Procedurally Generated Annotations

Imagine exploring this dungeon:

Procedurally generated dungeon map

But that's not what watabou's One Page Dungeon generator produced. It produced that dungeon with a title, Underground Lair of the Cursed Lich: For several centuries the lair of the Cursed Lich was considered lost, until recently was rediscovered by a gang of gnolls, and also with text annotations on some of the rooms:

Procedurally annotated dungeon map

Big difference! The text sparks curiosity and imagination in a way that the map by itself does not. Is that bard good or evil? Did the bard and cleric know each other? How did seals kill the gnoll?! What does the magic gem do? This type of text is missing from many procedural generation projects, including mine. I love what watabou did here.

Let's look a map from Azgaar's Fantasy Map Generator:

Procedurally generated continent map

But that's not all Azgaar generates. He also generates country names, borders, icons, and other annotations:

Procedurally generated everything

Look at how much more interesting that is!

Zoomed in, the map looks nice, with regions, rivers, and bays:

Procedurally generated region map

But look how much more interesting it is with town names, roads, and trade routes:

Procedurally generated everything

It doesn't take much annotation to make the magic! Just a small amount triggers our curiosity and imagination. Our minds see patterns easily, even when they aren't really there ("apophenia"). This is something I'd like to explore the next time I'm making a procedural map generator.

(Note: this is an expanded version of what I posted on twitter)

Against Book Purism

DISCLAIMER:

Copyrighted material that may appear on this blog is for the usage of further commentary, criticism, or teaching within the standards of "fair use" in Section 107 of the Copyright Act. All video, music, text, or images shown, all belong to their respective creators or companies. I own nothing so…PLEASE DON'T SUE ME!!! (If you own any of the copyrighted material on this blog and oppose its presence, please be civil and contact me at sansuarobi@hotmail.com or sansuthecat@yahoo.com, the content will be removed ASAP).

Picture by Andy Mabbett

I have recently started watching the original anime adaptation of the manga Fullmetal Alchemist. I am enjoying it a great deal, but when sharing my enthusiasm with certain people, they are always sure to point out that it is inferior to the source material. In fact, I have been dissuaded from the anime on the basis that I should read the manga instead, or at least, that I should read it first. I even knew someone who wouldn't watch the anime of Neon Genesis Evangelion for similar reasons.

I recall similar cries of foul-up leveled against the Harry Potter films for not including Peeves the Poltergeist or Arthur Weasley's flamboyant entrance through the Dursley's chimney. Even writer Stephen King famously despises Stanley Kubrick's film of his novel The Shining because it's, "Cold. I'm not a cold guy. I think one of the things people relate to in my books is this warmth, there's a reaching out and saying to the reader, 'I want you to be a part of this.' With Kubrick's The Shining I felt that it was very cold, very 'We're looking at these people, but they're like ants in an anthill, aren't they doing interesting things, these little insects.'" (Gompertz, BBC)

I can't imagine the numbers of people who despise the Hunger Games for its lack of avoxes, Lord of the Rings for its lack of Tom Bombadill, or Disney's 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea for its addition of seal. Apparently, the Bible isn't the only holy text. There's this infectious idea among some that literature must be adapted as true to the text as humanly possible, and even the slightest divergence is a cause for criticism. I call this idea book purism and it can damage one's perception of an otherwise excellent film or television show. 

To deconstruct book purism, we must first understand what an adaptation is. One definition of the word adaptation, according to my Webster's Dictionary, is,

"3. b. a form or structure modified to fit a changed environment" (10)

So, based on this definition, fundamentally, making a visual adaptation that is completely true to the text is impossible. The literary and the visual exist in two very different worlds. One world unfolds in your mind, while the other is presented before you. One medium describes the scenery in a paragraph or a panel, while the other can show it in an establishing shot. So clearly, things change when your story is taken from one world into the next. Understandably, parts of a text will be lost during the transfer, but also, a film could bring dimensions to the story that it otherwise may not have had. I believe that a visual work and a literary work should live as independent entities, each one to be judged on their own merits. Their relationship should be like that between a parent and a child. Yes, the child and the parent are related, but both can live differently. So when Christopher Tolkien, son of Lord of the Rings author J.R.R. Tolkien, said in an interview for Le Monde that, "They eviscerated the book by making it an action movie for young people aged 15-25," he, being very close to author of the novels, tends to judge the films more by their differences to the book, as opposed to judging the films in their own right. I think that his critique, however, is more appropriate for the Hobbit films.

