same reaction that I do now. That post was bad not only because it didn't get what I was trying to say across, but also because it was the internet equivalent of talking about someone when they are sitting right there.

      I was trying to say "I think his objection to the nudity was the same as to the silliness in the previous Wizardry; he doesn't like games that don't take themselves seriously. And reminding the player that this particular game is a game made for teenage boys by a man who wishes he was still a teenage boy is a way of not taking itself seriously." But that's not what I said before, so I'm sorry.

      Delete
    12. Thanks for returning and clarifying. Sorry at my knee-jerk reaction. In your second paragraph here, you are reasonably correct about one of the sources of my objections.

      Delete
    13. Now that I understand your objections to the nudity, I find I agree. Nudity for the sake of a story is fine but nudity for simple prurience and childish "Ooh look! Titties!"... Nah, I'd rather they be clothed characters. Thanks be to you, kind sir, and thanks be to all your other commentators who help bring points to light.

      Delete
    14. Kenny: That is like saying "At least you aren't on fire". While technically true, you are setting a really, really low bar. I mean, sure, breaking both my legs isn't as bad as being on fire, but I still think that is a really bad thing.

      Just saying.

      Delete
  4. If you thought the amount of nudity in this game is bad, you're gonna love Daggerfall. Also did the game imply that the spaceship ran on gasoline? Yikes, I really hope the plot gets more coherent, all I've ever heard is praise for this trilogy.

    -BelatedGamer

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Daggerfall doesn't really have that much, unless you are going to some specific types of buildings a lot. The notion of nudity in these games to me is pretty irrelevant, however it does seems they were going for their target audience. The artists were always going for the well endowed look, I seem to remember a review of the first everquest expansion saying 80% of the expansion was to the elves' breasts.

      Delete
    2. It's a bit out of place in Daggerfall was well, but at least it's not as in-your-face.

      Delete
    3. Dagerfall was a bit more tasteful, it was mostly limited to your inventory and inn rooms, which made sense. What didn't make sense was that the women didn't mind holding a conversation with the dude who burst into their private room while they were changing, but maybe your character had a good personality.

      Delete
    4. The sci-fi elements are, for the most part, not used much. They get invoked to move you between planets, and there is a tiny bit of robot killing that goes on. But on the whole, it never reaches the levels of goofy that M&M went to.

      Delete
    5. Fossil fuels have put lots of rockets into orbit; RP-1 is basically just super-refined kerosene, and is a very, very common rocket fuel. Now, that isn't going to get you much beyond mars, but it isn't as crazy as you seem to think to use hydrocarbons as rocket fuel.

      Delete
    6. Daggerfall's a 1996 game, so even if Chet maintains his 1989 pace we won't see it until roughly 2020, long after the discovery of ultra-porn renders non-ultra-nudity disappointing.

      Delete
  5. The reason W6 kicks you back to the forest is so that you have the chance to go back and recover items, raise the dead, and generally sort out your party before you transfer to W7.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Correct. And even get items that can be ported to Wiz7 (and in some rare cases, to Wiz8)

      Delete
  6. I don't think naked faeries / topless Amazonian women are too bad. I'd rather have some occasional plausible nudity in a game rather than the "L-shaped" bed sheets that are so popular in movies and television. (Really... you just slept with the guy, but now you won't let him see your chest? Don't worry kids, it's not really like that.)

    On the flip side of that, I tried to get into Games of Thrones. But after the excessive nudity, incest, and rape scenes (in the first episode!), I went back to the more wholesome Star Trek.

    So on a scale between "L-shaped bed sheets" and "Game of Thrones", it sounds like you're leaning Wizardry to "Game of Thrones"?

    (I apologize for any damage I do to search filters, but I think my comments are relevant?)

    (Wow... I just Googled "Amazonian" out of curiousity. Even with Safe-Search on you don't want to pull up that image search at work!)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I just googled "zulu women" - and, well, after that I'm inclined to call the Amazulu's topless-ness somewhat anthropologically justified. Which doesn't excuse all the other nudity in the game, of course.

      Delete
    2. As questionable W6's nudity is, there is so much vivid depiction of horrific crimes against women (and men) in fantasy movies, literature (including a novel the Addict did a one-off blog post on), and games that a little nudity pales in comparison.

      Personally, I find the implied demon-rape of Rebecca's mother far more disturbing than any of the screenshots here.

      As always Addict, thank you for playing these games so I don't have to.

      Delete
  7. Haha, thank you ClintK, that sheet-issue irks me everytime I see it.

    I also find the Game of Thrones stuff refreshing. Then again I had read the books beforehand and knew what I was in for. And the nudity/sex scenes do serve a purpose are not just tacked on for show, as in some other derivative TV series (Da Vincis Demons comes to mind...).

    Anyway, Wizardry is not known for its meaningful plot and I think what bugs Chet most about the topless characters in W6 is that it doesn't go well with the pubescent humor prevalent throughout the game. Both the breasts and writing on display here make it seem like the player has to reenact one of Bradley's private fantasies.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Let me get this straight...

