-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
glimmerman
Member
EL is one of the worst written NPCs of all time. JK.
DonkeyPunchJr
World’s Biggest Weeb
Come on guys it’s totally realistic.
You meet a girl you think is hot, initially she has no attraction to you. But if you listen to everything she says, make yourself available to her any time she wants, be super careful to only say stuff she agrees with, act like her personal therapist and let her dump all her emotional baggage on you… EVENTUALLY she will realize she has feelings for you and wants to bone you.
That’s how attraction works in real life, right?
You meet a girl you think is hot, initially she has no attraction to you. But if you listen to everything she says, make yourself available to her any time she wants, be super careful to only say stuff she agrees with, act like her personal therapist and let her dump all her emotional baggage on you… EVENTUALLY she will realize she has feelings for you and wants to bone you.
That’s how attraction works in real life, right?
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
I think you just described simp/friend zoned.
Isn't that exactly whatFunkMiller is saying though...."old school Star Trek prioritised the story telling and character, and allowed the political messaging to come organically from it.".
I don't think so. What (I believe) they were saying is the commentary (or "political messaging") came out as unintended consequence of excellent writing; and that that while it may or may not have been informed by a writers current experience or beliefs, it is most certainly not the point or the avenue to deliver those beliefs. And I'm saying that is absolutely absurd, especially when it comes to science fiction.
GR absolutely had an agenda when he - as a WW2 vet and almost surely a progressive, whatever that meant in his time - put a Japanese and Black American in leading roles on his "futuristic space show." To try and rewrite history like STAR TREK is the "good" kind of sci-fi because its agenda is so far removed from what we would consider controversial is just. . .well it is something.
ShaiKhulud1989
Gold Member
It's not 'woke'. It's not woke USA game but perfectly crafted game made by a subsidary of the biggest USA bigh-tech corporation.
It's perfectly safe and bland. So safe and bland that nobody gonna be offended (even the pronounce mentioned exactly one time during the character creator). Starfield is sterile, devoid of any true emotions or conflits.
There's no religion here, no true ethnicities (and few gems like Irish accents are so overdone you can't take the seriously), no shady morals, no sex, so nudity, no true and destructive drug abuse, no serious crime, no social commentary whatsoever. Or any commentary for that matter, woke or not. Game is full of comical profanity, lacks mutiliation. There's no spice here, nothing. Totally nothing. It could be a T-rated game just with a few tweaks.
DonkeyPunchJr
World’s Biggest Weeb
It feels like a typical Bethesda open-world RPG but with added ship building/ship combat, and with “stumbling upon random excursions while traversing the map” replaced with “stumbling upon random space stations/outposts + encounters with pirates/mercenaries when planet hopping”.
If that sounds appealing to you then I think you’ll still find a lot to enjoy. I agree with most of the criticisms of the writing + lack of anything that feels dangerous or controversial, but I still had a lot of fun with the game. Just set your expectations right.
BlackTron
Member
The bad story and design by 1000 annoyances kill my impression of it. Sounds like a lot of extra menus and loading just to get a game we already had? But with spaceships. I will probably still check it out but I doubt I'll finish it
JohnnyFootball
GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
It is a good game and does have a lot going for it, but it's a very safe game that is a step back in many ways. The biggest crime for me is that we are denied arguably the best quality of previous Bethesda games: exploration. Landing on barren randomly generated planets just doesn't have the same feel and fun as walking along maps of Commonwealth, Capital and Mojave wasteland and finding unique interactions. There are FAR too many loading screens and the companions do, indeed suck.
It does have some excellent faction quests.
Last Hearth
Member
The difference is sci-fi was extremely niche back in the day. So creatives had to make their product good in order to get any returns on those creative efforts.
ST of course had those progressive roots, but it had to tell compelling stories as well.
Drawing an analogy, if you wanted to open a vegan restaurant today. Your food better taste freaking fantastic if your restaurant want to have any chance of surviving.
Imagine a future where vegan is mainstream, all you’re going get is the MCDonalds crappy vegan burger
Topher
Gold Member
I'll say that if that is what is being said (which I don't) then I would agree with you. However, I think what is being said is that the best storytelling isn't in your face with political messaging. It is subtle. Clearly the character choices made by GR were not accidents, but they were also not the crux of the story.
But I'll let
FunkMiller
respond to your other assertions.
Fredrik
Member
Biggest problem with Star Wars 7-9 was that they were exactly the same as 4-6 with other characters. Luke is Yoda. Rey is Luke. Snoke is the emperor. Kylo/Ben is Vader/Anakin. In isolation they were entertaining enough with some cool action but I felt like I had already seen them 30 years ago and there were no surprises of any kind.
Regarding the no fun allowed designs. I think it’s way bigger than the sci-fi genre. I don’t expect to be pleasantly surprised in any new AAA game from any big western studio. CDPR and Larian are having some fun but they’re eastern europe. What big US dev are pushing it in any way today?
ResurrectedContrarian
Suffers with mild autism
But it's worse than repetition... in the original films, the characters had passion and spark. The scenes between Leia and Solo were fantastic, and because of precisely the kinds of realistic male/female interaction you can't put on screen anymore. In contrast, every character in the new films is just horrifyingly lifeless, like I'm at a HR training.
FunkMiller
Gold Member
Congratulations on responding to an argument nobody was having with you.
Of course Star Trek was all of those things - and many more. But it was also a show that knew how to package its politically messaging effectively. Unlike modern Trek.
The point is that the old shows knew how to place its messaging in the story, without compromising that story.
This is clearly not the case now.
Last edited:
Ammogeddon
Member
You should, it’s the shrodinger’s cat of video games. It’s simultaneously good and bad.
Last Hearth
Member
Well, yes, it has parts of the game that is really good, and parts of the game that it's very mediocre. So it really depend what aspects of a game most appeal to you. If story and characters and companions are most important to you, you aren't going be satisfied, but if the exploration, discovering locations, side quests, always finding something around the next corner is your thing, you'll like it.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Banjo64
cumsessed
Yeah if anyone can provide a response to this I’ll be shocked.
Industry is basically reliant on Europe and Japan for interesting games.
XXL
Member
That is typically how a forum works.
. . .let's be real, you're coming to this conclusion because it is messaging you disagree with and not because of some subjective measure of quality of "the good ol' days" versus "now" right? Unless of course you can give an example of a "bad" Modern Trek story (I'm assuming this is in general a complaint about DISCOVERY) that is bad solely because of creatives injecting clearly sacrificing narrative competency over agenda driving.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
FTFY
Darkmakaimura
Member
I read in a couple places that the "Entangled" mission is some of BGS best writing in a game generally full of bad writing.
Darkmakaimura
Member
Another example of Western developers creating ugly characters especially when it comes to women.
Are these developers really that worried about attractive women? It's insane.
Humdinger
Member
Well, I found this part realistic:
I mean, if you choose to romance a middle-aged space Karen, that's probably what you're going to end up with.
Last edited:
Darkmakaimura
Member
I just learned the other day that your parents are voiced by Nina Visitor and Tim Russ.
BbMajor7th
Member
Bad writers use writing to explain themselves to the world - their needs, hang ups and opinions; good writers use writing to explain the world to themselves - to explore complex ideas through fictional scenarios, human experience though indestructible avatars, or impossible concepts in a world without limits.
Put another way, bad writers force their characters and stories along a narrow, predetermined route designed to prove a point; good writers let the stories tell themselves, let the characters explore their own inclinations and follow the narrative towards its natural conclusion.
Good writers pose questions; bad writers think they already know the answers.
Last edited:
ResurrectedContrarian
Suffers with mild autism
Re: Star Trek...
TNG-era (and certainly not DS9-era) Star Trek was not progressive in the same way that the term is used today. Not at all, nor was Roddenberry himself.
It did believe strongly in human betterment, and that's the whole framing arc of the show, with Q posing the question whether humanity can be better, and Picard as the example. But Picard's striving for progress is decidedly old-fashioned in a number of aspects: he's an old Renaissance man (loves Shakespeare, as well as the traditional Western canon of authors and intellectuals, cites them often), he constantly educates his crew to use calm rationality over emotions, he often takes the pragmatic stance in unexpected ways (hell, he chooses to forcibly relocate indigenous people in Season 7 because it's better than the alternatives in the situation), he's a strong and fairly traditional paternal figure of discipline for his crew, he absolutely loathes informality, cursing, attitudes... all the things that are saturated in every crew interaction in today's "Trek" shows.
