This Review made me look at Tales from the Borderlands differently
This review basically analyses the game design of Tales from the Borderlands:
Basically it says that Tales from the Borderland's game design is used to depict facts and bias in narrative recounts where facts = scripted sequences and bias = gameplay segments. What do you guys think? Do you think the reviewers is overdoing it? Or did Telltale really design their game in such a specific way?
Sign in to comment in this discussion.
Comments
Yeah, it makes sense. The things that you can't influence as a player being the same from both perspectives, and then the things you can being the bits which are kind of grey areas, vulnerable to each characters bias. I dont think it's anything we didn't already realise, but he just kind of says it like its this really complicated thing or whatever. I think it's a really cool way to tell the story, how there are some parts that both Rhys and Fiona agree on, and then there are others where their accounts conflict, meaning we are never quite certain about what REALLY happened at that point. Like, clearly Rhys didn't punch August's heart out, but Fiona's account that he got down on his knees and begged was probably biased also, as the two of them are currently not on the best terms with each other. So what must've really happened has got to be somewhere in between the two extremes, and I really like this mechanic as I said. I'mreally interested to see how its used in upcoming episodes!
Very nice review-analysis! :-)
This is well-thought out and eloquently delivered, but I cannot get past that voice...
He sounds like a human muppet!
From his channel name I assumed he was South African, and he certainly sounds like he is - But more than his accent, the way that he physically speaks is quite unusual, there's a strange cadence to it - almost cartoon-like in its delivery.
Well there are closed captions.
Have you ever actually used Youtube's captions? They're useless - entertaining - but useless.
You're talking about the normal captions, I presume? They're different from closed captions.
The regular captions are ones which are automatically generated based on the sound of your voice. They're not very useful because everyone has a different way of speaking so YouTube hears them all differently and creates semi-accurate subtitles out of them.
Closed captions, on the other hand, is when the YouTuber uploads their actual script onto the video. Then YouTube synchronises it with their voice. So closed captions are actually mostly accurate. Occasionally the YouTuber will say a few words slightly different from the script but for the most part, the closed captions say everything the YouTuber is saying.
Here's a video on closed captions in case you're interested:
Yeah, I'm aware of the difference - didn't realise they were included on this particular video - thanks for the heads up!
You could even say Youtube's captions constitute verbal littering. Either that, or complaining about Youtube's captions constitutes verbal littering.