    One of the "right" endings can only be achieved if you first tell Xorphitus that you came to take the pen, but then when you get to the pen, you have to change your mind (or retcon that you were lying to Xorphitus)?

    Yeesh... the writing really fell apart at the end, didn't it?

    And the nudity is lame. If you need to ogle anyone besides your spouse, you have problems. If you don't have a spouse, wait. Yes, I'm old-school like that.

    ReplyDelete
  9. congrats! another great victory!

    didn't know that games this old already went for the cliffhanger ending approach, interesting. always learning! :-)

    ReplyDelete
  10. Chet, the spaceship isn't really that silly an idea. Remember Ultima 2?

    Anyway, Might & Magic also adheres to the idea that their game-world is huge. As in, it can't be contained in a single planet or time period. So, both Wizardry and Might & Magic had robots, interplanetary travels, aliens, futuristic weapons and armor.

    I think they were all heavily influenced by Star Wars; i.e. primitive culture meets advanced civilization, magic (Force) meets science, swords (lightsabers) meets guns... that kinda thing.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Good work Chet. I enjoyed this series of posts.

    Personally it's the violence in these games that usually gives me more moral pause. Is it really ok that by the end of the game my characters literally have the blood of thousands on their hands?

    Much can and has been written on how American culture got to a point where violence is acceptable but sexuality isn't.

    The Wiz6 nudity looks a little tasteless to me, but that about the worst I can say of it.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The sci-fi appearances in the later Wizardry remind me of the Might and Magic series.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Heh, I wonder how all those who don't mind female nudity in games would react to male nudity...

    Anyway, grats for beating the game. Great job again, Chat.

    - Amasius

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Uh, sorry about the typo, Chet.

      - Amasius

      Delete
    2. Well, as a gay man I totally wouldn't mind some male nudity in my games ))))

      Delete
    3. I have no problems seeing topless men either.

      Delete
    4. You must be talking about Stones of Arnhem :)

      Delete
    5. A fair question, I don't have a fair answer. Sure I like my male heroes to be muscled specimens like Conan in his loincloth. But to see males depicted in a (trying to think of the words) somewhat sexually suggestive way would be odd. Not homophobic (live and let live) but it would certainly change the traditional paradigm. makes me wonder.. Hollywood has started bringing in gay protagonists and characters, but has gaming seen it's first gay hero yet?

      Delete
    6. There have been games with gay heroes, yes. However, they're indie games marketed specifically toward gay players. I don't know of any video games with gay heroes by major companies.

      Hm, there's a "list of LGBT characters in video games" in Wikipedia. A cursory glance seems to bear out what I said in the first paragraph, though: lots of indie games with gay protagonists; lots of gay secondary characters in big-name games; but I didn't see any examples of big-name games with gay main protagonists. (Though there are, of course, games where you can optionally romance an NPC of the same gender.) I didn't read through the whole list, though, so it's not altogether impossible there's one or more I missed.

      Delete
    7. Gay characters are less of an issue, because most of RPGs let you create your own characters and assume nothing about their sexuality. So there's really nothing that prevents you to consider all of them gay (or bi, or whatever - Wiz7 even lets you go kinda genderqueer by picking female portraits for male characters and vice versa ;)). And I must say I prefer this approach over the game having explicitly gay characters. Because if the game is not a date sim, there aren't many ways to instill that explicitness, so those characters usually end up being a bunch of stereotypes - and I'm not sure that's better than not having gay characters at all.

      Delete
    8. That may be true of most RPGs; it's less true of other genres, which are more likely to have their protagonists already defined, with a predetermined personality. Many games do have explicitly heterosexual protagonists, in that the protagonist is clearly seeking a relationship with a person of the opposite gender. (I suppose one could argue that the character could be bisexual, but anyway...) Significantly fewer games have explicitly homosexual protagonists... and again, as far as I know all such games are indie games specifically marketed to gay players.

      Delete
    9. Mass effect Franchise has the clear possibility to play a Gay character, and it is a triple A production. So, yes, things are slightly changing

      Delete
    10. But that's what I meant by "games where you can optionally romance an NPC of the same gender". Yes, there are triple A games with more or less customizable PCs where you can choose to play a gay character, but there are no triple A games with a predefined gay protagonist—while there are plenty of games with predefined heterosexual protagonists. You're right that it's a slight change; even the option to play a gay character wouldn't have existed a decade ago. But I don't think it's quite what Anonymous 12:22 above was asking about.

      Delete
    11. > even the option to play a gay character wouldn't
      > have existed a decade ago
      But it did exist! In Ultima 6 you could engage in a homosexual act, and in Serpent Isle, IIRC, that was an unescapable plot point )))

      Delete
    12. " there are no triple A games with a predefined gay protagonist"
      The point is: is sexual orientation so important? I mean, what's so good in mass effect is that your char (you) can choose his sexual preferences, keeping his status of saviour of the world. There is, in that franchise, a similar flavour than star trek's in which your skin, your religion, your gender doesn't matter: we are all the same, all william shatner's underlings...

