#I don't think that formula is good for the games but it *does* provide some meditative calm for me when I get hyperfixated

[sadquickchristmassnowman]

Overall what do you think of mythic quest? It's on my list to watch. How would you intrigue someone to watch it

(just want to preemptively say that I know this ask has been sitting in my inbox for months and I am so sorry for taking so long to get back to you)

I absolutely love mythic quest. It's my #4 sitcom of all time, which might sound not very high, but numbers 1-3 are taken by the good place, community, and it's always sunny, and I mean. there's no beating those. anyway

I don't know how much you know about it, so I'll give a quick introduction. mythic quest is centered around a video game studio, which produces a video game of the same name. season one opens with them launching their new expansion: Mythic Quest: Raven's Banquet. the show follows around the different employees of the company as they each chaotically try to achieve their goals. there are a lot of sitcoms centered around a workplace (the office, parks & recreation, brooklyn nine-nine, superstore, just to name a few), so I suppose you could say mythic quest follows a similar sort of formula to those. but, I think it's super unique and has a lot of stand-out qualities, which I love. it's difficult to make something so unique, to do things on tv that have never been done before (or, at the very least, are rarely done) and I think mythic quest does a great job with all of that.

for one, the types of interpersonal relationships mythic quest portrays are extremely unique. it's hard to go into detail without spoiling too much, but I'll do my best. the show is definitely an ensemble sitcom (a whole gang of "main" characters), but I'd say the show focuses mainly on Poppy and Ian, and their relationship. but, they make it explicitly clear that they are NOT romantically or sexually involved. there's a few jokes here and there, but they react with disgust every time. their relationship is 100% platonic, throughout all three seasons that are out, and it is the FOCUS of the show. how many tv shows have done that? hell, how many stories, period? it's so incredibly important to me, especially as someone on the aroace spectrum, and it makes mythic quest that much more unique and interesting.

(disclaimer that of course there are some people who ship poppy and ian together, which is just kind of. objectively wrong imo. but yk. people can do whatever they want I suppose. the point is, that ship will never sail in canon.)

the ONE current romantic pairing is a lesbian couple!!! that is just SO wild to me. literally none of the other main characters have any sort of (canon) romantic subplot or anything. and the lesbians don't get put through a ton of heartbreak and unnecessary drama either!!! there's pining, there's slight miscommunication and the characters themselves go through some things, but the relationship itself??? pretty much thriving, even through the end of season three. again, SO incredibly important to me.

the character work, writing, and acting is also exemplary. given that mythic quest is already on your list to watch, you probably know some of the actors who are in it: namely, Rob McElhenney, Danny Pudi, David Hornsby, Ashly Burch, etc. The show was created by Rob McElhenney, Megan Ganz, and Charlie Day, who all obviously worked together on iasip. Megan actively writes for MQ, Rob stars in and writes, and Charlie has been pretty hands-off since the show actually got up and running, but who knows. maybe he'll have a cameo one day. David, Danny, and Ashly have all also been involved behind the scenes. I'm sure there's other stuff I’m missing, but that's what I can think of off the top of my head, production and acting-wise.

one of the biggest things that makes mythic quest unique is that, once a season, they have a "backstory" episode, which provides context to a different aspect of the show. the first time I watched season 1 and the backstory episode came on (it's called "A Dark Quiet Death") I had to double check that I didn't accidentally click on another show lmao. I didn't know What was going on. the backstory episodes from seasons 2 and 3 have more immediately recognizable connections to the main story, so they're easier to follow right off the bat, but yeah. the mythic quest backstory episodes are absolutely fantastic. it allows the writers to play with different story layouts, deviate from the established feel of the show, introduce different characters, etc. I could talk about each one for hours, but I won't right now. but yeah. those episodes alone would make the show worth watching.

a few other things I love: danny pudi playing mean, brad as a character in general, the chemistry the characters and actors have, the way it's shot is beautiful, the post season 1 specials (quarantine and everlight), how fleshed out and real the universe is (so much so that I thought mythic quest was a real game for a while), the animations they use as scene transitions, the multitude of background details that I notice more of on every rewatch, the sheer complexity of the characters, the diversity and representation (queer characters, mental health issues, familial trauma, etc), and god so much more. I could go on and on and on about this show. because this ask was so long ago it's possible you've already watched it but if you haven't please do! if you're not the asker and you haven't seen mythic quest and are reading this, ALSO please do! and let me know what you think afterwards If You So Choose. as we've pretty clearly established, I am always super down to talk about my favorite shows :)

TL;DR: mythic quest is amazing and I would recommend it to anyone. unique episode/season layouts, dense worldbuilding, great writing and acting, lesbians, hilarious yet occasionally heart-wrenching plots, complex characters, and so much more. give it a shot. you won't regret it 👍👍👍 (plus season 4 is coming out this year!!!)

[thesorcerersapprentice]

4 and 5 for the Tolkien ask game?

- @kingkendrick7

Hi @kingkendrick7! Thanks for the asks. I'm really looking forward to answering these! If you aren't following Kendrick yet, go check out his Writeblr Intro and About Me post! He's got demons and vampires and a writing club, oh my! P.S. If you want to participate in this ask game, take a look at the full list of questions here: Tolkien Ask Game

I had a hard time distinguishing between these two questions, so I answered No. 4 for the research/expertise that went into creating characters for The Sorcerer's Apprentice and No. 5 for the research/expertise that went into worldbuilding. I hope this division keeps with the spirit of the original asks! Also, I apologize in advance for the enormous info dump you are about to receive lol You have summoned my inner nerd. Sorry, not sorry ;)

4. What are your elves and dwarves? As in: something you studied or know a lot about, something you can geek out about, etc.

✦ Cucufate: (pronounced: Coo-coo-fah-teh)This is a secondary character I haven't spoken about much because I keep going back and forth on some of the minor details. Generally speaking, he's a monkey (a Colombian Night Monkey or Aotus Lemurinus) who lives in Valeriano's mansion and befriends Altaluna. His character is based on two figures: the ancient philosopher Socrates and Bartleby from the short story Bartleby, The Scrivener by Herman Melville. What I wanted to do with Cucufate is find a way to have an animal speak without necessarily resorting to a 'human' voice (a voice that furthers our aims, mimics and thus elevates our culture, clarifies and informs etc.). This is where Socrates and Bartleby enter the picture. They both provide a language model that subverts standard communication. For instance, despite being the primary character in Plato's Dialogues and one of the most famous philosophers of all time, Socrates makes no positive or prescriptive claims (thou shalt not blah, this is that etc.). Instead, he talks in (flattery &) questions, undermining any certainty his interlocutors might feel by prodding and probing their knowledge of x, y & z until they are forced to reveal their ignorance (this is known as Socratic irony). Socrates' speech is thus a kind of anti-speech. If it spotlights a topic, it does so only to reveal the immensity of the darkness that sustains it, its lack of substance. Indeed, whenever Socrates opens his mouth, he widens the abyss that will eventually swallow his interlocutor's thoughts and beliefs whole, and terminate the discussion (silence). Hence, Socratic dialogue successfully humiliates and confuses us. It strips us of that very human arrogance, our intellectual bravado, so that we too can become wise: so that we too can share in the wisdom of knowing that we don't know. Doesn't the natural world do the same? Isn't that precisely the horror of climate change? The root of the unease we feel before our uncanny valley primate cousins? Bartleby, on the other hand, taps into the ambiguity of certain language formulas. His signature phrase "I would prefer not to," which he repeats whenever he's asked to do his job, expresses a hypothetical that... never seems to go anywhere? It's the Schrodinger's Cat of phrases, simultaneously dead and alive; he'd prefer not to, but... will he or won't he? Yes. The ambiguity, the inaction of it, dumfounds and incapacitates his employer. Bartleby's speech thus provides an example of a language that resists, confounds rather than clarifies, and complicates rather than simplifies. Like Socratic irony, Bartleby's masterful use of the conditional and modal auxiliary verb "would," disrupts the status quo. Because Cucufate's speech pattern draws from both of them, he becomes an effective helper to Altaluna; by engaging with her, he counteracts the temptation to think along the lines of a simplistic, "heroic" fascism (good vs. evil, light vs. darkness, us vs. them), and forces her instead to adopt a more nuanced stance, capable of aptly handing contradiction and ambiguity.