Now when I say book purism I mean a sort of blind worship to the text. So much so that any change, regardless if it improves the visual text or no, is inherently wrong. It is the belief that the book is always better than the film or show. This is not to say that there aren't ideas in the text that wouldn't make the film or show better, or that authors shouldn't care about how their works are represented in other mediums. We have to balance respecting the intent of the creator, while recognizing the variations of the art forms.

First off, the elitist idea that books are inherently better than films and television in every case. Now, being a writer, and something of a reader myself, I have a deep respect for the literary form. In fact, I would argue that reading is an essential activity to learning about human nature and the world around us. Much of our knowledge and much of the world's best storytelling was put down into books. Indeed, books, in their forms, be it novels, poetry, plays, or graphic novels, have very much enriched my life. However, man need not experience art through the text alone. I believe that movies are also very enriching, and to a degree, essential. 

In an interview for the Archive of American Television, Roger Ebert said on films, "They affect the way people think and feel and behave and they can be both a good influence on society and a negative influence." The same could be said for television. Books are a more challenging art form that require active engagement on behalf of the reader, whereas films and TV simply require you to sit in front of a screen for an hour or more. Since books have been around longer than films and television, they are seen as above them. In most cases, I agree, they often are, but not in all cases. Book purism tends to reinforce the idea that if one truly wants to enjoy an adaptation, they must do the so-called "busy work" of reading. Why do we punish people in this way? People should come to literature out of love, not force (though a little nudging here and there couldn't hurt). Since when did film and television become dessert and books the vegetables? (They're both treats as far as I'm concerned). Are visual arts, because of their easy accessibility, these sinful things that we should steer from unless we jump through all of the hoops? This whole ordeal reminds me of passage in Matthew 12: 41, "The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgement with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here" (418, King James Bible). To provide some context here, Jesus is discontented that the people who praise the old prophets of God, will not lend that same praise to him, the messiah. Now the point that I'm trying to make here isn't that Jesus was the messiah, (that's up to you), but that simply because something is new doesn't mean you can't find as much, if not more value in it than an older thing. Yes, moving pictures are a relatively new way of viewing the world, considering that literature and paintings are centuries old, whereas films and television are little over a hundred. Yet this fact does not make the visual adaptation inherently inferior, but opens new possibilities that otherwise may not have been conceived. We have an abundance of moving pictures to explore, let's appreciate them without the stigma.

Second, a visual adaptation can improve on or add things otherwise unable to be conveyed in its literary form. Take Walt Disney's Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, which was based on the Grimm Brothers' fairy tale. Now the original fairy tale is a fine one, but one of its problems was that the dwarfs were all the same, and this would be boring to see on film. So Disney gave each of the dwarfs distinct characteristics, and thus, they add some of the most entertaining humor to the story. Disney later did something similar with the fairies in Sleeping Beauty. Consider, also, Hayao Miyazaki's adaptation of Diane Wynn Jones's Howl's Moving Castle. In the book, the walking castle, while being a fascinating object, was, to my memory, more of a backdrop to the bickering romance between Sophie and Howl. Whereas in Miyazaki's film, the castle takes on this radical makeover as an organic steampunk chimera. It serves as a great centerpiece of the story and becomes something of a character in and of itself. It is a visual treat that you can't quite get by reading the book. In short, just think about this: would you rather read about a Quidditch match in Harry Potter, or see one before your eyes?

Third, for best results, the visual adaptation should respect the intent of the creator. This means understanding the soul of the story and expressing that through the visual piece. So when Stephen King says things like, "Shelley Duvall as Wendy is really one of the most misogynistic characters ever put on film, she's basically just there to scream and be stupid and that's not the woman that I wrote about" (BBC), it means that Kubrick probably didn't understand what King wanted to convey, or for that matter, even cared. This difference in vision in The Shining is further elaborated by Laura Miller in her article "What Stanley Kubrick Got Wrong About The Shining." for Salon,

"King is, essentially, a novelist of morality. The decisions his characters make — whether it's to confront a pack of vampires or to break 10 years of sobriety — are what matter to him. But in Kubrick's "The Shining," the characters are largely in the grip of forces beyond their control. It's a film in which domestic violence occurs, while King's novel is about domestic violence as a choice certain men make when they refuse to abandon a delusional, defensive entitlement. As King sees it, Kubrick treats his characters like "insects" because the director doesn't really consider them capable of shaping their own fates. Everything they do is subordinate to an overweening, irresistible force, which is Kubrick's highly developed aesthetic; they are its slaves. In King's "The Shining," the monster is Jack. In Kubrick's, the monster is Kubrick."