      Delete
    13. I think what Jalene is trying to say, that while heterosexual romance (or other activities) is often used as a plot device, it's almost never a case with gay romance. Personally I can live with that (I don't form "emotional attachemts" to imaginary friends, thankyouverymuch) but I can kinda see how this can be an issue for some people.

      Delete
    14. I would have thought trying to save the world would make me a little too busy to give a relationship the attention it deserved!

      If a relationship is important to a plot, I'm all for it, and it'd be nice if same-sex romances were appropriately represented. Then again, every social group other than hetero white male (with no disability of course) is massively under-represented.

      Delete
    15. @VK: True, I'd forgotten that bit from Ultima VI. So the option to play a gay character has existed in at least one big-name game at least since 1990.

      @Anonymous: Whether or not sexual orientation is "important" is entirely beside the point. I was just making the simple observation that many major games do explicitly make their protagonists heterosexual, while none (as far as I know) explicitly make their protagonists gay. I'm not trying to make a big social justice issue out of this; I'm not saying I'm horribly offended by it; I was just stating it as an apparent fact, in response to a (perhaps rhetorical) question by an anonymous poster above. Tristan Gall has a point that other minorities are also underrepresented, of course.

      Again, all I'm doing is making an empirical statement, and trying to answer a question by an anonymous poster above. I'm not saying I personally have a major issue with the lack of gay protagonists, or trying to put it forth as evidence that the video game industry is homophobic, or anything of the sort. Just wanted to make that clear.

      Delete
    16. Umm isn't it just because most people aren't gay and thus aren't expected to be interested in such realtionships in a game? You know... marketability? Do we really need to act like it's some kind of oppression that largely heterosexual developers make games to the majority of players? If a market opens up (like with female gamers) then you'd have a point, but that isn't the case.

      Indie development isn't something to scoff at though. In fact a lot of the current innovation in games (not counting purely graphical innovation...) is coming from indie developers. Most "triple A" titles are not pushing the envelope in any way. Again this is because they are selling to the most common purchaser. You know kinda like McDonalds with their cheap unhealthy food?

      Delete
    17. Oh, for crying out loud. I just explained I wasn't trying to call the dearth of gay protagonists out as "some kind of oppression". All I was trying to do was give an answer to Anon 12:22's question about whether there were games with gay heroes. That's it. I wasn't trying to make any sort of point beyond that.

      In fact, the lack of gay protagonists in major titles was really a side note to my original post in this thread, though that's the part everyone seems to be focusing on. The main thing I was saying in response to Anon 12:22's question was that yes, there are games with gay protagonists (though they're indie games rather than triple A titles). Here's one example.

      Delete
    18. @Elijah: Well, while I don't see the the fact, that there are no gay protagonists in AAA titles, as much of an issue, the notion that there shouldn't be any for some mythic marketing reasons surely is. Because - why for whatever's sake not??! Is it such a huge turn-off, if the hero goes slaughtering all those mobs to save a boyfriend instead of a girlfriend, that the sales would immediately go down the drain? And if so, isn't there something seriously wrong with the "market"?

      Delete
    19. No I don't think there's something wrong the market wanting what it wants. Personal taste and the freedom to choose what you want is what is supposed to drive the market. Not political correctness or catering to the few. If you want to make a game a certain way and sell it to specific people you can do that (and indie developers do). I don't think it should be necessary to force anyone (including big money hungry companies) to cater to specific audiences if they do not want to.

      I value freedom. Not just forcing your wants and desires on someone else and trying to change everyone around you to better suit your own personal desires.

      Not saying that's what you're doing VK, but that's what ideas like "isn't there something seriously wrong with the market" lead. It's like me asking if there is something seriously wrong with you if you don't let me come into your home and tell you where to place your furniture or any other topic where I'm telling you what to do with your own things.

      Too many jackboots in this world anymore.

      Delete
    20. I don't have an issue with what market wants (well, I do actually, but that's a very different and unrelated story), I have an issue with the belief that the market is so repulsed by gay protagonists that any major title featuring them is doomed to fail commercially. It's not that we have any strong evidence to support such a claim, you know.

      Delete
    21. I never said the market is "repulsed" i'm saying that the market is largely uninterested. Just like I'm uninterested in watching chick flicks. Does that make me a bad person or does it mean I have different values and/or wants? Games are for entertainment. People buy them to be entertained. It makes sense for them to want entertainment that they enjoy. Stop hating that they don't enjoy what you enjoy.

      Delete
    22. Elijah, first you were putting words in my mouth, now you're putting words in VK's. If you want to discuss something here, please do so without inventing straw men. VK isn't "hating that they don't enjoy what [he] enjoy[s]", and nothing he's written implied that he was.

      Delete
    23. So this has raised an interesting issue. I happen to be sitting with a gay (female) friend, and we were talking earlier about movies that we like, and she indicated that she likes sappy romantic comedies.

