Gian-Reto

Member
  • Content count

    1492
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

7077 Excellent

About Gian-Reto

  • Rank
    Contributor

Personal Information

  • Interests
    Art
    Design
    Production
    Programming
  1. Input on Adult Content

    Well, I think the word "allowed" shows the problem you will face with what you are trying to achieve. Adult content that shoved into a story/movie/game because you want adult content in it will feel like porn. Like something tacked on to be edgy, to use the power of "sex sells", or to add value to a product you perceive as lacking in it. If that is what you want... hey, porn games/hentai games/adult themed games/whater-you-want-to-call-it are quite popular on Steam as I hear, and have a small-ish, but pretty dedicated niche of fans as far as I could tell, so go on. Just make sure you actually serve the niche well, if that is your intention. Yes, that probably means shoving adult content in REGARDLESS if the story allows for it or not (hence impractical, stupid looking skimpy outfits and such) If you want to add adult content to a game without it feeling like porn. Well, I guess instead of trying too hard to get your adult content in SOMEWHERE, maybe just write the story and see if it feels right organically at some point in the story. This way, chances are good it feels like more than just porn. Just beware the many, many pitfalls nowadays that come with the sex-negative outlook of many puritans on the left and the right, and the outrage culture that tries to find stereotypes and faults in everything. If you feel adult content is worth the pitfalls, maybe make sure you have a diverse test group you can reference to test read/watch/play your adult content before you let it lose on the wider audience just to catch some of the more obvious triggers for the puritans and outrage warriors... unless you don't care and simply can weather the storm. Its not like a little bit of outrage haven't helped sell some controversial games in the past
  2. Star Wars: The Last Jedi

    Well, I got one of the few TV sets which seems to have gotten the 3D Expierience almost right. Right at the end of 3D TVs, when almost noone cared anymore, some TVs actually came out which have little crosstalk and make 3D look REALLY good with a good 3D Blueray. If you like having to wear the active glasses while watching, still having to overlook some faint traces of crosstalk, and the slight dimming effect of the image thanks to the glasses. And if you are ready to pay almost double for a 3D Blueray in the first place. Which is really annoying even for the movies which got 3D right. So the question I wanted to ask is rather this: are the 3D effects in Rogue One an integral part to the expierience like in Avatar (probably not), really well executed like in most Marvel movies (you know, enhancing visuals, looking really 3D), or are they just feeling tacked on (like in some movies not shot in 3D)? I guess the question is one of focus... an area I feel TFA was very weak in, as it tried to be everything to everyone, introduce too many characters in its run time, feature too many cameos, and showed to many scenes for its own good. Which is, to a small extent, a throwback to the originals.... but still, I feel TFA tried to one-up a new hope and the others here, and kind of went overboard. Something I hear is not much better in TLJ in regards to stacking subplots, even though I am sure the already established new characters (as good or bad as they were established by TFA) and the longer run time sure might help. When I get a character thrown in my face with little to no explanation, introduction or characterization, I can of course just willfully suspend my disbelief and just overlook the gap. Fill it with my own explanations, try to look them up in the books, or simply try to enjoy the movie without it. But to me, at least, it kind of sticks out like a sore thumb and lowers the enjoyment for me. At that point I feel like I would have preferred less... less characters, less spectacel, less ambition... but better structured and introduced so I wouldn't have to go the extra mile afterwards for the additional information, or simply switch to "its just a popcorn movie so chill" mode and overlook it. As it stands I cannot shake the feeling that the crew wanted too much, and was unable to execute it in the time they had in TFA. Maybe they felt they would bore the audience with more indepth characterization, IDK...
  3. Star Wars: The Last Jedi