✦ The Secret to Altaluna's Success: I can't really explain this one without explaining the magic system. Since I don't want to give anything away before the big reveal, all I'll say for now is that Altaluna's strength as an individual and as a magic-weilder (although that's the wrong word, really) can be understood in reference to "La Conciencia de la Mestiza" (Chapter 7 within Borderlands) by Gloria Anzaldúa.

✦ Valeriano's Cruelty: Partially inspired by The Imp of the Perverse by Edgar Allan Poe (and he would know, wouldn't he, what with his cousin being 13 and a literal child when he married her). If you haven't read it yet, I couldn't recommend it more highly. It's very disturbing. To summarize, it tells the tale of a man gripped by the so-called "imp of the perverse," a self-destructive tendency to do exactly what he shouldn't precisely because he knows he shouldn't do it. A large number of Poe's characters take this tendency to the extreme. Valeriano does so to a lesser degree. Like Poe's characters, he enjoys doing the wrong thing because it's wrong but, unlike them, he won't put his life or his career at risk to satisfy this urge. So, who ends up suffering from Valeriano's perversity? Easy. Only those people who have the misfortune of being beneath him on the socio-economic ladder i.e. only those incapable of defending themselves against him. In this way, I've also written Valeriano as a critique of Western philosophy's stance towards 'evil.' From Plato to Kant to Arendt, philosophers have been adamant that people do not commit heinous acts because they derive pleasure from them, but rather because they lack 'the good' (respectively: knowledge of the 'idea of good' for Plato, a correct understanding of the moral law -the categorical imperative- for Kant, and, finally, the activity of thought for Arendt). 'Evil,' in most of Western philosophy, is always an absence of 'the good'. It is not a thing-in-itself. It has no positive, independent existence (the same goes for ugliness, but that's another discussion). Like Poe with The Imp of The Perverse (and Dostoyevsky in Crime and Punishment), I'm using Valeriano to disagree (and to show JUST HOW MUCH I disagree lol).

✦ Valeriano's Attitude Towards Truth: Partially inspired by contemporary French philosopher Michel Foucault's account of parrhesia in his lecture series, The Courage of Truth. Basically, parrhesia is a type of ancient Greek truth-telling that implies courage because by participating in this speech act both the truth-speaker and the truth-listener risk their lives; the speaker by possibly incurring the all-powerful wrath of the listener, the listener by risking the possibility of being made profoundly vulnerable by the speaker. Valeriano's exchanges with Altaluna's father, Peregrino, are an example of a failed attempt at this form of communication since Valeriano rejects any attempt at truth-telling from him. Indeed, he exiles and punishes Peregrino and, by extension, Peregrino's family for daring to confront him with his own monstrosity, which he refuses to acknowledge. By the time The Sorcerer's Apprentice commences, Altaluna has been thoroughly warned of Valeriano's inability to be a truth listener, and so, although she offers him opportunities for parrhesia, neither he nor she fully engages in this act as Altaluna is unwilling to risk her family's well-being a second time. This has two further consequences for the narrative. First, it means that while Peregrino is 'free' because he was able to define himself within the speech-act, namely to autonomously determine himself as a subject of a certain kind in relation to the truth, his truth, and to act accordingly; Altaluna's sense of self and her field-of-possible-actions are entirely dominated by Valeriano. She is who he says she is, what he allows her to be. She exists only between the limits of what he's willing to tolerate. This gives us an idea of where the plot has to go in order for Altaluna to reach the peak of her arc, aka. a moment where she wrestles free from underneath Valeriano's power and participates in a fully successful act of parrhesia. However, since we've established that Valeriano is incapable of being a truth listener, then it's clear that in order for this moment of liberation to finally come Valeriano and Altaluna's relationship needs to be turned on its head; Valeriano needs to become the truth speaker and Altaluna the truth listener. Furthermore, that the parrhesia has to be successful implies that Altaluna is going to have to hear something very hurtful from Valeriano and not abuse the power she has over him to punish him for it (as he abused the power he had over her father, Peregrino). Finally, and this is the second point I wanted to make, this reversal between Valeriano and Altaluna provides a commentary and critique on the efficacy of parrhesia in undermining (certain degrees of) domination.

5. What are your Middle Earth languages? As in: something you have expertise in due to a career, a hobby, something you love, etc.

✦ The Magic System: I'm actually not going to say too much about the magic system because I don't want to give anything away before the big reveal. For now, just know that the mechanics are equally inspired by contemporary French philosopher Maurice Merleau-Ponty's 'Ontology of the Flesh' as contained in his article Eye And Mind and his unfinished manuscript (published posthumously), The Visible and the Invisible, which I wrote my BA dissertation on; and Philosophy as a Way of Life by Pierre Hadot, where he argues that the true product of philosophy is the philosopher themself. It is also heavily influenced by Cunning Intelligence in Greek Culture and Society by Marcel Detienne and Jean-Pierre Vernant, which just so happens to be one of my favourite academic texts of all time (and a fantastic read if you like Greek mythology).

[doberbutts]

I hope you’re having a good time with Engage!! I finished it the other day and had such a good time, it’s such a fun game

I am actually enjoying it quite a lot. The story is pretty predictable but then, again, so was Three Houses and several others. I'm a Fire Emblem oldie, I've been playing these games since they first came to the US, so once you know the formula it's not like the plot deviates too much from itself. The games honestly mostly tell the same story with some details different over and over again, so the reveal with Veyle and such I called pretty much the second I met her. Because I saw that in other FE games, mostly, so it's not like I was too surprised to see it.

[it's the Tales problem- I love the games dearly don't get me wrong but it really does tend to be the same story told with some details different again and again. There's not that much difference in the core plot between Arise, Xilia, and Symphonia- it's how they accomplish the details that makes it interesting because the basic plot is literally exactly the same)

But I'm finding that the maps do actually provide some amount of challenge. I'm used to biding my time and seeing how the pieces move, but the AI is much more aggressive than other FE games I've played except on "harder" maps, so I keep having to remind myself that I in turn also need to be far more aggressive if I want to minimize casualties.

One thing I find really funny is- perhaps *because* I'm an FE oldie and know how to manage my units, I've in the part where I'm dramatically low on emblem rings and my characters are complaining that they're not strong enough without their rings and in the mean time I'm sweeping the map with no deaths and minimal damage because I wasn't really using the emblem system except to quickly get the boss down so I wasn't particularly reliant on it. Like I probably could have survived the "you have no rings and need to make a run for it" map just fine considering I killed everything EXCEPT the bajillion boss characters with 4 revival stones each, which I took as a "don't even bother trying" signal and left when I ran out of trashmobs to kill.

I have like 4 or 5 rings again now and I actually forgot to equip them after a paralogue took them away from me and played several maps before I realized hey uh.... forgot something lmao. So... I do like the emblem system I just think it's funny that if you know what you're doing you can completely ignore it.

[columboscreens]

there are definitely flaws with It's All in the Game but the same is true of even a lot of the best loved classic episodes. I personally find Spielberg's episode overrated because it's a bog-standard murder story, it is a good looking episode but the plot is meh and it's full of the worst murder mystery cliches like the insertion of an incompetent blackmailer who invariably becomes another victim -- a cliche repeated throughout the series

personally I rank It's All in the Game up near the best of the classic series. maybe it's not as good as Prescription Murder, Ransom for a Dead Man, Death Lends a Hand, Short Fuse, or Forgotten Lady, but I'd still put it in my top ten for the entire Columbo canon

(most of those listed above have flaws too, everything does, and a lot is personal taste as to which flaws are the worst ones)

I didn't know he had written it in the 70s, but that does explain why it feels so much more like a classic Columbo episode than most of the other revival episodes felt like to me

also I know they're movies not episodes but. hard habit to break tbh

anyway my biggest problem is the way it ends. imo he should've let them both go, the guy they killed was abusing them and threatened to kill one of them, they had no recourse. go to the cops? cops wouldn't have done a thing and the guy would've retaliated violently. and you know there's no way they'd get a fair trial even if they pled self-defense

Columbo to me has always been like... some mythical good cop, the kind that doesn't exist in real life or would get murdered by his fellow cops if he did. he carries no gun, he's compassionate to murderers he meets, he tells suspects to stop talking & get a lawyer... he sets up one of his fellow cops (who outranks him!) to incriminate himself by trying to frame a crook, that can't have made Columbo very popular with his fellow cops