I bring this up to demonstrate that while Kubrick's The Shining may be a poor adaptation of the novel, that does not necessarily make it an equally poor film. Yes, Jack Nicholson's performance is not much different than his others, and yes, Wendy's depiction as a nitwit damel-in-distress is sexist, but the movie still has a frightful visual presence hardly rivaled by most horror pictures. So it is important that when we judge an adapted piece, we are sure to distinguish between its success as as a good story and its success as a good adaptation. 

Now I think that Christopher Tolkien had a good point about the Lord of the Rings films, when he also said in Le Monde, "The chasm between the beauty and seriousness of the work, and what it has become, has overwhelmed me. The commercialization has reduced the aesthetic and philosophical impact of the creation to nothing. There is only one solution for me: to turn my head away." A similar criticism was also echoed by film critic Roger Ebert, who said in his review of Fellowship of the Ring that,

"The Ring Trilogy embodies the kind of innocence that belongs to an earlier, gentler time. The Hollywood that made "The Wizard of Oz" might have been equal to it. But "Fellowship" is a film that comes after "Gladiator" and "Matrix," and it instinctively ramps up to the genre of the overwrought special-effects action picture. That it transcends this genre--that it is a well-crafted and sometimes stirring adventure--is to its credit. But a true visualization of Tolkien's Middle-earth it is not."

Ebert and Tolkien both lament the darker and more action-paced tone than an epic picture like the Lord of the Rings would have in today's blockbuster Hollywood. I feel that Ebert, being a film critic, recognizes this as more of a reality for the film, than Tolkien, who decries it. Now I have deep affections for both the film trilogy and the book trilogy. The books, to me, felt more like epic fairy tales, with compelling characters and flawless descriptions. They also have degrees of subtlety in presentation and welcoming atmospheres in tone. The films, on the other hand, are incredibly shot, acted, and written. I really feel that they captured the heart and the scale of the novels, even if Tolkien doesn't think so. I will admit, however, that some of the subtleties in the text are lost on the films. Take the scene, for instance, where Galadriel is tempted to take the Ring from Frodo. In the book, it certainly had an ominous and dramatic atmosphere, "She lifted up her hand and from the ring she wore there issued a great light that illumined her alone and left all else dark. She stood before Frodo seeming now tall beyond measurement, and beautiful beyond enduring, terrible and worshipful" (410, Tolkien, J.R.R.). In the film, however, Galadriel turns into a glowing green monster whose lines were apparently dubbed by a female Darth Vader with water in her helmet. The event is so campy that it undercuts the seriousness of the scene. (The awkward close-ups throughout had a habit of doing that, too.) Tolkein's other critique, that Lord of the Rings is now a franchise to be sold in any way possible, is sad, but this is not really a fault on the films. It's a fault on our commercialized culture, in which the mass arts struggle to survive without compromise. Nevertheless, this is still, once more, a judgement on the films as adaptations, as opposed to them as their own stories. Now that is not to say that there isn't overlap in these analyses, but the influence of the book is certainly a stronger inclination in these criticisms. Ebert even admitted to this in his Fellowship review, "That "Fellowship of the Ring" doesn't match my imaginary vision of Middle-earth is my problem, not yours." There are so many different ways of seeing Lord of the Rings, in fact, that Marcel Aubron-Bulles of the Tolkeinist wrote a great article entitled "Why the 'film purists' and the 'book purists' will never understand each other – on how (not) to appreciate Peter Jackson's work". Okay, so I'm not the first person to use the term book purist, but getting back on subject, Aubron-Bulles wrote on the different perspectives that general movie goers, film critics, and fans of the book would use in criticism of these films. By the end of the article, he still loved the films, even if they were different from the source,

"I love the films, I love the books and I find it very hard sometimes to agree with all these positions brought forward – I am just a Tolkien fan who thinks that his favourite writer and his books are the best there are and if someone like PJ does films then they are amazing, too (even if they have nothing to do with the books.)"

Fourth, yes, mistakes can happen in adapting a work between the mediums. Horrible mistakes. We need to ask ourselves, should the story even have a visual adaptation at all? Some literary stories don't make good films. Has there been a filmed version of The Great Gatsby that's worthy of the status the book's reception apparently gets? For some reason, F. Scott Fitzgerald's story is just kind of boring when put on a screen. Perhaps it's a pacing issue. We should also consider how making the story animated or live-action will affect its presentation as well. Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland received a great animated version by Walt Disney in 1954, since the animators had few limitations in illuminating Carrol's colorful world. On the other hand, when Tim Burton took a crack at it in the live-action format, limitations in special effects were obvious and unable to produce the same believability that the 1954 version did. When Beowulf, however, got the animated treatment, it didn't look impressive so much as distracting and awkward at times. A live-action retelling of the poem would have been able to better convey the story's somber tone. 