    Well, I feel like Finn, as a character, is wasted on the main trilogy. This could be said of many other characters featured in the main trilogies... what would Rey's story look like would she had 2 hours to herself, without all the shoehorned in cameos, and the writer having to move her quickly from nobody to protagonist? Finn probably should have gotten his "A Star Wars Story" spinoff way before appearing in the main trilogy. This way, they could have saved his 20 minute introduction arc which was so compressed that it was just crap, all the while getting a believable characters into the movie that is a former storm trooper. I feel that this is one of my main gripes with the new trilogy, besides not getting enough new. Too many characters thrown at me I don't care about enough. I might feel very differently if there had been a movie introducing Finn, one introducing Rey and one giving a Backstory to Kylo before TFA, like the way Marvel usually introduces Heros in their own movies before adding them to the Avengers Rooster (with one of the exceptions being Black Panther, which in my case as someone who isn't that familiar with the comics let to quite a WTF? moment in that movie). I think the Marvel movies have shown quite well how to built a large movie universe that the SW section of Disney could take some hints from. Maybe they will, moving forward. I agree that in the end, the original trilogy was also quite black and white. Still, it gave characters more room to develop. Luke had a lot of struggle and learning to do that Reys story simply skips for more action and martial arts stunts. Vader was dark and misterious, but with hints of grey areas in his past when you hear that he is the father of luke, and some decisions that make him seem more human. Kylo in contrast has none of this in TFA. Maybe TLJ adds more nuance here. Again, this means that a character needs to get more room to show nuance while still be evil enough in other parts to work as a villain in such a black and white story. Han Solo, or Lando Calrissian are clearly set up as neither good or bad in the beginning, yet deciding for the light side in the end. Which again, needs some room to be set up correctly. Han Solo needs to be won over to help the rebels. Calrissian needs to think his options through before risking his people lives for the rebels. That all takes up some screen time. Its small things that make those vintage characters much more believable and threedimensional to me. But that is kind of the genius of the old movies, getting out way more mileage out of not much more time for the character arcs besides all the action. Maybe BECAUSE the action was still more limited in what was possible at the time, the old movies ofte opted for more time to show off characters, whereas the new trilogy packs in more action? Maybe the characters actually HAD more time on screen for dialogue and characterization? After all, how would the iconic fight between Darth Vader and his son look in current year? Probably way more time wasted with martial arts moves, exploring camera angles and whatnot. Probably cutting out all that made that scene work so well. Which wasn't brilliant fight choreography at all (to me as someone who is interested in sword fighting, and actually fought with historical swords before, its just one level above the "waving swords in the air by hundreds of actors looks like actual fighting on screen" trope from the olrd 50's historical flicks)... nor was it the physical fight at all. It was the dialogue, and the overall feel best captured by the wide angle shots who made the two combatants look very small on a spectacular stage. Would that still be used by a current hollywood director in a run-off-the-mill action flick in current year? Or would they be too busy getting the most spectacular fight choreographed?
  4. Star Wars: The Last Jedi