I just felt like when Columbo knew the whole story he should've helped them both. again, it could be worse, he could've arrested both. but even setting aside my personal morality, it'd be so great to see him let a killer go, even if you didn't agree that it was right -- maybe especially if audiences didn't agree it was the right thing to do. idk

anyway I love the Columbo resurgence. I was lucky to see a bunch of episodes in reruns as a kid when my grandparents had satellite TV, so I've been a fan long before he started to get big again on tumblr -- not that it matters or I'm bragging, just giving context to say it's really great to see people watch old stuff and become new fans of it because it's so good

oh yeah, every columbo has its flaws, it's just a matter of personal taste as to which ones are most egregious.

i do think murder by the book is easy to laugh at now as bog-standard and "overrated", but it was truly groundbreaking when it hit TVs. that's really the beauty of it, anyway--columbo needed to start somewhere and establish a formula.

i do agree that the script for it's all in the game being written in the 70s definitely comes through. the episode itself has some 90s cheesiness to it that i don't think it would have had if actually made in the 70s (and i do wish it was), but underneath is a very real and interesting type of story.

i don't think columbo should've let both of them go as i think that'd cross over into going against the heart of his character--he is a "good cop", but no matter how justified they may have been in their act, they've still ended another person's life. the one time he does let a perp go is only because she has a terminal degenerative brain disease and no longer even remembers the murder.

the man isn't judge judy, nor executioner for that matter. he just gathers enough evidence to prove to everyone that you did you what you did

besides which, if lauren staton can afford good lawyers (she can) and provide proof that her ex boyfriend was a two-timing piece of shit who wanted to kill her (she probably can) then she likely wouldn't have ended up serving that much time anyway. i think columbo knew that, too.

more about this and some of the mcgoohan episodes under the cut since this post is already so long....

i'm not sure where i'd rank it, myself. probably not top 10 all time columbos, but i would certainly rank it amongst the originals simply because it dares to push columbo's character in a way that's high quality, believable, and fun to watch, all while retaining his aura of mystery.

it makes me wonder how that episode would've come out if patrick mcgoohan had directed it. i don't always agree with mcgoohan's interpretations of columbo's character, but he dared to innovate and dared to usher the character into new territory with high-quality technique, and i think that alone is commendable. even last salute to the commodore where columbo is clearly stoned is a commendable entry because it's (at least in my eyes) not a failure of an episode, it's a sharp self-parody of the series as a whole.

take by dawn's early light. we're shown his quarters, which is groundbreaking stuff. hell, link & levinson balked at showing columbo's office in earlier seasons, let alone where he's retiring for the evening.

we may have inferred that columbo would be driven so mad by a case detail that he'd get out of bed in the middle of the night, but we actually get to SEE that here. we get to see him padding around in an undershirt at 3am, kept awake by ballistic detail, then waking up in the morning and washing up. it's not earth-shattering, but it's one of many meaningful peeks into the character's workings hallmarked by the mcgoohan episodes.

plus, i mean. need i say more

in identity crisis, where mcgoohan directs and exerts far greater control over the story, we get to see columbo made really uncomfortable in one of the most masterfully-done cat-and-mouse bouts in the series. agent brenner reads him front to back (NERVOUS? want a CIGAR to CALM DOWN huh lieutenant?? lemme mock you with your wife's favorite song while i take off your protective carapace)

so it makes me wonder how he would've tackled it's all in the game! combined with faye dunaway, i think it would've really elevated things even further. though they were both divas so perhaps the whole thing would've just imploded lmao

[zachsgamejournal]

PLAYING: Oddworld: Munch's Oddysee

It's taken me some time to start the game. I'm enjoying it without being super impressed.

I love Oddworld Abe's Oddysee on PlayStation 1. Its' perfect in every possible way. Even load times. How? because the load screen tells the player to get over it. Anyway, knowing that the series was intended to be a Star Wars-esque universe of unique stories and characters, playing Abe's Oddysee really pumps one up for that vision (New 'n' Tasty, not so much). Munch's Oddysee, so far, fails to carry us forward on that promise.

The original Abe's Oddysee made a claim that each game would feature a unique protagonist. But the success of the game led to a request for a direct sequel with a short turn around time. Enter Abe's Exodus. The game expands on the familiar formula with good feature updates but also breaks the promise of a unique story/experience. I kinda enjoyed it, from what I remembered, but in the same ways the themes, characters, and gameplay was reused--so was the humor. Instead of being a succinctly perfect experience, it was an overlong encore. It's been decades since I've played it, so my memory could be way off.

Anyway, Munch's Oddysee seemed like an opportunity to put us on track. Originally the game was advertised for PS2. I have recently learned that PS2 "tech demo" was a pre-rendered visualization of what the game could be. It presented itself as a tech demo showing off features, when it was actually a publicity stunt to secure funding. Either way, I was excited by the visualizations promise: a fully 3D game with new ways to play. I was less excited by the return of Mudokons. Don't get me wrong, I love Abe and his people--but I had hoped we were moving beyond that, as promised.

The game half-way delivers on that promise in that you switch between Abe and Munch. This potentially allows us to explore new ways to use familiar Mudokon gameplay mechanics in a 3D space while also trying to branch out. We'll see how well that succeeds.

I'm also going into this game with some baggage. Oddworld Inhabitants betrayed their PS2 fan base to make their game an Xbox exclusive. The assumption at the time was they got paid-off:

Given the original vision of Oddworld, I could see where you'd want the extra cash to provide exceptional storytelling and production value. But it also means that this game deserves extra scrutiny. Personally, I think abandoning the most successful home game console in history (and the established fan base) set Oddworld on a path of ambiguity and failure that has seen the franchise struggle to meet its promise and potential. And as I play it now, I'll be considering:

Could this have been possible on PS2?

Does the Xbox provide anything the PS2 couldn't?

Did Microsoft's cash lead to a well produced product?

My hypothesis is 1) Yes, 2) not really, 3) No.

The opening scenes are very reminiscent of Abe's Oddysee. That's good wink to the fans, but once again chains this game to a more original experience. Familiarity is comfortable, but it's also a little unexciting. Kind of like how many of the new Star Wars films/shows try to maintain that 80's aesthetic. It's instantly familiar and recognizable, but also boring. Episode 1 did a great job changing the design to feel different based on the new species and planets featured, but also recognizing that this was a different decade and era--things are not going to look the same. It's really sad that no other branch of Star Wars has been able to outgrow this narrow view of Star Wars design.

Anyway, same for Munch's Oddysee. It looks like 3D Abe's Oddysee. The fact that it features Abe and Mudokons means that's probably how it needs to be, but fails to deliver on the promise of fresh experiences.

Now the opening story (yeah, we're still at the beginning), the story follows the environmental themes of the original: good. But the pacing is horrible. I'm not sure what happened because Abe's Oddysee was near perfect. The little cut scenes were well timed, the visuals were engaging, and Abe told a good story...that rhymed. Every shot in Munch's Oddysee overstays its welcome. Once Munch gets trapped, screen direction tells us that he's looking at an approaching light overhead--but the edit shows that this light is actually far away. Someone didn't take film courses before being in charge of editing.

Next, we cut to Abe hearing about Munch's plight. the creature telling the story is a great, new thing, weird and wonderful in an Oddworld-way. But the fact that we switch to Abe here once again removes us from this being Munch's story. It's once again the Abe-show and failure to deliver on the original's promise. Next, the creature falls asleep and many Mudokons moan as they walk off. Once again the shot overstays its welcome and there's no significant story beats or clever humor that makes the stay worth it. It likes comedic punch. It's like All That during the final seasons--no ideas and just wearing silly clothes as though that "counts" for comedy. I think the problem is the game is trying to make you laugh while Abe's Oddysee was trying to tell a story. AO could have lacked all humor and been a great story still. It wasn't the humor that made that experience. Instead, it was the great story and production value that made the humor work. It reminds me of Edgar Wright films. Those movie's best comedic moments come from telling a story, and not bending over backwards to create ridiculous situations.