Oftentimes, as the book purists will happily tell me, distancing oneself from the text is what can make an adaptation less satisfying. In the Hunger Games, for instance, Katniss's personal narration from the novel is virtually absent. This would have been an easy way to slip exposition into the film and show Katniss's relationship with Peeta was clearly one of convenience as opposed to an actual romance. At that point, anyways. Without the narration, this undercurrent to Peeta and Katniss is made unclear in the film, confusing audiences, while the lack of exposition will sometimes necessitate abrupt interruptions from the talking heads of Capitol TV which break the flow of the narrative. In the Guin Saga novels, the battle scenes are described with enough of bloodshed and gore to please Quentin Tarantino. This brought a brutal sense of realism to the story, and more tension to fights. In the anime (a medium known for its ultra-violence), the battles are completely toned down to almost Pokemon levels, and thus, the dimension of reality that the fight scenes once had is lost. These changes, I must emphasize, are only worth noting insofar as they affect the enjoyment of the film or show on its own. To illustrate, the exclusion of Peeves the Poltergeist from the Harry Potter films was not a bad idea. Reducing Cho Chang's development in Order of the Phoenix was. By the way, staying too true to the book has its own slew of problems as well. Take, for example, the decision in Catching Fire to include the white baboons in the Quarter Quell. No amount of CG wizardy could make that look any good.

In the end, the literary and the visual often oppose, but they can also complement each other. In an interview with Joseph Gelmis, director Stanley Kubrick had this to say about the filmed and written versions of 2001: A Space Odyssey:

"I think it gives you the opportunity of seeing two attempts in two different mediums, print and film, to express the same basic concept and story. In both cases, of course, the treatment must accommodate to the necessities of the medium. I think that the divergencies between the two works are interesting."

Indeed they are.
 
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'll get back to watching Fullmetal Alchemist.







Bibliography

Aubron-Bulles, Marcel. "Why the 'film purists' and the 'book purists' will never understand each other – on how (not) to appreciate Peter Jackson's work." The Tolkienist. September 27, 2012. Web. http://www.thetolkienist.com/2012/09/27/why-the-film-purists-and-the-book-purists-will-never-understand-each-other-on-how-not-to-appreciate-peter-jacksons-work/

Ebert, Roger. "Lord Of The Rings: The Fellowship Of The Ring." rogerebert.com. December 19, 2001. Web. http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/lord-of-the-rings-the-fellowship-of-the-ring-2

Gompertz, Will. "Stephen King returns to The Shining with Doctor Sleep." BBC News. September 19, 2013. Web. Video. http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-24151957

Kubrick, Stanley. "An Interview With Stanley Kubrick (1969). " Interview by Joseph Gelmis. Excerpt. The Film Director As Superstar. Garden City, New York: Doubleday And Company, 1970. Print. The Kubrick Site. Web. http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0069.html

Miller, Laura. "What Stanley Kubrick Got Wrong About The Shining." Salon. October 1, 2013. Web. http://www.salon.com/2013/10/01/what_stanley_kubrick_got_wrong_about_the_shining/

Rerolle, Raphaelle. "My Father's "Eviscerated" Work - Son Of Hobbit Scribe J.R.R. Tolkien Finally Speaks Out." Le Monde. July 9, 2012. http://www.lemonde.fr/culture/article/2012/07/05/tolkien-l-anneau-de-la-discorde_1729858_3246.html Trans. Worldcrunch. Web. http://www.worldcrunch.com/culture-society/my-father-039-s-quot-eviscerated-quot-work-son-of-hobbit-scribe-j.r.r.-tolkien-finally-speaks-out/hobbit-silmarillion-lord-of-rings/c3s10299/#.VC4VBRbp9EP

Rutkowski, Gary. "Roger Ebert On Film Criticism-TV LEGENDS." The Archive Of American Television. November 2, 2005. YouTube. December 30, 2008. Web. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FCVlQ_5aSI

The King James Bible. pg 418. Colombia: Tom Nelson, 1987. Print.

Tolkien, J.R.R. The Lord Of The Rings: The Fellowship Of The Ring. pg 410. United States: Del Rey, 1954. Print.

Webster's Universal College Dictionary. pg 10. New York: Gramercy, 2004. Print.

Want to watch Fullmetal Alchemist, too? See it on YouTube through Funimation's official page: https://www.youtube.com/show/fullmetalalchemist

In this video, director Mick Garris discusses why the film of The Shining is a poor adaptation of the book. Warning: the clip shows scary images from The Shining

Shadow Of The Comet – Flight Of Icarus

By limbeck

Things have progressed more smoothly in this session, with a bit of excitement and a lot more exposition. I finished the previous one after getting a quest from Mr UNDERHOUSE to get a diary from the Mayor's safe and with Miss PICOTT vehemently refusing to give me her Bible. I need the Bible to find the aforementioned safe's combination.