    That might very well be... but see, IMO incomplete character arcs like that asking the viewer to assume what was going on before the movie started are an example of weak story writing. I am certain there would be ways to make that work, but from what I have seen in TFA, there was no room for any of this. You were asked as a viewer to simply assume a) that Finn was a good person from the start and the indoctrination had little to no effect on him, b) he hated all the guys that he was surrounded with enough to not care a bit that they could have been killed during his escape, even though he clearly has shown to have cared for at least one of the other storm troopers, c) That he would instantly trust Poe more than everyone else even though he only met him, has been exposed to indoctrination besically training him not to trust rebels or dissidents, and just having gone through a most probably quite tough inner decision making process that probably made him question himself, and everyone around him. I am sorry, but the whole story reeks of a story writer who is so indoctrinated... or to put it less extrem, fixated on a an extreme of the spectrum (call it political, or whatever you want) that he or she can only see black and white instead of shades of grey. Thus there are only people who see the evil of the other side (the first order in this case), and people who ARE on the other side. Finn not immidiatly trusting Poe would have meant he is still a first order goon. Finn not wanting to immidiatly kill his own former comrades would mean he is still not one of the good guys. That is reading too much into it, most probably. Most probably the story writer just had not enough space for nuance, and with Star Wars ALWAYS having been a black-and-white good vs evil story with little space for grey (which is why Lando Calrissian is one of my favorite characters, working with the empire at times to save his own hide and the ones of his people, while helping the rebels at other times... kind of the most "Grey area" character we got in Star Wars till now IMO), probably too much nuance would have pissed off a lot of fans who wanted a simple black and white story served with the new star wars movies. Still, as someone who loves nuanced characters, Finn is one huge walking missed opportunity to me, and at the same time I still think his story doesn't work as presented by the movie. If I have to assume more than I can see in the movie, something has gone wrong. If its bad writing, too much story compressed in too little run time of the movie, or some political lens of the story writer, IDK.... but ultimately that is not that important to me. I would have liked Finn to have his story presented, with all the nuance to make it believable. It would have been much, much more interesting to see than the classical heros being camoed in, or that Mary Sue Rey having her heros Non-journey. See, I have probably a little bit different lens than many of the old fans being pissed. I wanted to see a story that deviated MORE from the originals. As entertaining as the originals where... we have seen the death star being blown up 2 times already, and we got all the black clad evil Sith lord action we could ask for (cool as Vader is)... TFA is the same same, but not so different. Just worse than the originals. Thinking about it, that is probably why I am one of the few people who ranks the episodes 1-3 higher than TFA. Bad as the actual movies 1-2 where, the story was kinda new. It was something different. While TFA has just retread what we have seen before, and with TLJ still being about "rebels" fighting an "evil empire", with some of the same tropes like a young Jedi padawan (if we can call a Mary Sue a padawan) being trained by an old master for example. I for myself wanted to see Star Wars being taken into a radical new direction. Or the old formula being subverted enough to actually make me watch again. What would have saved TFA for me would be for Rey to fall to the dark side, and the crybaby Kylo questioning his ways after killing his father. If that would have been set up correctly and brought as an unexpected turn of event, yet believable, I might have seen TFA in a different light. Much like the insufferable brat that Anakin was kinda made sense after seeing HOW Plapatine turned him to the dark side (even though I still don't think we as viewers had to suffer through so many hours of Anakin being a total ***). Rey being a bland Mary Sue in TFA would have been the perfect setup for her fall to the dark side.... at which point she might have become an actual consistent character given how psycho she seemed in TFA with her mood swings and sometimes robot like know-it-all reactions. Kylo... well. I really hope hes less insufferable in TLJ anyway. Now, that is just one idea I could come up with how to salvage the trilogy for me. Sadly none of it really seemed to have come to pass with TLJ, seemingly tucking away linearly in the direction of an underwhelming third movie. What I have heard until now doesn't seem to break the mold or bring anything spectacularly new to the table. Maybe this trilogy just isn't for me... I am more hopeful for the Spinoffs. As for emotionally sustain someone... I don't even know what you mean. But trying to give my 2 cents to it: the original trilogy was a landmark. A new thing. Something the revolutionized movie making and sci-fi/fantasy flicks forever. A new trilogy either is the same, or is a dissapointment for many. Which I feel is why the episodes 1-3 failed (being something new, yet not being epochal enough), and why this new trilogy will fail for many fans (being something remeniscent of the originals, yet not being epochal enough). A new star wars trilogy trying to be a big epic will probably never again be as universally liked as the originals. Its the big problems with sequels to epochal first entries I guess. Well, German version not out until April.... seems I have to get my hand on an international version. Lucky these are also available in switzerland. Pissed a little bit that the 3D Version still costs 35 bucks when the normal Blueray is a nice 17 bucks. WTF? Haven't the movie companies learned that 3D actually is only interesting for a small niche of people BECAUSE they grossly overpriced the 3D Bluerays for years? As one of the few people in the world who actually enjoys the 3D function of his TV, I am pondering now if I should wait for the 24 bucks German version 3D Blueray to come out, or if I should just get the 17 bucks english non-3D version now. Is the 3D in Rogue One worth spending extra, or waiting another 3 months on? As to writing off the movies... I think I rather will judge the Spinoffs on their own merits. I think the mainstream series is lost, and probably future mainstream series are highly dubious if a new trilogy ever comes out. To many interests pulling in too many different directions, all the while Disney and the directors trying to make the movies ever more epic when we already have surpassed Micheal Bay levels of silly when it comes to spectacel. Probably new mainstream movies will retread the old without actually trying to be more than just popcorn movies. Reminds me of the reactions to No Mans Sky: "wide as an ocean, as deep as a puddle".... that sums up how I perceived TFA. The Spinoffs probably are more for the old fans that have seen enough spectacel to buy into the universe, and are now looking for a deep story set in that universe. I am not yet commiting wholly to that until I have watched Rogue One, but the mere fact Disney tries to serve these two different types of SW movies might make me forgive the mess that was TFA.
  5. Star Wars: The Last Jedi