      "GAY romantic comedies?" I asked for clarification, and she shot me a look that suggested, "Of course not, jackass. Just any romantic comedies."

      In further conversation, the impression I get from her is that gay people, despite their orientation, can relate quite well to heterosexual protagonists in film and literature, while the same is not necessarily true in reverse. Some hetero individuals, however liberal minded, remain uncomfortable at, say, Brokeback Mountain, while gay individuals can go see something like Sleepless in Seattle and still have a great time. Hence, it makes sense that the "default" character would always be heterosexual: heterosexual people identify best with it, and gay people are still cool with it.

      But my sample size is only one, so I'm not saying it's a great hypothesis. VK, how well does this work with your experiences and preferences? In a perfect world, you might PREFER that a video game character was explicitly gay, but are you still able to identify and have a good time if he's not?

      Delete
    24. @Jalen: My original reply (that was lost) actually addressed you. I didn't put words in your mouth. I replied to this general conversation and spoke in generalities. I didn't address anything you specifically said or call you out. I know that this can appear confusing, but I was just interjecting my thoughts based on the topic. Same thing with my reply to VK. I was addressing ideas and arguments that are prevalent now days.

      My tone may have appeared far harsher than I intended. I wasn't meaning to attack you or anyone else. I also wasn't meaning to put words in your mouth. I'm merely expressing a viewpoint that I thought was being left out (albeit clumsily).

      Two things I want to express on the subject.
      1: I feel empathy for a homosexual who wants a product they can relate to.
      2: I do not feel anything is wrong with them getting that product.

      However I do not like the current trend of forcing people to make their intellectual or artistic works fit what a group wants against the wishes of the creator. That's the attitude that is quite common around the internet concerning such topics as homosexuality and feminism in gaming. Where if it isn't supported full force like some sort of volunteer PSA then it's part of the problem.

      I'm not attacking any ideas. I'm a personal freedom guy and that's the kind of understanding I'm trying to spread. That if I create something for the enjoyment of myself or a group of similar people or for the sake of money or because I got drunk one night and thought it was cool that's my right. As long as I'm not hurting anyone that is.

      Delete
    25. I don't think anyone is advocating forcing anything.

      Media works in both directions. It responds to our wants while at the same time informing our wants.

      I prefer it when people in the industry remember that the latter is a big deal, and challenge the conventions.

      Delete
    26. @CRPG Addict: To be honest, I don't really care that much. I don't have to relate to a character to enjoy a piece of fiction, I value other things, like plot and style, much more. So I can't say I have a particular preference, I'm equally fine with playing heterosexuals, gays, women, robots, cats, eldritch horrors or whatever. However, I'm not exactly comfortable with having no choice in the matter. So in my perfect world these all are an option and a non-issue (I really liked Bethesda's "So what?" attitude in the matter of same-sex marriage in Skyrim - didn't damage their sales that much, by the way, did it?). That's why Elijah's "You've got your ghetto, what else do you want?" comment really pissed me off.

      Delete
    27. Reminds me of the time when I was happily clicking away conversations with a certain elven companion in Dragon Age who made my character turned gay while I wasn't paying attention.

      That sneaky pointy-eared bastard.

      Delete
    28. The infamous "gay propaganda" in action )))

      Delete
    29. Oh, that reminds me: a funny thing, but both my first character in Skyrim and my only character in Dragon Age were hetero females ;)

      Delete
    30. @VK I don't see Elijah's "You've got your ghetto, what else do you want?" comment. Am I missing something?

      As for AAA titles they are all corporate run, which means they will take absolutely no risks unless there is a clear cut gain to be made. So yes I agree with being upset about them being chickenshit but its a fact of their nature to avoid changing the money printing formula they have. So it is up to indie developers to prove them wrong, as soon as someone makes a successful game using an element they were afraid to try they will jump on the bandwagon. This includes everything from Gay protagonists to well written stories to bringing back platformers, as soon as they see money in it you bet it will exist in 20 copies.

      I read Elijah's point as them having a right to play it safe if they do not want to take risks, and their may not be an inherent moral wrongness to that as it is the default human frame of decision making.

      Anyway I don't have a problem with nudity or sexuality any sort in games and when I played this in jr high it didn't even phase me compared to the movies, even of that time, rather tame.

      I do however have a problem with the way any discussion about these subjects devolves into name calling and emotional reactions when you disagree with someones point of view.

      Delete
    31. It's not a quote, it's a paraphrase of his first comment. Imagine someone in the 60s defending a "whites only" restaurant because it would be commersially unviable otherwise - like, you know, the customers "aren't interested" in having black people among them, so the owners are playing it safe. That's the same kind of reasoning we have here.

      Delete
    32. VK you're a very disingenuous person, aren't you? Considering you both put words in my mouth and compared me to a racist when I never said you shouldn't have what you wanted. I said why it shouldn't be forced. I said why the owner may not want it. You're entirely too emotional in your reading of my statements.