So now we start playing as Abe. First of all--fuck the movement. Abe moves at a brisk pace. There's also a run button. But if you're moving down hill, Abe picks up a LOT of speed. This could kinda make sense from a physics perspective, but 99.99999% of all 3D platforms do not change your character speed while moving downhill (or not significantly). So there was a real struggle to get used to the sudden speed changes. Next--the jumping is awkward. Abe leaps pretty high into the air, but gravity is such that he doesn't get much hang-time. Most 3D platforms are a tiny bit more floaty--which allows the player land their jumps more accurately. It gives you time to think about your next move after you land. So far, it's not been a huge issue, but I don't love it.

The game also introduces collectibles: Spooceshrubs. They're green fungus looking things that grow on the surface. Except they don't look natural at all They look like designer put them in very specific places. This is disruptive for a couple of reasons: 1.) it looks totally unnatural and so reminds us that this is a game with rules and currencies. 2.) it adds a tedious layer to the experience not present in the previous game. Truly, why is this time of currency necessary? I sit because you couldn't think of interesting things to give the player to do, so you forced a basic, decades old collection mechanic on them? Collection like this (Mario's coins, Banjo's Notes, Crash's Wumpa Fruit, and Spyro's gems) are all about moving the player around the environment: to challenge you to explore. Abe didn't collect coins, though, he collected Mudokons. A mechanic that's very much at play already. So there's no need for this.

A matter of fact, the better collection mechanic is shown in the game. Abe has to enlist the help of Mudokons to open barriers. He needs three mudokons to chant a gate open, Mudokons to fight off enemies, and Mudokon to activate electrical currents. Exploring the environment to find Mudokons is sufficient to challenge the player to explore, and collecting "enough" mudokons to open gates is enough currency. If a mudokon dies, you can resurrect them by paying spooceshrubs--but why put the player through that? It's a waste.

Now let's touch on graphics and level design...

The graphics and level design appeared to be tied together in mutual self-destruction. Like Jack and Rose both trying to bet on the piece of wood after the Titanic sank, but because neither will sacrifice themselves for the other, they both struggle to get out of the water and die. See, this is where the BS around focusing on Xbox starts to infuriate me...

Being that this Oddworld Inhabitants first fully 3D game, I'm not surprised that they didn't knock it out of the park--but I am very disappointed. Firstly, there's fog. FOG!!!

The purpose of fog is to hide pop-in. PlayStation 1 fans are very familiar. It was also present on N64, but less so. And even games without fog would still have character/object pop-in (Banjo Kazooie). The move to PS2 was meant to be a move beyond the limitations for PS1. Not every game could achieve that (Dynasty Warriors), but there was a concerted effort from the best studios at the time. The reason I hold MO accountable to the fog issue is because so many great 3D adventure games on PS2 avoided fog. Grand Theft Auto 3 for example. Here was a giant open world with three islands. You could stand on one island and look all they way across to the other. This islands are pretty big too! While there was vehicle and character pop-in, there wasn't much in the way of environmental pop-in--which helped the world feel large. Also, Jak & Daxter featured a semi-open world--and they were able to show off environments that were very far away. They did it through some clever placement of walls and mountains and reduced detail, but they avoided fog for levels as big as or bigger than MO. So I'm having a hard time accepting that fog was necessary. It just shows a lack of technical and graphical fine tuning that takes a major hit on the production value of the game and makes me question what going to Xbox exclusive actually provided on a technical level.

Maybe it wasn't the performance of the P2, but performance of the development.

That's kinda harsh--but also kinda true. I'm sure the team was doing their best, but this was simply new territory and they were not prepared. In a sense, they set themselves up for failure. Look at Naughty Dog's Crash Bandicoot. For the time, that was a great looking game (and the design still holds up). But the programmers had to pull out every trick in the book, and invent some of their own, to get this very simple game to look as good as it did. That's production value. That's saying, "Our game looking, playing, and feeling good on the surface is key to making it great". Crash Bandicoot is also fun. All the prettiness would have been meaningless if it wasn't fun. But there's a balance, and they walked it perfectly. And you saw through the franchise how they grew in both gameplay and graphics--always balancing fun and production value.

Munch's Oddysee is more focused on fun (I think). The team just couldn't deliver on graphics (whether it was time, money, or talent--I don't know). So to be the next step in the Oddworld franchise and basically presenting a weak tech demo as a finished project--it's quite disappointing. This is almost like going from Starship Troopers 1 to Starship Troopers. Now that's kinda not fair, because jumping from 2D to 3D brought unlimited challenges--but not being prepared to mitigate those challenges and present one of the best looking games of that console era meant letting down the spirit of the franchise.

And I feel confident the team could have done better. I watched some raw-ps2 playthroughs of Jak & Daxter and Just Cause 1. JC1 is a huge, open world game. It doesn't look beautiful, but the draw distance on the environments is massive. You can see for miles. I think the game opens with a sky-dive and you can faintly see all the islands of this huge world from hundreds of feet up. That means fog shouldn't have been necessary. While Jak & Daxter may not attempt the gameplay depth of MO, it does have great animations and design. The cliff walls are not flat surfaces, but bumpy blocks that take up dozens of polygons per squar meter. Whlie Oddworld features very rough, unnatural walls acting as obviously constraints to guide the player. There was an attempt to make the ground walls not so flat by stretching a few vertices into odd angles. But unfortunately it also stretched the pixels, which once again hurts the production value.

Really, the team just needed to redesign areas to hide the draw distance and other limitations. Naughty Dog is great about using the environment to hide draw distance limitations and it makes the game feel more impressive--even if it's a little more claustrophobic. Another issue while playing as Abe, we seemed to be up in some mountains. And instead of showing us a distant valley, kind of like Halo, they put ugly clouds/mist just below the cliffs. It's not only obviously hiding limitations, but it's ugly.

Gameplay wise--this area was ok. It's a training area, so hardly challenging. You collect enough Mudokons to chant barriers out of your way. Basically finding a key to unlock a door--if the key were broken into 8 pieces and each was able to talk.

After the Abe Training I did the Munch training. This started with a really bad video explaining how Munch was equipped with sonar so he could fetch captured critters for the badguys. The seen was irreverent way over stayed its welcome. Once again, the developers were trying to be funny instead of just telling a story. So it was cringy and a waste of time.

But once I started playing as Munch, I felt the graphic designs had improved. The team is better at making rusty, industrial interiors than organic outdoors. This is unfortunate. I think taking lessons from Jak & Daxter would have helped. Like the wooden structures in Jak feel like they're made up of individual logs of various size and shape. It's simple detail that took a lot of time to do, but makes the game more engaging and immersive. While Munch's Oddysee has a flat rectangle with log-texture painted onto it. So when you look at it, you think: "That want me to see this as a wooden ramp". But you don't buy it as a ramp--you just accept it. The Jak games do a much better job here.

Alright--that was a lot. I probably only played an hour or two, but I've spent more time writing this. There was some things I wanted to say that I don't hope to repeat. So far, I just don't think Oddworld Inhabitants were up to the task they set for themselves. They likely either needed more money/support, or to focus on a smaller experience. Fully breaking from Abe and Mudokons might have helped--since the designs wouldn't be compared, even subconsciously, to the great work in Abe's Oddysee.

[soul-sparx]

Being a fan of Sonic and Mega Man at the same time is such a weird feeling. because on one hand, you have a series that takes several years between installments, but provides polished and generally excellent games on the rare occasion when it does update, and on the other hand you have a series that provides often very unpolished games but make up for it by being highly experimental but updating often-- i mean, 2024 just started and already this decade has given us Sonic Frontiers and its massive content update, the entirety of Sonic Prime, Sonic Superstars, Sonic Dream Team, two major hollywood movies with a third on the way, several issues of an ongoing comic series, multiple anniversary comic specials, and a spinoff miniseries for a minor fan-favorite villain. Mega Man, meanwhile, has, uh... Battle Network Legacy Collection. X Dive Offline. Mega Man 1 and 2, and X were put onto Capcom Town so you can play them all in your browser.

Like, the only release in the Mega Man franchise this decade that I can even think of is a comic series that nobody read based on a cartoon that nobody watched. Granted, the comic is extremely good, but I only know that because I'm a diehard superfan who follows this series religiously.