    Audience AND Critics score on Rotten Tomatos has come further down... Critics was to be expected, 93% was stupidly high... its at 90% now, and trends in the direction the exit polls apparently went in (high 80's). Audience score has sunken to 50%... well, I guess now a lot of people who didn't watched it but were pissed with Disney, disliked TFA or simply thought of the new Star Wars movies as SJW Junk voted on it. Its also Kind of a notable trend, though probably not what an audience score should represent. Seems some of the loudest critics of the movie liked the movie more after watching it a second time (guess when the shock value of some of the more stupid decisions and scenes where lessened, the rest was less overshadowed by it)... a good friend of mine told me "its entertaining enough... when you can watch it for free ;)". Clearly no masterpiece, but maybe the backlash is just general Hollywood/Disney fatigue? Maybe I do have to watch it at some point... just to see how much I end up disliking it. Or liking it. Never say never. That is a fair point. Sadly for movies as huge as the mainstream star wars ones, Disney and the Crew will go out of their way to try and please everyone. Which in turn will result in a worse overall movie. Leave out the cute animals and cut the marketability to kids -> better Movie for many adult fans. Cut out some of the characters to concentrate on fewer, better presented ones, cut diversity of characters and thus who feels represented in the movie -> the chracters left will certainly have more depth and work towards a better, deeper overall story. At the same time, as you correctly say, it will be always impossible to please everyone. I feel the movie probably wouldn't have reached a bigger audience, but maybe would have rated even higher for the people that did like it if Disney would have had a clearer Focus and less of a "lets fit everything into one Movie" thing going on. Well, again, probably what the spinoffs might serve. I guess that was the compromise by Disney, if the Han Solo Spinoff is repeating the direction Rogue One seem to have taken. With the Mainstream Movies, and the Spinoffs going into different cirections in this regard. Maybe its premature to say for me having only watched 1/3, and only read about 1/3... But I'd say it will be forgotten quickly, just like sadly a lot Hollywood (and the AAA game industry) has produced in the last 5-10 years. Too much output, with too little heart and soul put it into it. Too much design by commite, or focus group testing. Too much designing for merchandise sales and whatnot. A lot of the successfull movies simply don't have the artistic value to stand the test of time IMO... just like many that do where not that successfull at release. Now, coming back to TFA: 1) Bland and flat characters - that might be a little bit divisive, but generally Rey ist just boring, Finn is underdeveloped and has not enough time to shine, and Kylo might have more character... but is just annoying more than anything. The classic characters are... well, nothing new. I don't see anything as iconic as Darth Vader or the Emperor, or Yoda in the new lineup. And classical characters hardly count, as they have little time in the movies and just get killed there. 2) Story is a rehash, and a convoluted one at that - that might only be true for TFA, even then TLJ seemingly still clings enough close to the existing universe that everything has been done before. Maybe not exactly like that, but it will be the case of "There was that sequel to Bladerunner released somewhen in the mid-'10s.... what was that about again?" ... Rogue One might stick in memory longer as this has an Elevator pitch that actually explains the whole story in 2 sentences, and clearly is something new(-ish). 3) Old trilogy came out in a time when only a few big blockbusters made it to the cinemas every year... nowadays it seems some cinemas have to rotate even big blockbusters to smaller screens after a week because of some new mega blockbuster coming out. My guess is the new trilogy will be the mediocre filling sandwiched between the milestone first trilogy and the epic failure that was the second... both of which will probably remain in memory longer because in the first case it was the first trilogy, and actually universally liked when it came out, and in the latter because it was so bad it stands out. The new trilogy probably is just business as usual popcorn entertainment... good enough to entertain you for an evening, if you can forgive the bad stuff and overlook some of the inconsistencies (which other movies had to, granted), not exceptional enough to really stand out. And with every further movie Disney releases to milk the franchise, that will sadly get worse and worse. More Star Wars movies will not make the existing ones stand out more, nor will it make the general quality better... it just increases the chance of the freak occurence of a really great SW movie despite the effort of Disney to churn out SW movies as an industrial product. But again, lets see what we get served in 2 years before making a final conclusion.
  6. Star Wars: The Last Jedi