      I explained facts to you. It is a fact that there are more heterosexuals by far. It is a fact that people tend to enjoy what they can relate to more. So it is understandable that an ENTERTAINMENT piece (such as a game) is marketed to appeal to the majority. It has absolutely nothing in common with a restaurant preventing non-whites from eating in it. You are not prevented from playing a game that doesn't have a gay protagonist.

      A better analogy for you would have been that it's like if a resteraunt wanted to only serve a particular style of food because it happens to be more popular. Like hamburgers or pizza. Wait that sounds suspiciously like something that happens in real life. What a coincidence, huh?

      Delete
    33. If you can't see the bigotry in whar you're saying, that's not a problem of me being disingenuous. I just happen to live in a country that recently adopted a law against "gay propaganda", so I can kinda see where the "majority doesn't want that" line of thinking leads.

      Delete
    34. There's one positive thing about this discussion: now I understand feminists (and other rights activists) much better ))

      Delete
    35. I'll rephrase it less offensively: basically what you're saying is that as a member of majority (hetero males), you're entitled to a priviledge (being able to relate to an AAA game protagonist) that the inferior people like gays (or women) don't deserve (because they're too few to finance such a priviledge for themselves). You still don't get why I have a problem with that?

      Delete
    36. @VK: You seem to be implying that AAA game developers/publishers should be compelled to release a certain number of games starring a protagonist that is marketed at "inferior people" (your words) in order to meet some standard of social justice...

      ...You do, however, realize that AAA game publishers are generally much more concerned with maximizing profits than with pushing a particular social agenda (whether that be an open- or close-minded one), don't you? I believe that Elijah is completely correct in pointing out that the consumers and not the content creators are driving the various entertainment markets.

      If some company decides to tap a market for games with protagonists that appeal to various niche markets, however, then more power to them. There is probably some money to be made there, but I wouldn't be surprised if there's not enough to justify AAA budgets at this time.

      Delete
    37. Well, it's not that Dragon Age or Skyrim were commercial failures, is it? So where's this "consumers don't want that" belief comes from exactly?

      To clarify for the last time: I'm fine with the way things are. I'm not fine with the people saying that it's the only way things should be.

      Delete
    38. Elijah, considering the post in question was directly addressed to VK, I have a hard time seeing how it wasn't meant to attack anyone and how you were just interjecting your thoughts. I really don't think VK is the one being disingenuous here. But even if you honestly weren't addressing me or VK directly and really were just trying to "express a viewpoint that [you] thought was being left out", I'm not sure that's much better; why would you think it a constructive contribution to the discussion to come in angrily attacking an imaginary argument that no one here was making? If you don't mean to attack people, you need to learn to express yourself better, because pretty much everything you've written in this thread has come across as an attack.

      However I do not like the current trend of forcing people to make their intellectual or artistic works fit what a group wants against the wishes of the creator. That's the attitude that is quite common around the internet concerning such topics as homosexuality and feminism in gaming.

      Oh, for cripe's sake. No, there is no such common attitude, either here or anywhere else. You're attacking an imaginary enemy. At least, there's no such attitude depending on how you define "forcing". Nobody here, and I'm pretty sure no one anywhere else, has ever said that companies should be required by law to cater to minorities. Yes, people have said that it would be nice if companies did include more minorities in their products, and maybe some (not here, but perhaps elsewhere) have even suggested applying social pressure to try to convince them to do so. But if you think that constitutes "forcing" the companies to do anything... then you're not advocating "personal freedom"; you're advocating your own personal freedom at the expense of other people's; and you can take your hostility and your condescension elsewhere.

      Delete
    39. Yowza! Gender, race and sexuality issues on gaming ALWAYS ends up heaty and lengthy.

      While political and religious discussions ALWAYS become flame wars with short snide insults. XD

      Anyway, I think Bioware did their shit in the right direction (though not implemented in its best capacity), meaning, giving almost everyone what they want.

      If we're using restaurants as an analogy, I'd probably categorize Ass Effect and Shaggin' Age as an International Buffet. You want Hot Dogs? We got 'em. You want Pizzas? We have 'em too. You want my sweet podunk arse Yours too!

      Delete
    40. @Jalen: Where do you get this "anger" from? Your imagination is my only guess since I wasn't the least bit angry. I interjected what I believe to be vital information in a discussion. I didn't address either of you. I'm more than capable of addressing you if I mean to.

      What I believe is you didn't like what I had to say and you then have tried to paint me as confrontational and out of line. This is a common tactic, but unnecessary if you have any genuine desire to discuss things instead of just echo your own thoughts. Discussion isn't always supportive and in order for me to be as bad as you imply I would have had to insult someone even if such an insult were camouflaged.

      "Oh, for cripe's sake. No, there is no such common attitude, either here or anywhere else. You're attacking an imaginary enemy. At least, there's no such attitude depending on how you define "forcing". Nobody here, and I'm pretty sure no one anywhere else, has ever said that companies should be required by law to cater to minorities.