No amount of talk seems to change Miss PICOTT's mind, so I leave her and do some more walking around. My wanderings bring me to MYER's shop again. He obviously does not mention WILBUR or keys casually left on counters, but he gets to what he knows best: business. He tells me he received a lot of nice new goodies overnight, such as a cheap locket, an even cheaper brooch and more photosensitive plates. I buy the lot, because I still have access to Mr GRIFFITH's funds. I feel quite satisfied with my purchase, but as soon as I get out of the store, the pin falls off the brooch.

I have been scammed!

I go immediately inside to ask for a refund, but MYER just acts as if everything is in order. I decide to roll with the punches and see the positives. The pin I now have in my inventory may still be used to pick a lock. Not the one in the cemetery though.

I pay a visit to CURTIS's shack, but he is not in. I wonder if he is dead, like poor JUGG. In the tavern, ZEKE again offers me some of his water for beer and mocks me when I don't buy one.

Sorry, I just spent $3 on a broken brooch and a fake silver locket.

I then go to the pharmacy and order three more pills, just to be on the safe side. I have money and I want to be alive to spend them. Dr COBBLE was seen leaving the pharmacy but I could not interact with him. It is nice that the NPCs seem to follow their own schedule. It is not critical to gameplay, but it is a nice touch. They are simple actions, but most of them are realistic and help with the immersion and the feeling that you are indeed in a living town.

Further down, I come across BISHOP outside of the Archives. I approach him and try to talk to him about TYLER, but he gets scared and says he indeed has something to tell me, but at a place and time to be determined later. With that, he leaves.

Finally I am back in front of the post office and in the company of Miss PICOTT. I try to give her the brooch, but she is offended that I try to "buy her respect" with worthless shiny baubles. I double my bet, offering her the $2 locket instead of the $1 brooch and she happily accepts and trades me her Bible for it.

Just before I propose to Miss PICOTT

Reading the Bible, I get three options:

• Austin, errr John 3:16 from Saint PAUL's epistles
• Peter doing something in front of some 120 people from the Acts of Apostles
• The Number of the Beast from the Apocalypse

Well, we needed a number that symbolises evil to open the Mayor's safe. I am pretty sure that the Number of the Beast fits that role perfectly. But we first need to get to the safe. The Mayor is rarely at his office, which is good, but access to it is forbidden by his very diligent and busy clerk. So, I go to the Town Hall ready for a confrontation with a clerk.

He seems to have called in reinforcements

I arrive just in time the annual town hall clerk conference or it's just lunch break. When I try to talk to anybody, I find out that I am facing a dialogue puzzle. It takes me a few tries to get it right:

• I first tell that I need to go to the Mayor's office (yes, in his absence)
• Then I try to bluff my way in and tell him that the Mayor himself invited me to admire Illsmouth from his window. The clerk, Mr SWING, swallows it hook, line and sinker and concludes that I am the photographer.
• I correct him that I am a reporter and I am free to walk upstairs.

I walk in the Mayor's office. There's nothing interesting in it apart from the safe, hidden behind a painting.

Not that hard to spot if you want my opinion

I open it and get to the task of opening it. I am presented with three slots with very slowly sliding numbers. I put 666 and hope for a satisfying click, but I am disappointed. Apparently the Number of the Beast itself is not evil enough. I try a couple more times and I get arrested.

I try again after reloading. I suppose I am given three tries to get it right (or infinite with reloading). I must note that the Bible is not working any more, so I should have noted down what I read.

A screenshot would also work I suppose

After a bit of thought, I put the page number in the Bible, where the number of the Beast is mentioned. So, either all Bibles have the exact same layout or there is just the one Bible in town and they pass it around. Either way, it doesn't really make much sense as a solution, but I only had a few options, so I will not complain much.

When I open the safe, I find a diary and a cigar case. I take both. But now that I have the diary, I find that I cannot give it to UNDERHOUSE or use it. UNDERHOUSE in particular congratulates me for taking it and then tells me to put it back where I found it.

Was this some kind of initiation challenge?

I am seriously confused this time, so I walk around the town again. The fact that all NPCs are still where I left them indicates that the scene I am playing in has not yet changed. I have noticed that once I reach a milestone, all NPCs just move to different locations. Walking around this time just gives me the same dialogues.