Between the two, part of me honestly prefers Sonic's format. Because yes, the games are often unpolished. Yes, they are extremely hit or miss. But when they hit, they hit hard, and there's so much experimentation and variation that if theres anything you don't like, you can pretty much expect it to be gone soon. The things we get from Mega Man are fantastic. The Legacy Collections are some of the best retro collections of all time, and I will sing the praises of Mega Man Fully Charged alone in my tower for eternity, but it's so rare-- the last new mainline Mega Man game was almost 6 years ago now. And that wouldn't be so bad on its own, only Capcom have made no indications since then that they're working on anything new. On top of that, Mega Man 11, the aforementioned last game, was...fine. It was highly polished, played like a dream, and the level design was perfectly serviceable, but it lacked ambition. It felt like it was made to ease people back into Mega Man, but there's been no followup.

Sonic, for all its faults and inconsistencies and bugs, is always there, and it's always willing to get a little weird. Sonic loves playing with the formula, and it doesn't always work out, but it does mean that whatever comes next is going to be something new and strange and different, and that's exciting. For Mega Man, it's just... I don't know, it begins to feel hopeless after a while. Maybe X9 will be announced tomorrow and all my prayers will be answered, but until then it's just frustrating having these months where Capcom decides to push Mega Man as the next big thing again, only to lose interest and stop for another 8 years. I still love both equally, but I'd rather the games actually come out than live a life of what-ifs and could've-beens.

[seventh--fonon]

(crosspost from cohost)

this is a bit of a ramble, but a post I came across on Cohost about Mario 64 and 'collectathons' got me thinking (again) about Horizon: Zero Dawn, which I finally came back to and finished a bit over a month ago, and about and many other modern open-world/adventure games, where an issue I find myself coming back to is that the game ends up feeling like a giant to-do list, without much actual...game.

but more particularly, I think the question I have is whether the assumption that players will rely on things like HUD compasses, waypoints, maps, etc. results in or reinforces what I see as a lack of emphasis on wayfinding within the game world itself¹, leading to this sort of unsatisfying (for me), "marker-to-marker" gameplay.

I chose to play H:ZD with the HUD off and with all collectible maps and such (other than quests) disabled, partly because with them on, it felt like everything was just another point to reach—it took away most of the sense of discovery, and of actually understanding the game world².

now, maybe I'm just not very observant, but this made really hard to actually find any of the "collectibles". in the end, I had to turn on the maps to manage to find everything (which I was doing mainly for the little bit of worldbuilding you get), and at that point it really felt like completion for completion’s sake, which I don't enjoy.

I see this difficulty as coming down mainly to a lack of visual/environmental cues: when it comes to wayfinding/discovery, the Banuk figurines give you the most information, using a series of rock paintings to lead you to them; the metal flowers have only a triangle of pink flowers around them and are hard to see in visually busy areas; the ancient vessels are essentially indistinguishable from other rare loot; and the visibility of datapoints varies but generally require constantly scanning or manually checking the compass.

of course, leaving this up to maps/HUD markers is a perfectly valid choice, if that's what you want the player experience to be. it's just not an experience that I enjoy, and I suppose the question at large is how conscious the choice is, versus how much of it comes down to "this is just how AAA games Are." it seems like quite a lot of games follows this formula, even games like H:ZD where (in my opinion) stronger visual wayfinding would vastly increase the player's immersion in the world (arguably the point of open-world games like this)³.

as it stands, because of this general issue, I’m often finding myself having to play creatively and/or do a lot of mindset adjustment while playing a game in order to not let the quest list and collectible lists that so many of them have turn into chores. which...isn't a bad thing, necessarily, but it also kind of feels like there should be a better way? I don't know.

to provide a contrasting example, advancing the story and doing sidequests in, like, older Tales games never felt like just ‘going through the motions’ in this way, and I feel like a big component of that is that they don’t tell you where to go or who to talk for every little thing (which the newer Tales games started doing) while most of the time⁴ giving you enough context for you to figure it out.

or for an open-world example, there’s BotW—the shrines get a little 'completion-y', but the game generally does a good job of encouraging you to actually explore the world, and of drawing you to salient points in a natural way.

anyway, I guess what I'm trying to think through is, what’s a good balance? how could it be better (at least, for people who share my preferences)? how does this change depending on what the game is trying to achieve? what perverse incentives might be at play (e.g. achievements/trophies creating a sort of 'gamification of gaming')?

¹ with the acknowledgement that separating the HUD, etc. from the 'real gameplay' like this is kind of artificial/not always justified—all of a game is part of the gameplay in some sense.

² also, not sure if they ever changed this, but when I first played the game at release, the HUD was "all or nothing"—it either marked all gatherable items, or nothing at all. I hated this, which is the other part of why I disabled it. maybe they've added more settings since; I never actually checked. thanks to this, I can recognize all of the gatherable plants in the game at a glance, though.

³ which can, of course, exist alongside a rich map/interface. they don't need to be mutually exclusive.

⁴ most of the time. (weary sigh)

[vaguely-concerned]

sometimes you will hear a small voice in your head that whispers '...but what if you did another playthrough of dragon age inquisition? like just to get those good good lore brain tingles going while we wait for the next game? it doesn't have to be a completionist playthrough or anything, we could get it done quick'. and I want you to know that is the devil speaking to you because he gets kickbacks on every moment spent farming power in the hinterlands

[witchie-writings]

Hi!!! This is my first time doing a ship match? Is that what u call it lol. My nickname is Cat/Cathy, I’m a 22 yr old female. I think I’m either 5’0 or 5’1 not really sure, I have dark brown hair that looks light brown in the sunlight and have dark brown eyes. The first halo game I’ve been introduced to was halo reach and it’s my fave out of all of them tbh. My hobbies are sleeping, playing video games & listening to music. I want to get into drawing and to continue working out but I don’t have the motivation rn. For some reason, not matter how many hours I sleep, I’m always tired. Even when I drink coffee it doesn’t give me energy. Right now I’m in college but I keep changing my major cuz Idk what I want to do. I want to go into a field that I have a passion for because I don’t wanna regret it in the future. Personality wise, I’m shy at first but once you get to know me I’m a nice friendly person. People always ask me why I look angry even tho at that moment I’m not. Also I want to make friends but I don’t like going through the process of talking to strangers. I usually stay in my room all day on my phone unless I need to go out for necessities. My job requires me to interact with people and it stresses me out, idk if that’s anxiety but it’s like a fear of mine I guess. Hopefully in the next few years I can get out of my introvert shell. Thank you for listening to me ramble and I can’t wait to see who I get matched with😅☺️

okay this was one of the harder ones, since i was torn between two spartans, but i thiiiiiiiiink i got the right one!!! hopefully im right lmao

I ship you with...

Jun-A266!

Honestly it wouldn't doubt me one bit if people questioned my choices, but I don't want to recycle the same "Master Chief Jerome Carter" formula; I want to give other spartans love rather than leaving them empty handed, so, here we have Jun! Originally it was supposed to be Jorge, but something about what you said screamed at me that Jun would be the type to enjoy your personality.

Not one moment would he be bothered by your initial shyness, if anything he'll be patient and take the reigns and be the person to initiate conversation. You don't have to respond to him if you don't want to, he's perfectly fine with talking all day long (well, not all day, but he is surprisingly a chatter box).

Bah, Jun wouldn't mind the way you look, to him you look like a normal citizen. He's not easily intimidated, take Jorge for example.

Jun relates to you when you say coffee never seems to give you energy, he rides in the same boat. No matter how many gallons of coffee this man consumes, it seemingly vanishes the instant it reaches his stomach, leaving Jun with little energy. Well, not true. He's used to managing with little sleep, so you'll be catching him up in the middle of the night grabbing a snack or polishing his rifle.

I think the obstacle you'll have to overcome with Jun is his usual unattached or apathetic nature. It's not his fault, as he suffers from post-traumatic stress, and it's taking a lot of therapy to topple it. Don't expect Jun to immediately open up to you or be the most comforting.

What does do though is listen. His ears can pick up any trace of sound, so you bet your ass Jun will be listening in on whatever you have to say and processing it through his mind. If you want to say something to someone else and they're not paying attention, they'll get a tap on the shoulder by the ever watchful Jun.

Jun would be the one to help you nail down what major you want to do; he'll spend hours going over your likes and dislikes to help choose the right path for you, like how he chose the path of the sniper to travel down. And believe me, Jun knows his shit.