    I could go out on a limb and philosophically say that its a sign of our times that everything will gather about 50% disapproval rate nowadays, because of the schism in our culture. But then that would probably be a half truth. Guess many people expected more from a new SW trilogy, especially after the dumpster fire that was the episodes 1-3. Maybe people expected too much. I kinda admit that I had a bad feeling from the day Disney took hold of the SW franchise. Still disappointing to see them execute what might have been only slightly better than my worst fears with TFA. So yeah... clearly expectations for SW Movies are skyhigh, and probably you would need both a dream team of writers, directors and actors that would be hard to assemble and pay, and maybe even more money to do the expectations justice. Probably not what Disney aims for with their SW plans. After all, Disney has some pretty skewed views on many things, including their audience and the importance of some mediums (hence the cancellation of Infinity probably). I wouldn't put it beyond Disney that they see the SW mainstream movies mainly as a toy and merchandise sales pitch. We all know how the hypetrain works... and what happens when the hype inevitably goes unfullfilled by the finished product. And putting out an arguably not that stellar Movie is only going to make that worse. Well.... George Lucas has many faults. And directing movies probably ain't one of his strenghts. I disagree on the backstory being eradicated by the poor execution though. I don't think it warranted 3 movies, 2 of which were painful to watch. But the backstory was good in a way of contextualizing the first 3 movies which were, as you rightly say, simplistic in their general backstory. I really loved the nuance of how the Republic was shown, and how the dark and light side of the force was shown as more than just a simple black and white thing. I found a lot of things still lacking like no real information on HOW or WHY palpatine turned into the incarnation of evil... whereas Darth Vader is a very understandable, and kind of, relatable bad guy thanks to the backstory presented. So, its not all shiny even with all the drivel that bloated the movie up to 3 episodes length removed. But the good in those movies was deep and interesting. The first trilogy. Well. It was a different time. Looking at the originals and comparing them to modern movies is like looking at a 50's movie and complaining that all the actors are white. Yes, certainly from a modern perspective, its lacking. Certainly its a sign of how people back then, the movie industry, was in a worse place than today, and society had some more issues with a lot of things (or in case of the SW trilogy, a lot of the ins and outs of how to create a big screen space soap opera was not yet figured out correctly). I would say though, besides that we also have to compare it to its peers from back then. What other soap opera existed there that actually stood the test of time that well? So if I look back at the original trilogy, I am a little bit more forgiving about some of the issues, BECAUSE it was such a monumental achievement creating these movies in a time where big screen space operas have not been done to death yet, where there was no CGI to fill the movie with distracting explosions, and all the effects to add the BIG SCREEN to space opera had to be done the hard way. The original backstory was very simplistic, basically drawing a lot of inspiration from WW2 as far as I can tell (yet keeping it vague enough that the empire fits all kind of fascist regimes on the right and left throughout history). The empire WAS ill defined. But as said, the visual language and the stereotypes used communicate all we need to know very efficiently... something TFA arguably pulled of well too, at times. Only this time it was all "Deja vu", when that was my big complaint with the original trilogy blowing up two Death Stars because George couldn't think of another big bad galactic-wide threat to increase tensions. I give you this though: the new trilogy certainly DOES try to adhere more to the original formula than the episodes 1-3. Which is a good, AND bad thing at the same time, for me personally, and for the trilogy. Good, because the originals where the high points of SW. Bad, because it is basically a reboot in disguise. It was bound to be compared to the originals because of this... and it never had much chance to stand up to them. The original trilogy had a really dedicated crew behind it. Say about George what you want, but he had some longterm vision. Now Star Wars is a save bet for big businesses like Disney. And the SW main movies seem to treat it that way. So if you compare the original movies to those new trilogy, you need to compare it to other movies that came out before it or at the same time. I think SW was ahead of its time in a lot of ways back then, despite all the failings you correctly mention. The new trilogy is not. Its safe, at best. Now, trying to get back to story consistency... and here my memory might fail me. I have recently seen a new hope, but the others I haven't seen in years. As far as I an remember, there always has been 2-3 subplots going on at the same time. But thats it. In case of TFA it felt way deeper. Maybe I am wrong on this one. