NinjaPirate

Having spoken with one of the Cryptic Devs, it is in fact an evolution of the same engine.

There's obviously been some changes, updates, alterations, but we specifically discussed the Camera Tool for filming in-game movies, and he mentioned the code for it was actually still in the Star Trek game engine left over from when it was the CoH engine, just not turned "on", and that he'd been updating it, adding features.

Public part of the conversation: http://forums.startrekonline.com/sho...40#post2343940

We had a few PMs about it as well, but those were mostly technical conversations on how to patch in the upgraded camera tool so I could test it out.


-np

It's not JUST CO and STO.

They're using an evolved version of the same engine they used for CoH.



-np

This is what's called "being a killjoy".

People sometimes do it because it gives them a sense of smug intellectual superiority.

People who do it often generally don't realize they're doing it, nor why others get annoyed, irritated, or upset about it.

I tend to attribute it to a deficiency of tact and empathy.



-np

I suspect that, if folks think about it, they aren't necessarily liking one film over the other, its that they like Gene Wilder better than Johnny Depp.

I personally like the subtle air of malevolence Wilder put into his performance, even if it wasn't true to the book. He's just fun to watch.



-np

Apparently the tattoo is hers, not just put on for the show.

I vaguely remember her from her Hong Kong Jackie Chan movie days.



-np

If you don't have enough background info to understand what the hell is going on, how can you have any sort of substantial critical discussion of the movie?

If it was just a bare handful of folks complaining about the lack of set-up, I could understand not dwelling on how much of it there was. But I'm seeing a rather significant number of folks and reviews complaining about this exact thing. Which means, overall, they missed their mark on how well they explained what was going on to the general audience.

The movie almost assumes you know the story before you go to see it. And that's not a good thing to assume.


-np

So, like, content?

<peers at the gentleman's 'other' games>



-np

What you say is completely, utterly true.

It also happens to be completely, utterly irrelevant.

We're not talking in some abstract philosophical terms. We're talking about what you as a writer need to do to engage your audience. You need to get your audience to connect with your story. They need to know "why?", and in story terms, not in abstract writing terms.

Of course everything in a story happens because the writer wanted it that way. Duh.

You might as well proclaim the sky is blue or that water is wet.

What matters is that if you present some odd thing in a story that is outside the audience's normal worldview, you HAVE to put in SOME in-story explanation of why that odd thing is happening in order for the majority of the audience to connect with the idea.

You know that little scene where Scott has a moment with a visually depicted mental switch, that goes from "clueless" to "gets it"? The audience needs that moment too.

Some stories, the setting itself is the explanation. Fantasy and science fiction settings have built-in reasons why odd stuff happens. Audiences already are primed to expect these kind of things in fantastical settings. "A wizard did it" is cliche but folks generally suspend disbelief as long as it fits the setting.

If you're putting your story in a more 'mundane' setting, you generally need to insert other clues as to what's going on.

The only time you can really get away with not doing so is if the audience is SUPPOSED to be confused and unsure of what's actually going on. Archetypal of this is the aforementioned movie Groundhog Day. Part of the main thrust of that movie is that the audience is supposed to be as baffled and confused as the main character.

Confusion is not the main thrust of Scott Pilgrim. The audience is supposed to "get it" fairly early on but they don't really get a whole lot of explanation to help them to get to that state.

Thus, the commentary on "why?".



-np

Well, to be fair, Kirk HAD been putting on a little weight.



-np

I don't necessarily disagree with you. But as I said, I've seen numerous folks on both sides of the arguement.

Most of the time, if you see extended arguements over any given rule, it means the rule is unclear, not that the folks arguing are being unreasonable.

True, but an official clarification would be nice. The 'official FAQ' is in dire need of updating and has been for a LONG time. There's a definite feel of being neglected and ignored.

Also, some games, like the official Shadowrun Missions campaign, cannot use house rules.


-np

Both interpretations are grammatically correct.

However, under the second interpretation, if you score even one hit on the test, you CANNOT use Edge to re-roll ANYTHING. You're stuck with just adding Edge dice to the roll, which can suck if your Edge score is low.

I've seen enough people on both sides of the arguement to conclude the rule is simply worded badly.


-np

It's expensive if you spend more time base editing than actually playing the game.

:P

-np

I miss Quesada when he was just an artist.



-np