      I didn't say they were wanting a law. More imagination at work on your part. You work very hard to make what I say look ridiculous. It's almost as if you do not wish to understand what I say and instead want to construct a twisted version that works in your favor.

      " Yes, people have said that it would be nice if companies did include more minorities in their products, and maybe some (not here, but perhaps elsewhere) have even suggested applying social pressure to try to convince them to do so. But if you think that constitutes "forcing" the companies to do anything... then you're not advocating "personal freedom"; you're advocating your own personal freedom at the expense of other people's; and you can take your hostility and your condescension elsewhere."

      What freedom have I advocated limiting? None. I've advocated for freedom. As in the freedom to decide what kind of game you want to make. You're free to try to push your agenda (if you have one) on people. You're free to try and promote change. I never said you weren't or shouldn't be. There's only one person trying to silence a view point in this discussion.

      Don't bother replying again if it's more of the same. I won't respond to this childishness anymore.

      @VK: What biggotry? It's so obvious right? So point it out. The only thing I promoted was the right for people to make what they want and buy what they want. I didn't advocate for you not to get what you want. I didn't say you not having it was good. I didn't say people not wanting it was right. I said the facts and I expressed why I support what makes those facts possible. I don't care what the subject is about. You could reverse it and I'd take the same stance. You'd realize why if you had any principles. I'm sorry to say, but I can't see you as someone with principles of any kind. You've been very dishonest in this discussion and I think it's because you are a little too emotionally invested in the outcome. As in you define yourself based on how people fall on this topic and absolutely refuse to see any viewpoint but your own. You and Jalen have that in common.

      Delete
    41. So, you "don't think there's something wrong the market wanting what it wants", but you "didn't say people not wanting it was right". That shows some very strong principles, allright.

      Delete
    42. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    43. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    44. I just thought that it'd be pretty easy to test the "market hypothese" out. All it would take is for some company to release a game in two versions, that'd be identical in everything except for the protagonist's sexuality, and price the "gay" version marginally (by like 5% or even less) cheaper. And then compare the sales. Should give a pretty clear picture of how homophobic gaming market really is.

      Delete
    45. @Elijah: I'd written a much longer reply (long enough I had to split it into two, actually), but I deleted it (them); this whole discussion is already way off-topic, and I feel a little bad about contributing to it at all. I'm still far from convinced, based on the wording of your first few messages, that you really weren't addressing me or VK directly, but I won't argue that point further; it's not really important. Two things, though, I definitely do want to address:

      I didn't say they were wanting a law. More imagination at work on your part.

      I didn't say you did say they were wanting a law. You had said there was a common attitude that people supported "forcing people to make their intellectual or artistic works fit what a group wants against the wishes of the creator". I was trying to pin down what you meant by "forcing". More on this below.

      What I believe is you didn't like what I had to say and you then have tried to paint me as confrontational and out of line.

      No, it was precisely your confrontational manner that I was objecting to, and your putting words into my and VK's mouths. As a matter of fact, for whatever it's worth, I basically agree with everything you said in your first post in the thread. The only thing I objected to was the implication that I'd said the contrary, that I had said the lack of gay protagonists in triple-A titles was a form of oppression. I had said no such thing, and didn't appreciate the implication that I had. In fact, in all your posts, aside from that bit about people trying to force the companies into doing something, there's nothing in what you're saying that I object to at all. Of course the triple-A companies are going to be driven by market concerns. Of course they're free to make the products they want to make. It wasn't what you were saying that I objected to; it was your attacks on me and VK. You've been hostile and patronizing since your first post in this thread, and more so with each successive post.

      Now, once you started bringing up the claim that people were "forcing" game companies to include what they wanted them to, yes, that I definitely object to, but that's the only thing you've said that I object to (aside from the personal insults). And the reason I object to it is this: The only way a company could literally be forced to do such a thing is by law. (Well, that or by people actually holding the company's heads at gunpoint, or something like that, but that of course is even more ridiculous.) If you agree that no one is actually trying to force companies legally to do what they want, then it seems you're equating people just expressing their opinions and trying to promote change in other ways to "forcing", and saying that people shouldn't do that. And if you're saying people shouldn't express their opinions and promote change, then yes, that does strike me as trying to limit their freedom. If that's not what you're saying, then what do you mean by "forcing people to make their intellectual or artistic works fit what a group wants"? How exactly is anyone trying to "force" anything?

      Delete
    46. I was neither confrontational or putting words in anyone's mouth. You and VK are the ones who have engaged in those two accusations. As to the rest it's just more of the same and not worth my time to address. This whole argument was silly from the start, but I guess some people can't help themselves.

      Delete
    47. You certainly seemed to be putting words in my and VK's mouths in your replies to us. If those replies, despite their wordings, really weren't directed at us, but were just general replies, then that may have been a misinterpretation on my part. However, I don't see how you can say you haven't been confrontational the way you've been hurling out insults. In the previous post alone, you accused VK of being dishonest and having no principles, and me of childishness. If that's not confrontational, I don't know what is.