Furthermore, Trek had no interest in undermining the way humans actually are (male / female differences and passions). It was egalitarian in a procedural sense (no roles legally barred from anyone) but very much open to the differences in its two sexes being obvious in their styles of writing and interaction, while also allowing exceptions. It had little interest in trying to invert every expectation or norm in that area, as new shows do, where they write backwards from agendas like "oh this plot calls for a physically fight at the climax, let's make sure it's won by a female to avoid expected gender roles." Roddenberry really liked skirts, let's be honest, and even swaggering characters like Kirk, even though he played them off against cool intellectuals like Spock at the same time.
Some people want to say "oh it was progressive in its own time, therefore they'd agree with today's definition of progressive" but I'm sorry, history is not linear and progress at one moment has often nothing to do with how it will be fashioned in the next era, inversions and betrayals of former ideals are everywhere. Don't try to recruit the likes of Picard and Roddenberry to your cause.
TNG-era (and certainly not DS9-era) Star Trek was not progressive in the same way that the term is used today. Not at all, nor was Roddenberry himself.
It did believe strongly in human betterment, and that's the whole framing arc of the show, with Q posing the question whether humanity can be better, and Picard as the example. But Picard's striving for progress is decidedly old-fashioned in a number of aspects: he's an old Renaissance man (loves Shakespeare, as well as the traditional Western canon of authors and intellectuals, cites them often), he constantly educates his crew to use calm rationality over emotions, he often takes the pragmatic stance in unexpected ways (hell, he chooses to forcibly relocate indigenous people in Season 7 because it's better than the alternatives in the situation), he's a strong and fairly traditional paternal figure of discipline for his crew, he absolutely loathes informality, cursing, attitudes... all the things that are saturated in every crew interaction in today's "Trek" shows.
Furthermore, Trek had no interest in undermining the way humans actually are (male / female differences and passions). It was egalitarian in a procedural sense (no roles legally barred from anyone) but very much open to the differences in its two sexes being obvious in their styles of writing and interaction, while also allowing exceptions. It had little interest in trying to invert every expectation or norm in that area, as new shows do, where they write backwards from agendas like "oh this plot calls for a physically fight at the climax, let's make sure it's won by a female to avoid expected gender roles." Roddenberry really liked skirts, let's be honest, and even swaggering characters like Kirk, even though he played them off against cool intellectuals like Spock at the same time.
Some people want to say "oh it was progressive in its own time, therefore they'd agree with today's definition of progressive" but I'm sorry, history is not linear and progress at one moment has often nothing to do with how it will be fashioned in the next era, inversions and betrayals of former ideals are everywhere. Don't try to recruit the likes of Picard and Roddenberry to your cause.
StereoVsn
Member
Nick Valentine was pretty great companion in Fallout 4 and Far Harbor.
You wandered into the woods and got lost. By your standard every writer prior to 19th century novelists was a "bad writer" because they had a point to prove and they wrote a bunch of words to prove it.
Good writers have something insightful to say about reality and the charisma to express it in an engaging way. This applies to the Bible as much as it does to Plato or to Dante or to Tolkien.
Bad writers lack something of the above. Maybe they have nothing accurate or even interesting to say. Maybe they don't understand anything about life. Maybe they have the charisma of a kid in the high school marching band.
Starfield is truly unique in that whoever wrote it lacks any single attribute of a good writer. The world makes no sense because the writer understands nothing about our real world. The writer does not even have an interesting but wrong commentary on it. Everything is like a warmed-over joke, a dork quoting a TV show that was dumb in the first place, but with a tiny fraction of the charisma of the original actors.
semiconscious
Member
the thing is, to be 'progressive' today is to actually be regressive. currently, it's 'progressive' to promote stuff like sexual identity based on gender stereotypes, & racial identity over equality. this is fundamentally the complete reverse of what being 'progressive' once meant. &, appropriately enough, it's all packaged in the same kind of authoritarian, paranoid self-righteousness so popular back in the pre-progressive '40's & '50's...