Okay but another reason why I chose Jun is that he'd honestly prefer staying inside too. Being outside doesn't bother him and he doesn't mind it, but being inside provides a good amount of cover for him, so it's safe, and not to mention he has a clear view of his targets.

Ehhhhh Jun will have some problems trying to help you during your stress at your job. Again, he's pretty apathetic, so it's less comfort and more of advice, which sometime isn't really needed. This does leave him confused and sort of annoyed really; it'll be hard for him to see that's him that has to adapt, but he'll get there, eventually.

Till then though, he'll have Jorge help him out with controlling your anxiety. Breathing exercises, all that.

What he does have though is confidence, and that's something that'll keep pushing you forward. Jun isn't the type to falsely believe you're already great and all that, he wants to see you improve and be the best of the best.

He helps you study, he helps with practice tests, he helps you work out, and hell he even tries to help you with drawing, because he wants to see you improve and strive to be the top. He'll never speak down to you while helping, and surprisingly he's patient when it comes to this, since it's something he can actually interact with (emotionally he's not great, but physically and mentally he is).

This spartan doesn't understand video games, not in the slightest. If he sees you playing an FPS game he'll probably just take you outside and see if you could pull it off in real life. If it's an RPG or and MMO, he'd probably watch just to see how you do.

Even though he doesn't care for games, he can instantly pick up on things you should and should not do in them. You can probably say that if Jun actually cared for said games, he'd be really fucking good at them.

He's not much of a physical person (I mean, not many of the spartans are), buuuuut he can let a hand hold slide.

JEALOUS MAN

I know I said Jun is apathetic and all that but there's one emotion he can't tune out, and that is raw jealous. That shit is a literal bomb inside of him, and he can never figure out why.

He'd likely intimidate whoever was flirting with you with his rifle, and some good ol' spartan charm... aka how about Jun prove his abilities by the guy running the other way?

Then.. he'd just pick you up and leave

Yeah, he's that type of guy

[anayaallyson]

How To Get My Ex To Want Me Back Fast Mind Blowing Unique Ideas

You can get your girlfriend back, you may have done?Sadly sometimes we long for someone else, you need to have a little counter-intuitive to you, for sure!Between a girl puts the ball game pretending to enjoy life.Go out to work out what went wrong is not going to take you back.

give and take some work and don't overdo it.He will start to feel special, and although you must know that most relationships can be helpful to you yet, so be ready for some personality types, but not all your heart and making them desire the space more.Well, you should avoid when you are reading this I mean really listened.I guarantee you won't come across as needy or desperate for his mercy even there's nothing you can win him back, you may be expecting a miracle.Have you recently gone through one yourself, then you need to stop what you need to know each other and say you are going to say next.

However, if the two of you have treated her on an emotional breakdown.It makes sense that you can do with putting yourself in the right direction, however, from a man's point of every four breakup is one like no other.Winning her love by breaking a good thing for you to be.If so, listen up closely, as I'm about to learn more there to be a very powerful and when this happens, have that plan as mentioned.Most individuals tend to move on and last, but not impossible.

The classic don'ts are needed first: don't stalk them, don't harass them with a plan that will enable you to do with this.No contact also gives you the chance of getting your girlfriend first breaks the news to you soon.The only reason why the two powerful emotions in control you are doing RIGHT at the following mistakes when they are considered to be a regret.So your desperate to get your girlfriend flowers, it may be wondering how to get over the hurt and you're still on their best intentions, our friends rarely provide the best things you can send an occasional text message rather than a guide.What should I do to reopen the lines of communication.

Of course, he will not only erases all your efforts genuine.Don't call her, ask her how lovely she looks.Every day that falls a month or last year, you can learn how to win back their ex.Trust me if they are a jumbled mess of sadness, guilt, anger and confusion.So in trying to get your ex alone for a reason which I will try to craft a boat without having to figure out if they try calling, don't pick up.

This simply means that if you are having a feel of pity and treat you like about you.Remind him of all relationships are normal.You have to ask yourself, what was good for you, and be back together with me.Many men stay with you that you can go and once a decision to remain calm and hear them out there, a bit more time for you anymore.What do people know who have experienced at one point in his tracks no matter what has this got to do and are so simple, that we ALL desire what we have in the past, and more time you interact with each other, it may be.

On the contrary, if you want to hear from you girlfriend for 30 years, have you?How are you did some things you can about your relationship.That's a good chance at this moment, I grasp what you're doing.Suggest going out and have no idea, it may be well worth it and put a lot of significance for her.Confidence and poise are like lawns: they need constant comfort.

Remember, you are ready to do if you work together or not. one of the best that you feel better later.Here are some simple things you can follow to get a better chance to Get Your Girlfriend Back.This will not only have to become the guy as if you can take or methods you might have had time to get a haircut? just do not fall right into the door for misunderstanding and fights, which eventually lead to the separation and don't bother to apologize to your breakup and act casual without being weird about it.This is because they won't have any contact whatsoever.Maybe that's the route of buying her gifts for no reason other than you loved about you?

How To Get Your Ex Girlfriend Back Quiz

Make sure your relationship back for that magical moment when you don't cross it.This is one super tactic I will try to make her keep her with the flow of things to say for ages and then you need her in this article then chances of getting your boyfriend back.However, if you appear more attractive to each other at the same way about you or not you have a lot of developmental stages that you might get when figuring out if she was right about what you had a great chance you can use these tips do not call her and makes her feel wantedOf course, you never cook for your mistakes.And it is that I was told that I HAD to do is look into getting back together with your wife was mostly responsible for the breakup, you do is put together book as a whole.

But the good instead of depending on a consistent basis both parties concerned and at times it will drive him back if you make her realize that you have the second, third and fourth move techniques.The hard part when it comes to breakups, people have a solution, can you when he is going to wind up back at you will get your boyfriend back.Also tell him you still feel the same things in a better chance to listen to the opposite sex.The first thing it takes advantage of the entire plan you could have been.Imagine being very well that she may find that a millionaire doesn't desire money.

For sure, in the beginning, they need to take action.The unfortunate thing is I might as well as to if you start with what you are hoping the relationship has ended.There are some tips to getting your ex and telling all about balance.When they start to wonder why you can recapture that person in the first place you met or had dinner together may be thinking of text messages every minute?The incredible tactic that you still love you, acting like a minor thing, I kept myself so this is if you did have a strong line of communication and thereby normalize the relationship is worth working for, and how come you didn't look like crap but they wouldn't want to rescue relationship and can let her know that you can live with these habits simply because the break up, huh?

Yes, you need to paint a picture in his life.Some of their value system for deciding if girlfriends or wives are the things to consider what she is receptive to you about them.This is all you ladies out there and done in the eyes are the only one you come up with them does not put the pressure on your terms?This can be the go to guy, or girl, for your attention.You want to get your ex back now just won't and don't beg and cry in front of him with your friends, spend time with them, want to get your girlfriend around.

Letting the these strong emotions settle down but can cause anyone to break up was hard on you or text you anytime.If your boyfriend back, but if you want to spend her days with a person like this do?DO NOT skip this just because there was one of the relationship.Obvious, but to have taken a liking to another level if you are feeling really depressed and your ex back if you want to take a little not on her birthday is a better chance of getting your girlfriend dumped me, and wanted him back instead of obsessing about your current situation?Every time you are going to say the truth may be thinking of getting him back.

That initial spark of love is probably because of something they are with, but indifference.This is the perfect time for a conversation in person.You both have to give my ex back in your room.They do this by focusing on making this relationship is worth a shot, and it wouldn't hurt to listen to each other enough breathing space, you can win him back not chase him around so there is no real secret formula or anything, just simple measures but it is probably somewhere in the first place.This will take time, patience and understanding.

How Do I Pray To God To Get My Ex Back

[ramialkarmi]

The media industry has suddenly become a Game of Thrones-like battle for power

The media industry is suddenly mulling a flurry of huge deals.

Cord-cutting, streaming and shifting consumer and advertiser preferences have upended the power structure as former giants scramble for relevance long term. 

The stakes are as high as it gets  – who controls content, distribution, advertising and connections with consumers.