      That being said, it's true that you weren't as insulting in the beginning of the thread, and the fault for the escalation may lie on both sides. I did interpret the tone of your posts as highly condescending, but you may not have intended them that way. I'd like to let bygones be bygones.

      I am still wondering, though—and I'm not asking this to prolong the argument; I genuinely want to know—what you meant by "forcing people to make their intellectual or artistic works fit what a group wants against the wishes of the creator". Tone issues aside, that was the only thing in your posts that really bothered me.

      Delete
    48. I consider putting social pressure on the issue as forcing. With enough social pressure that is what happens. I'm not talking good social pressure either like trying to encourage developers to make games you want. I'm talking bad social pressure that seeks to fundamentally change the way games are made.

      I wasn't meaning to imply anyone in particular is forcing either. I never was addressing anyone in particular. If I was I would do so by name, Jalen. That's kind of how making an accusation against someone works.

      There are many people who (like VK did LATER in the conversation) act like it is their way or the high way with someone else's creative work. That's not how it works or should work. You should vote with your money and not purchase products you dislike. You shouldn't be able to exert pressure to force them to change. That's thought control and our society is rife with it. Concerning video games in particular the argument of "sexism" with the like of Anita Sarkeesian (who is a very dishonest person for one thing) has been a recent thing that's been getting hammered. The conversation here while about homosexual characters followed the same vein. As in something isn't the way we want it in a creative work and so we must cry loudly until it changes.

      VK made an analogy hearkening back to the days when non-whites weren't allowed in certain establishments. That's not the same at all. Not being able to buy or visit a place due to your skin color is oppression. It is preventing you from obtaining something you need or want as it currently is. A game not having the elements you want is a CREATIVE difference and you already do not want the game and the only thing preventing you from getting it would be your own choice. The analogy would have been valid if you were barred from buying it because of being homosexual.

      This is a difference of principles which I wanted to express in the conversation. Wanting something to change is fine. Wanting to encourage getting entertainment you like is fine. Trying to force others to change their own creative works to suit you is not. That is oppression.

      I was not in disagreement with most of what was said in this conversation prior to my statements. That's why didn't address those things at the time. I'm sorry I wasn't clearer in my initial post or otherwise.

      Delete
    49. This discussion reminds me of what was going on in the Wasteland 2 Forum. There was a lot of fighting over there about gay rights and issues for a GAME (which wasn't even made yet!).

      Glad to say that the discussion here is a lot more civil and mature than the cesspit of bigotry (from both straight AND gay) that thread had become.

      http://wasteland.inxile-entertainment.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=974&hilit=gay

      Delete
    50. I agree this is not the place for you to be putting things in each others mouths. Feel free to do so in the mouth putting forum.

      @VK why would it be homophobia in your argument below

      "I just thought that it'd be pretty easy to test the "market hypothese" out. All it would take is for some company to release a game in two versions, that'd be identical in everything except for the protagonist's sexuality, and price the "gay" version marginally (by like 5% or even less) cheaper. And then compare the sales. Should give a pretty clear picture of how homophobic gaming market really is."

      Glad to see things diffused a bit, lets keep the discussion on the intellectual level instead of the emotional one, shall we?

      Delete
    51. @UbAh: Well, that might have been too strong a word, but if someone is ready to pay more to avoid playing a character of different sexuality, that's certainly a red flag. Personally, were I thrown into a similar dilemma, I'd pick whatever version costs less without a trace of a doubt.

      Delete
    52. You don't think people would prefer to play as someone they identify with? I thought that was a major part of why people want the option to play gay or other identifying characteristic was so that they can identify with the protagonist. I don't think someone should be condemned as "homophobic" or have the cloud of suspicion of a "red flag" just because they want to play a protagonist that fits who they are.

      The word identify bothers me when we use it in discussion because of course its possible to identify with someone who has a different sexuality. So to clarify in what I mean is that it should be ok for someone to want to say to themselves "that's me" on the screen. I guess avatar is a better word than identify but using it comes off clumsily in the discussion.

      Delete
    53. "I thought that was a major part of why people want the option to play gay or other identifying characteristic was so that they can identify with the protagonist." - Not necessarily, I think it has more to do with the cultural and social exclusion, with the society largely either pretending minorities don't exist or thinking about them as some mythical alien beings. That's why I find the idea that gay characters should be confined to "gay market" quite offensive.

      Delete
    54. Fair enough.

      I do think it is counter productive to civility and understanding if you jump to the conclusions I pointed out above. Which is the context in which I brought them up.

      Delete
    55. To be honest, before this discussion started I would agree with you wholeheartedly. But, as I've written above, through it I've come to better understanding of the "rights activist" mentality. Basically, when you're essentially challenging your opponents' priviledges, asking nicely just doesn't do it. It's rather humiliating and gives the opponents no incentive to question their views. Speaking from the "I am the norm, it's you who is the deviation" position at least may give them the taste of their own medicine and maybe, possibly plant some doubt.

      Delete
  14. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Dear Chet,

    First, congratulations on winning in such a record time. So it seems to me.

    1) The ending is quite a mashup of ideas that do not go anywhere. They do affect where you start in 7, if you use the same characters and don't just roll up new ones.

    2) I agree with you about the nudity issue. It is like school on Saturday, no class!

    3) Grinding versus reloading/Save scumming. This to me sums up Wizardry in a nutshell, at least in its later configurations. I suppose which route you take depends on a number of factors. I am not judging. It is just that I could never find the right balance with the Wizardry series. It was either too time comsuming or did not seem to have a point. At any rate, good work!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, where's that "100s of hours of gameplay!!!"?

      Delete
  16. When I said one of the endings was "best" I did not mean in terms of storytelling :)
    You do get one of the best starts in Wiz 7 and an extra item.

    But yes, to me, overall, not trusting the Queen but trusting Rebecca made more senses, so I'd call it "best" on that department as well. :)

    ReplyDelete
  17. "Anyone know how to fly this thing?"
    My first thought on seeing that spaceship was a picture of a transformer.

    Congratulations on beating another game. It sounded like a hard one.

    All this talk of nudity and not a mention of the Speedo toting super being and his cosmic forge?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We're going to have a lark when we get to the next episode: Crusaders of the Idiot Savant.

      http://thumbs2.ebaystatic.com/d/l225/m/m62SJUTsiEc0ywI7gqIH6Iw.jpg

      Delete
  18. I do not see the big deal with the bare-breasted nudity. I remember seeing similar depictions of nudity in the Monster Manual for AD&D. Look at this example on Wikipedia:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilith

    It's not like the earlier Japanese RPG you reviewed where the whole premise of the game was degrading half of the human race.

    Really enjoy reading your blog and reliving the games I grew up on as a kid and teen.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The problem is that pretty much everything female in the game is bare-breasted and well endowed. So not only it's teenage-boy fantasy land, but it also makes no sense: you don't run, you don't fight with these in the way, it *hurts*. And you really, *really* don't want a bow string for instance slapping one of these.

      So since it makes no in-game sense it's just insulting the player if he's not halfway retarded due to hormonal imbalance.

      Delete
    2. Saying "halfway retarded due to hormonal imbalance" to refer to teenage boys is fine then?

      Delete
    3. @Olivier Galibert - Bow string? Amazulu don't use no bows, foo! Only spears and shields. Why do you need armor when you can block and dodge? Are you planning to get stabbed?

      I'll have you know that the Conquistadors stand no chance against any topless Native American tribals without firearms any day. Why would you want to wear a bunch of clothing that could easily get caught in branches and brambles?

      Delete
  19. I don't get the issue with the pixilated nudity, It's no worse then a cover from "heavy metal" magazine. And in this era, when internet porn is only 1-2 clicks away. I just don't see what the big deal is.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Congrats on knocking over another large game. I'll be very interested to see the gimlet on this one, it sounds as if you liked this game but didn't love it.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Personally I don't like romance/relationships in my entertainment, not in my games, and not action movies. It's irrelevant if it's a straight or gay. That stuff detracts from what could be an otherwise enjoyable experience. In Mass Effect I went through them, just to see the full extent of the plot, but (IMO) I don't think it added much. I would have prefered if they spent that time doing something else cool. Romance and relationships are one of the few things I prefer to do IRL.

    On another note, I was somewhat surprised to see "mature" themes in Wiz 6, not the 16 colour boobies, but it was the hint at pedophilia. I can't remember the exact description, But something about the King sneaking into the 14 year old girl's bedchamber every night.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He was singing her a lullaby and tucking her in bed, obviously.

      Delete
  22. To me the "honest" nudity in Wiz 6 feels less "speculative" and more natural than the formulaic chain mail bikinis in most western CRPGs or the even more formulaic anime borderline kiddy porn, or the stupid sexposition in Game of Thrones.

    ReplyDelete
  23. My bet is that the dragon was named after Bela Lugosi (...famous for portraying Count Dracula in the original 1931 film...).

    ReplyDelete

I welcome all comments about the material in this blog, and I generally do not censor them. However, please follow these rules:

1. Do not link to any commercial entities, including Kickstarter campaigns, unless they're directly relevant to the material in the associated blog posting. (For instance, that GOG is selling the particular game I'm playing is relevant; that Steam is having a sale this week on other games is not.) THIS ALSO INCLUDES USER NAMES THAT LINK TO ADVERTISING.

2. Please avoid profanity and vulgar language. I don't want my blog flagged by too many filters.

3. Please don't comment anonymously. It makes it impossible to tell who's who in a thread. Choose the "Name/URL" option, pick a name for yourself, and just leave the URL blank.

Also, Blogger has a way of "eating" comments, so I highly recommend that you copy your words to the clipboard before submitting, just in case.

NOTE: Spam has gotten so bad lately that I've had to turn on comment moderation for posts older than 10 days. I apologize if it takes a little while for your comment to appear.