Last edited:
Raven117
Member
Nah, it’s that they can’t get there by writing a character with any complexity, depth, or relatability… for fear of “losing their point” whatever that may be. Something about it just doesn’t ring true on a subconscious level.
I would recommend to anyone to watch The Bear (both seasons) on Hulu. That’s a freakin character show. Everyone is layered and complex. You love and hate everyone. They are very compelling.
TheInfamousKira
Reseterror Resettler
That's just like...his opinion or whatever, though.
violence
Member
This is where I shut the game off and played the Cyberpunk update. It's the real thing.I mean… wtf is this supposed to be?
Last edited:
balls of snow
Member
Yeah he was excellent by Bethesda standard.
Buggy Loop
Member
Reddit - Dive into anything
reddit.com
This hits hard. It’s so true. What’s annoying is also that they know the info when you start the conversation with them after you return. Like wtf, that means I came for nothing? Send an email or something “good job on planet XII, credit transfered”
Tal Shiar Agent
Member
What I read in this post is "it was easier to ignore the socialism and overall progressivism of OldTrek due to the writers of the time needing to be somewhat subtle about the message but now that the ideals inherent to the very core of Star Trek are becoming culturally mainstream and accepted I can no longer focus solely on the meritocratic militarism of Starfleet and pretend that the franchise isn't just about verbally or literally slapping the shit out of ugly aliens and slapping cheeks with the hot ones."
Unknown Soldier
Member
This randomly came up on my Youtube feed and it's amazing
Fredrik
Member
Lol yeah what’s the deal? And this isn’t just Starfield, showing off female beauty is apparently shameful today. And I don’t get it because it’s not like that outside in the real world. Not where I live at least, people are proud of their curves. I literally see minimum 80% women up to like age 40 walk around in seemingly painted on gym tights proudly showing off the booty and hip gains. Doesn’t matter if they plan to work out or not, it’s the new jeans.
And those who have bigger breasts certainly proudly show that off as well, always have always will.
And wider hips, thicker thighs without being fat, tight waist, Brazilian curvy fit. Very very popular.
And the classic hour glass figure is still as popular as ever, if you have it then you don’t hide it.
In Starfield it’s literally impossible to create any of that, the body morphing tool only allow thin, fat and muscular. Go for thin to tighten up the waist and you get a flat ass. Go for a fuller body and you get a fat stomach. Go for muscles and you get Abby and could just as well create a male character.
And on top of that they let men and women wear the same clothes.
What’s the deal?!?
YeulEmeralda
Member
Todd Howard just represents the boring side of American culture. The good side came up with Cyberpunk.
Varteras
Gold Member
Wait for it...
BbMajor7th
Member
Examples would help here. Dante was exploring the concept of unrequited and idealised love in a way very similar to Scott Fitzgerald in The Great Gatsby (early 20th century). There's been much debate about both over the years and many competing theories about what each was truly trying to imply. This is because both used their writing to pose questions, to table relevant examples and left readers to make up their own minds. Good writing does that, it leaves you with a sense of wondering, rather than a sense of having been told what you should think.
FunkMiller
Gold Member
Well, you misread it then.
To clarify: It's not about the message, it's about the delivery of the message.
Fiction should strive to include, elucidate upon, and challenge politically sensitive issues. It adds another layer to the narrative that makes it all the richer. It isn't a requirement, but if can be done well, it absolutely should be done. Popular culture is the perfect delivery mechanism for subject matters and opinions that can broaden people's minds - which makes the world a better place for all of us.
However, it is equally important to recognise when important social and political issues are being disseminated in fiction badly. Because when it is done badly, it helps absolutely no one. Beating an audience over the head with your agenda is a sure fire way to get them to reject whatever it is you're trying to convince them of. That is human nature. You only need look at some threads on this very site to see how bad political messaging (modern Disney being the worst offenders) can turn off the very people whose minds you are trying to change.
Modern writing needs to vastly improve for these messages to get across to the people who needs their minds changed. That goes for people on all wings of the political spectrum.
Last edited:
Toots
Gold Member
That's not how attraction works, but it is precisely how dating a self centered instagram model works
FunkMiller
Gold Member
They do understand it - they just can't bring themselves to include anything that might offend the audience's delicate sensibilities.
peish
Member
this is me when i meet a cockroach in my room. fucking scary even with my bug spray