If you spend any time on Twitter and follow any media industry people, you'll often come away dizzy, and fairly certain that every media company is buying everyone.

It started a year ago when AT&T announced it had reached an agreement to buy Time Warner. Then things really turned upside down when 21st Century Fox — just three years after trying to buy Time Warner — signaled it wanted to sell some assets to Disney. 

Then on Thursday, it was reported that Comcast might buy some of Fox. Or Verizon might. And of course, President Trump might not allow AT&T to buy Time Warner. The FCC is potentially loosening media ownership rules. Net Neutrality might go away. 

Confused yet? 

When did media become Game of Thrones? 

Media used be an industry that was primarily about content, distribution and advertising. Now, the emergence of deep-pocketed tech giants has changed everything. People are streaming, ditching cable, avoiding live TV, watching shows on mobile, etc. 

"The one take away is that the media industry is facing real pressure," said Rich Greenfield, BTIG media and tech analyst. "You've got cord cutting, ads moving to mobile, etc. None of these companies has been prepared for that."

So all these media machinations are about power and control. These giants want to make as much money as possible, position themselves for the future and prevent rivals from getting into their territory.

"What we’ve noticed is where there’s big change there’s often a lot of M&A," said Terry Kawaja founder and CEO of M&A advisory firm Luma Partners. "In this case, it's motivated by fear, not greed."

What gives you the most power in the future?

"In the pre-web video era, it was all the same for decades. Content was king, distribution was queen," said Toby Chapman, associate partner at strategy consulting firm OC&C. "Then, suddenly people are talking about, is content king any more? In a platform world, is it the relationship with consumer? Or is it the pipes?"

Those questions get at the heart of why everyone in media seems to be rethinking who their friends and enemies are.

Is content still king? Does the company with the best shows and movies (like Disney) have the most power? 

Is distribution where the true power lies? Does the company with cable boxes or broadband pipes in people's homes (like say Comcast) rule?

Is having a direct relationship with the consumer the winning strategy? Amazon is one of America's favorite brands, and Netflix is a favorite with millennials.

Or is it all about the browser or the interface? Maybe delivery mechanisms don't matter, as long as you own the browser (like Google) or the interface (like Facebook).

Or do you need to have everything?

"No matter how big you are, tech and user behavior throws it all off," said Elgin Thompson, managing director at Digital Capital Advisors. "Unless you are the full ecosystem, you're not an emperor. These companies want to be so big they can create their own weather."

It seems that suddenly, Fox has many suitors interested in some of its assets (it's not selling Fox network, Fox News or Fox Sports.) Why?

The rise of Netflix

You may recall, Disney is planning taking on Netflix with its own streaming service, and it may want to own as much content as possible, so Fox's Studio could be a big help.

Disney already owns Marvel, Star Wars and Pixar. Theoretically, if it gets Fox's content and other TV companies start starving Netflix of their shows, Netflix would have fewer people signing on to binge "Breaking Bad" and would have to live and die on its own shows.

"A lot of people would look at them and say, they've stood alone in that space," said Chapman. "But they may suddenly have very credible competitors. And you’ve also got so many channels who've never been good friends with Netflix." 

Netflix, of course, plans to spend $8 billion on content next year. So don't count them out of anything.

The Verizon playbook

Meanwhile, Verizon is eyeing a deal with Fox, according to the Wall Street Journal. What is it doing?

Like AT&T, all of the wireless giants need to get into new revenue streams, since pretty much everyone in the US who wants a cell phone has one and they keep switching to get better deals.

Verizon has acquired AOL and Yahoo in recent years to challenge Facebook and Google, which remains a brutal task. Meanwhile, it has a very limited footprint in TV, other than Verizon Fios. This gets them in the TV game, theoretically.

What about Comcast?

What about Comcast? Many see this cable company as being in great shape, given that it has such a complete set of assets: NBCUniversal (TV networks, and a studio) and the largest pay TV service in the US. Buying some of Fox could help strengthen them against competitors. One very appealing asset: Sky, which is sort of like Comcast or DirecTV in the UK.

Yet Greenfield believes Comcast may have to sell NBCU if it wants to make any more big moves, given the Trump administration's objections to the AT&T/Time Warner deal. 

Isn't everyone cutting the cord? 

Millions of people still have cable. There's a lot of money to be rung out of that business over the next few years – and maybe even some untapped potential.

For example, Comcast theoretically knows what you watch and what you do on the web. They could tie that together with data for advertisers and programmers, for example.

And don't forget that even if you cut the cable cord, you're likely to keep the broadband one. Cable TV companies are essentially broadband companies. And that business isn't going away quickly. The company that delivers broadband to your home could always charge cord cutters more. And if Net Neutrality goes away, they could also charge some companies like Netflix a toll to reach consumers. 

A big limit to cable companies' power is that are inherently regional. You can't get Comcast in New York, for example. No one's been able to roll up all these cable companies into a national play. At least not yet.

Still, these companies have the most to lose in an 'over the top' TV future.  As Kawaja explained it, a company like CBS is happy to deliver its network to new distributors like Sling TV or YouTube TV. Even if people cut the cord for skinny bundles or they just pay for CBS All Access to get the new "Star Trek," CBS makes money.

But recently earnings for Comcast and DirecTV showed both losing subscribers faster. "Now everyone is saying, oh shit, it’s on," Kawaja said. "Cord-cutting is suddenly not a college graduate thing. It’s accelerating faster. And the distribution people have the most urgency to move. An OTT world messes with their bundle first and foremost."

Who else should we think about?

Charter Communications: Charter Communication is another big regional pay TV provider (they are the ones who bought Time Warner Cable a few years ago). According to the New York Post, Charter has considered buying the cable TV company Cox Communications or even selling itself to Softbank.

(By the way, watch Softbank in this area. They have lots of money. They're the Iron Bank in this scenario)

Liberty Media: Liberty Media chairman John Malone told CNBC that the company has received four acquisition overtures recently.

Malone is a legendary media industry investor who's worth billions. As the chairman of Liberty Media could make a big move at any moment. Liberty Media has stakes in SiriusXM, Formula One Racing and the Atlanta Braves. Malone also has a big stake in Discovery Communications. 

Altice: What's an Altice again? Ad tech nerds know them as the company that bought the web video company Teads last year. They acquired Cablevision a few years ago. Now, the stock is tanking, and they could be looking for a savior.

Viacom and Discover/Scripps: These cable programmers used to be among the power players in the TV industry. Now they're suddenly vulnerable. Do they need to find buyers? Greenfield argues that Viacom needs to reunite with CBS (they two companies split a decade ago) "yesterday."

What about selling to someone like Google or Facebook, both of whom want to get into premium content in a big way (and TV advertising). Greenfield says no way. "Tech companies can build, they don't need to buy. Nothing has changed my thinking on that."

A good example is Amazon inking a deal to make an original series centered on "Lord of the Rings." You don't have to own a studio or network to do content, if you can spend a lot of money.

Amazon: It's coming for every industry, so it seems. The billionaire media mogul Malone earlier this week called them "The Death Star," reported CNBC. Though in this case, The White Walkers might be a better analogy, since few know what Amazon really wants to do.

What's Next?

Dave Morgan, CEO of the data-centric TV ad company Simulmedia, sees a flurry of activity.

"Charter could combine with Discovery/Scripps," he said. "Or they could do a deal with Sprint or T-Mobile, since they each will need a scaled partner. Comcast will talk to one or both of those wireless company. As will Dish."

Morgan also predicted that Facebook, Amazon, Netflix and Google could become sudden buyers. In particular, he predicts Netflix could buy a studio to hedge against Disney. "I think that they will have to, and may want a network for its ability to help them market their programming and maximize its monetization."

The Wild Card

Trump and his team are the great unknown. Few thought that the AT&T/Time Warner deal was in trouble. Now it's headed for a court battle.

"Usually logic reigns supreme," said Thompson. "But with Trump, none of this matters. That’s what these guys have to deal with."

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: This is what Bernie Madoff's life is like in prison

[tortuga-aak]

The media industry has suddenly become a Game of Thrones-like battle for power

HBO

The media industry is suddenly mulling a flurry of huge deals.

Cord-cutting, streaming and shifting consumer and advertiser preferences have upended the power structure as former giants scramble for relevance long term. 

The stakes are as high as it gets  – who controls content, distribution, advertising and connections with consumers.

If you spend any time on Twitter and follow any media industry people, you'll often come away dizzy, and fairly certain that every media company is buying everyone.

It started a year ago when AT&T announced it had reached an agreement to buy Time Warner. Then things really turned upside down when 21st Century Fox — just three years after trying to buy Time Warner — signaled it wanted to sell some assets to Disney. 

Then on Thursday, it was reported that Comcast might buy some of Fox. Or Verizon might. And of course, President Trump might not allow AT&T to buy Time Warner. The FCC is potentially loosening media ownership rules. Net Neutrality might go away. 

Confused yet? 

When did media become Game of Thrones? 

HBOGO

Media used be an industry that was primarily about content, distribution and advertising. Now, the emergence of deep-pocketed tech giants has changed everything. People are streaming, ditching cable, avoiding live TV, watching shows on mobile, etc. 

"The one take away is that the media industry is facing real pressure," said Rich Greenfield, BTIG media and tech analyst. "You've got cord cutting, ads moving to mobile, etc. None of these companies has been prepared for that."

So all these media machinations are about power and control. These giants want to make as much money as possible, position themselves for the future and prevent rivals from getting into their territory.

"What we’ve noticed is where there’s big change there’s often a lot of M&A," said Terry Kawaja founder and CEO of M&A advisory firm Luma Partners. "In this case, it's motivated by fear, not greed."

What gives you the most power in the future?

"In the pre-web video era, it was all the same for decades. Content was king, distribution was queen," said Toby Chapman, associate partner at strategy consulting firm OC&C. "Then, suddenly people are talking about, is content king any more? In a platform world, is it the relationship with consumer? Or is it the pipes?"

Those questions get at the heart of why everyone in media seems to be rethinking who their friends and enemies are.

Is content still king? Does the company with the best shows and movies (like Disney) have the most power? 

Is distribution where the true power lies? Does the company with cable boxes or broadband pipes in people's homes (like say Comcast) rule?

Is having a direct relationship with the consumer the winning strategy? Amazon is one of America's favorite brands, and Netflix is a favorite with millennials.

Or is it all about the browser or the interface? Maybe delivery mechanisms don't matter, as long as you own the browser (like Google) or the interface (like Facebook).

Or do you need to have everything?

"No matter how big you are, tech and user behavior throws it all off," said Elgin Thompson, managing director at Digital Capital Advisors. "Unless you are the full ecosystem, you're not an emperor. These companies want to be so big they can create their own weather."

It seems that suddenly, Fox has many suitors interested in some of its assets (it's not selling Fox network, Fox News or Fox Sports.) Why?

Walt Disney Animation Studios

The rise of Netflix

You may recall, Disney is planning taking on Netflix with its own streaming service, and it may want to own as much content as possible, so Fox's Studio could be a big help.

Disney already owns Marvel, Star Wars and Pixar. Theoretically, if it gets Fox's content and other TV companies start starving Netflix of their shows, Netflix would have fewer people signing on to binge "Breaking Bad" and would have to live and die on its own shows.

"A lot of people would look at them and say, they've stood alone in that space," said Chapman. "But they may suddenly have very credible competitors. And you’ve also got so many channels who've never been good friends with Netflix." 

Netflix, of course, plans to spend $8 billion on content next year. So don't count them out of anything.

The Verizon playbook

Meanwhile, Verizon is eyeing a deal with Fox, according to the Wall Street Journal. What is it doing?

Like AT&T, all of the wireless giants need to get into new revenue streams, since pretty much everyone in the US who wants a cell phone has one and they keep switching to get better deals.

Verizon has acquired AOL and Yahoo in recent years to challenge Facebook and Google, which remains a brutal task. Meanwhile, it has a very limited footprint in TV, other than Verizon Fios. This gets them in the TV game, theoretically.

What about Comcast?

What about Comcast? Many see this cable company as being in great shape, given that it has such a complete set of assets: NBCUniversal (TV networks, and a studio) and the largest pay TV service in the US. Buying some of Fox could help strengthen them against competitors. One very appealing asset: Sky, which is sort of like Comcast or DirecTV in the UK.

Yet Greenfield believes Comcast may have to sell NBCU if it wants to make any more big moves, given the Trump administration's objections to the AT&T/Time Warner deal. 

Isn't everyone cutting the cord? 

Millions of people still have cable. There's a lot of money to be rung out of that business over the next few years – and maybe even some untapped potential.

For example, Comcast theoretically knows what you watch and what you do on the web. They could tie that together with data for advertisers and programmers, for example.

And don't forget that even if you cut the cable cord, you're likely to keep the broadband one. Cable TV companies are essentially broadband companies. And that business isn't going away quickly. The company that delivers broadband to your home could always charge cord cutters more. And if Net Neutrality goes away, they could also charge some companies like Netflix a toll to reach consumers. 

A big limit to cable companies' power is that are inherently regional. You can't get Comcast in New York, for example. No one's been able to roll up all these cable companies into a national play. At least not yet.

HBOStill, these companies have the most to lose in an 'over the top' TV future.  As Kawaja explained it, a company like CBS is happy to deliver its network to new distributors like Sling TV or YouTube TV. Even if people cut the cord for skinny bundles or they just pay for CBS All Access to get the new "Star Trek," CBS makes money.

But recently earnings for Comcast and DirecTV showed both losing subscribers faster. "Now everyone is saying, oh shit, it’s on," Kawaja said. "Cord-cutting is suddenly not a college graduate thing. It’s accelerating faster. And the distribution people have the most urgency to move. An OTT world messes with their bundle first and foremost."

Who else should we think about?

Charter Communications: Charter Communication is another big regional pay TV provider (they are the ones who bought Time Warner Cable a few years ago). According to the New York Post, Charter has considered buying the cable TV company Cox Communications or even selling itself to Softbank.

(By the way, watch Softbank in this area. They have lots of money. They're the Iron Bank in this scenario)

Liberty Media: Liberty Media chairman John Malone told CNBC that the company has received four acquisition overtures recently.

Photo by Kevork Djansezian/Getty ImagesMalone is a legendary media industry investor who's worth billions. As the chairman of Liberty Media could make a big move at any moment. Liberty Media has stakes in SiriusXM, Formula One Racing and the Atlanta Braves. Malone also has a big stake in Discovery Communications. 

Altice: What's an Altice again? Ad tech nerds know them as the company that bought the web video company Teads last year. They acquired Cablevision a few years ago. Now, the stock is tanking, and they could be looking for a savior.

Viacom and Discover/Scripps: These cable programmers used to be among the power players in the TV industry. Now they're suddenly vulnerable. Do they need to find buyers? Greenfield argues that Viacom needs to reunite with CBS (they two companies split a decade ago) "yesterday."

What about selling to someone like Google or Facebook, both of whom want to get into premium content in a big way (and TV advertising). Greenfield says no way. "Tech companies can build, they don't need to buy. Nothing has changed my thinking on that."

A good example is Amazon inking a deal to make an original series centered on "Lord of the Rings." You don't have to own a studio or network to do content, if you can spend a lot of money.

Amazon: It's coming for every industry, so it seems. The billionaire media mogul Malone earlier this week called them "The Death Star," reported CNBC. Though in this case, The White Walkers might be a better analogy, since few know what Amazon really wants to do.

What's Next?

Dave Morgan, CEO of the data-centric TV ad company Simulmedia, sees a flurry of activity.

"Charter could combine with Discovery/Scripps," he said. "Or they could do a deal with Sprint or T-Mobile, since they each will need a scaled partner. Comcast will talk to one or both of those wireless company. As will Dish."

Morgan also predicted that Facebook, Amazon, Netflix and Google could become sudden buyers. In particular, he predicts Netflix could buy a studio to hedge against Disney. "I think that they will have to, and may want a network for its ability to help them market their programming and maximize its monetization."

The Wild Card

AP Photo/Andrew HarnikTrump and his team are the great unknown. Few thought that the AT&T/Time Warner deal was in trouble. Now it's headed for a court battle.

"Usually logic reigns supreme," said Thompson. "But with Trump, none of this matters. That’s what these guys have to deal with."

NOW WATCH: What happens to your brain and body if you use Adderall recreationally

from Feedburner http://ift.tt/2is1bIt