I do come across CURTIS and GREENWOOD (the blind man) walking out of the latter one's house and into the forest. I follow them, but I lose them as soon as I enter the forest. Are they buddies from old out for a walk?

While in the forest, I decide to try and use the cigar case. Nothing happened there. I focus on the 'there', because as soon as I return to the village, PARKER takes initiative and unscrews the case. Inside it is a deposit note. I head to the post office, but I cannot use it. I return to the Mayor's office and now I can read the notice! It is about a parcel delivery under WILBUR's name. Reading of the notice IN the Mayor's office make me think that I can only read the diary in there. I am correct. I sit on his desk and receive the first batch of exposition for the day.

I am not that interested in you, JONAS. Feel my indifference

The diary belonged to JONAS HAMBLETON, father of WILBUR and CURTIS. JONAS made his fortune at sea and signed an unholy pact with NARACKAMUS and an ancient god of the sea, named Dagon, in exchange for immortality. He sacrificed or offered (it's not clear) his wife to that foul being and in return, he got his two sons. JONAS claims that some plans of theirs were foiled by BOLESKINE, but he also says that time means nothing to him and the stars will be right again. WILBUR has the gift of "begging to the stones", whatever that may mean. JONAS's burial place is where earth, sky and water come together. Could that be a beach or something? Finally, he speaks about some families (four in number) and the same number of statuettes, which he guards in his crypt. According to my journal, I need to find these 4 statuettes and wait for the comet to pass to stop those 4 families. I must say that the narrative during the cutscene could use some improvement. It was too dry and not up to Lovecraftian standards. Anyway, it seems as if JONAS is still alive.

Thanks for the hint JONAS

After reading the diary, I put it back in the safe and walk to the post office, a bit shaken I must admit. Miss PICOTT and CYNTHIA are gone from the front of the post office, which signals that something has changed in the game. I've reached a new milestone.

Walking to Ms WEBSTER at the post office counter, I give the notice for WILBUR's package and she hands me the package without many questions. Now, I would find that very funny if I had not had some horrible experiences with the post service here in Ireland recently. Anyway, I wonder why the Mayor would keep WILBUR's delivery notice in his safe.

The parcel contains a frock, like the one that WILBUR wears. He only buys his ritual cloaks in Boston I am told. Later, I meet Mr COLDSTONE, who offers me a drink at his house. I hadn't saved for a while, so I decline, but I am sure this would be another death scene. One of my responses could have been that I was going to the Lighthouse. Why would I go there? Is it where JONAS's tomb lies? Maybe I'll take the not so subtle hint and go there. At least I have the proper disguise for it.

But closed minds prevent me from putting it on

Before I visit the lighthouse though, I decide to go to the cemetery, in case the tomb is there. On my way I meet Mr BISHOP, who offers me his help, as he believes I have come to lift the curse that haunts Illsmouth. I also learn that the HAMBLETONS are out for me. I still cannot get in the cemetery, so I head to the lighthouse.

Whenever I try to put the frock on in the open, I am interrupted by the locals (in one case CYNTHIA, who threatens to call the police). For me this is a nicely executed comic relief in the game. I go to my room, but still cannot change there. Sometimes you just can't get rid of a bomb.

After failing to set myself free of the conformism that clothes bring, in various locations, I succeed to change behind the well and only behind the well.

Modesty for the fourth wall

I then go to the gate for the lighthouse, which is guarded by the two gorillas. I grunt at them when given the option and they let me pass. I suppose being more articulate would give away that I am not WILBUR.

At the base of the lighthouse, I take the frock off and try to find a way in. With the door locked, there is only one way in and that is through the window, by using the rope ladder I had picked up very early from outside CURTIS's place.

Have I mentioned already how deep in the uncanny valley these cutscenes lie?

I run to the top of the lighthouse, where I realise that the two goons were not fooled for long by my disguise and are after me. I lock the door to the balcony, but something tells me that I am again in a time-constrained puzzle. Fortunately I only have a limited number of objects to use and interact with. A sundial has a mechanism which opens and reveals a set of wings. There is also a lamp that has a candle in it.

If I try to use the wings, I fly off the balcony and crash to death like a proper idiot. Fortunately I happen to recall the myth about the flight of Icarus, who flew too high and the sun melted the wax that held his wings together. Now, if only I had a source of wax... I take the candle and place it on the ground. I try using the wings again, thinking that I would use them on the candle, but the candle is not lit and I get a Wile. E. Coyote death again.

Third time is the charm and this time I first use my magnifying glass to light the candle and use the melted wax from it to strengthen the wings. I can then use the wings to fly safely away and land in the middle of the gypsy camp in the forest.

The lighthouse is far to the right, but I seemed to fly in from the south.

It was satisfactory to solve this puzzle, simple as it was. I like it when I can use an item multiple times during a game. In this case, it was the magnifying glass. I don't expect a sonic screwdriver or a passe partout, but I see no reason to discard potentially useful items after using them only once in a puzzle.

On the other hand, the whole lighthouse sequence didn't really make sense. I learned nothing out of it and it only progressed the plot in a ridiculous manner. Who keeps a set of wings on top of a lighthouse? Why couldn't I just find the gypsies just by wandering through the forest? Why did I want to go to the lighthouse in the first place?

Back to the gypsy camp, I speak to the fortune teller, who is the only person or thing I can interact with, and I am treated to my second exposition sequence of the session. This one features Lord BOLESKINE himself, who tells me that I have to repeat what he did 76 years ago and stop the cult of the Ancient Ones (and get mad in the process I suspect). All the exposition is given in a nicely stylised scene in ochre tones. I liked this one better than JONAS's diary.

It can also be used as a puzzle screen for Gobliins 2.

Lord BOLESKINE tells me that Illsmouth was built where an ancient temple used to stand. A temple, in which horrific sacrifices to the Ancient Ones were performed by a sorcerer. When the comet passes in two days, I will have to stop their unholy plan to bring those extradimensional horrors back to Earth. What I must do is go to where JONAS HAMBLETON is buried, which I assume must be in the cemetery.

It is night again when I get out of the forest and head to the cemetary. Outside of the pharmacy I meet Mr BISHOP again, who tells me that Dr COBBLE has proclaimed JUGG's death a suicide, but he does not believe it. I don't believe it either. BISHOP seems as if he wants to run away, but he also mentions a cemetery key. I ask him for it and he gladly lends it to me. I'll next go to the graveyard, but I want to have a quick walk around first, because the scene has again changed and I need to be sure I have not missed something.

I feel vindicated. In front of MYER's shop there is some rotten fish in the bin. I pick it up to cover my own smell of fear.

I use BISHOP's key and I enter the cemetery, which I must say is very nicely drawn.I see a light at the keeper's house, but I'd rather ignore it for now. Wandering around, I pick up a bar and a piece of rope. I also notice some named tombs: PRATT, ELIZABETH SULLIVAN, BELLA BLASKO, but I cannot see any use for them. So, I ignore them and go in the crypt, which has even nicer artwork.

Artwork from cemetery and crypt. I like the use of colours

The gate to get deeper is barred, but nothing that a good iron bar cannot open. Of course I drop to my death again, because I forgot to tie the rope and use it to climb down. Once I do so, I arrive at the beginning of what I remember was a horrible maze.

I will stop the session here with the realisation that I never went to pick those three pills from the pharmacy. I hope I will not come to regret it. I expect a full showdown in the next session, which will result in insanity or, if I am lucky, in my death.

Session time: 1:40
Total time: 7:40

Sanity lost: 5 from the double exposition
Total sanity lost: 17 (I need more candles. Leave no shadow alive. I can still hear that violin from under the bed.)

Note Regarding Spoilers and Companion Assist Points: There's a set of rules regarding spoilers and companion assist points. Please read it here before making any comments that could be considered a spoiler in any way. The short of it is that no points will be given for hints or spoilers given in advance of me requiring one. Please...try not to spoil any part of the game for me...unless I really obviously need the help...or I specifically request assistance. In this instance, I've not made any requests for assistance. Thanks!

GameStop Decides To Close California Stores - IGN Games

GameStop Decides To Close California Stores

Buds, Blooms, And Thorns Review Of Heroes & Tricks By Pencil First Games

Buds, Blooms, and Thorns Review of Heroes & Tricks by Pencil First Games
DisclaimerSupport me on Patreon!

Vitals:
Title: Heroes & Tricks
Designed by: Eduardo Baraf, Jonathan Gilmour
Publisher: Pencil First Games
Year Published: 2017
MSRP: $20
2-6p | 15-25 min | 8+

Introduction:

No matter race, creed, gender, or empire – each child of Gamedor is born with an affinity to one of The Four Suits: Card, Meeple, Die, or Token. In Love and War these suits are absolutely meaningless, but in Game, well, they mean everything. A true leader uses their cards, and any means necessary, to gain the favor of other heroes of the land. Can you best the other Lords of Gamedor and build the biggest party of Heroes?

Gameplay:  The goal of Heroes and Tricks is to be the player to win the most tricks (thereby having the most Heroes) in the game. Each Trick is lead by a Hero card that defines the target suit and color, dramatically changing the play dynamic of typical trick-taking games. Players then play into the trick, but only see the last played card and need to use deduction, item play, and hand management to win the most tricks.

—description from the publisher

Blooms:
Blooms are the game's highlights and features.  Elements that are exceptional.

• The artwork and component quality is great.  Characters and items are fun and comical, the cards and dividers are great quality, and the magnetic box is outstanding.
• The ability to have the game playable without a table is very interesting.
• Trick taking with some additional cards to give powers and abilities is a fun twist.

Buds:
Buds are interesting parts of the game I would like to explore more. 

• I'm curious to know if repeated plays adds a better sense of strategic choice.  
• There is a variant to play more like a traditional trick-taking game, without the box.  This may feel like you have more control of your game.
• The rock-paper-scissors style hierarchy of suits is an interesting way of figuring out the trick winner if nothing matches the hero exactly.

Thorns:
Thorns are a game's shortcomings and any issues I feel are noteworthy.

• Felt like it was mostly luck.  
• Very limited information about what other players had made choices feel very limited and just a shot in the dark.
• The general mechanics seemed straightforward at first, but felt a bit kludgy in practice.
• Though you can play without a table, it's very helpful to have a place to lay down cards as you win tricks.  It's tough to juggle your hand, your won tricks, and the box as it's passed around.
• There are four suits, four colors, and various ranks of cards within each suit and color.  Each color has two suits, each of which it shares with another color.  That's just too much going on and it results in chaos.

Final Thoughts:

Admittedly I didn't play this game much, but what I did play felt like it was mostly luck since there was so little known information about what anyone had and what was played.  You can only see the card that was played before your own turn.  Unfortunately I couldn't ever find anyone interested in exploring the game further.

I do like the idea of games that you can play without needing a table, and you can play this without a table, but that's very cumbersome.  You need a place to put the cards you win.  It also gets tiring to have to pass the box around, open it to see the last card played, pick something from your hand, then place it in the box.  Then resolving tricks requires that everything be emptied, the winner figured out based on suit, color, rank, and if any of that happens to match the hero that started the trick or if any gear cards changed anything up along the way.  It all ends up being very chaotic and fiddly.

There are interesting ideas in Heroes & Tricks, but they don't feel well thought out and aren't implemented very well.  So much has been done and added that the game just feels like a random, chaotic mess.  All you're doing is guessing the whole time.  I think instead of expanding to essentially 8 suits (if you consider each suit/color combination separately), since you can only see the card played previously, reducing the number of suits would have been a better idea.  Then you'd be able to make some deductions based on cards you have in your own hand.

This may be more interesting as a standard trick-taking game, where you can see everything played, but only the first player gets to see the Hero that they are attempting to win.  I could see this played where the first player gets to see the hero.  Then all players play one card, visible to everyone, possibly with a Gear card played secretly behind their played card.  I think that would be a lot more interesting, add some clever player interactions and deduction, and feel much less chaotic.  You'd have to eliminate the box novelty though.

As it is, I can't recommend Heroes & Tricks, which is a shame since it looks great and has some great ideas.  If you are looking for something to play while in line at a convention, or at a restaurant with limited table space, I think there are better games to play.  But if you like the theme, and don't mind a game that's more an activity and exercise in randomness, then you may get some enjoyment out of it.  Be warned though, whether you win or lose will have more to do with chance than any choices you make.

Buds, Blooms, and Thorns Rating:

Thorn!  I can't quite recommend this game,
although you may enjoy it if you like games
like this.  I feel this game has some flaws and
there are areas that it could improve in the
experience it provides.

Pictures:

Did you like this review?  Show your support: Support me on Patreon!Also, click the heart at Board Game Links , like GJJ Games on Facebook , or follow on Twitter .  And be sure to check out my games on  Tabletop Generation.

GJJ Games Reviews are independent, unpaid reviews of games I, George Jaros, have played with my family and friends.  Some of these games I own, some are owned by friends, some are borrowed, and some were provided by a publisher or designer for my honest feedback and evaluation.  I make every attempt to be both honest and constructively critical in my reviews, and they are all my opinions.  There are four types of reviews on GJJ Games: Full Reviews feature critical reviews based on a rubric and games receive a rating from 0 to 100.  Quick Reviews and Kickstarter Previews are either shorter reviews of published games or detailed preview reviews of crowdfunding games that will receive a rating from 0 to 10 based on my impressions of the game.  Buds, Blooms,and Thorns reviews are shorter reviews of either published or upcoming games that highlight three aspects of a game: Buds are parts of a game I look forward to exploring more, Blooms are outstanding features of a game, and Thorns are shortcomings of a game.  Each BBT review game will receive an overall rating of Thorn, Bud, or Bloom.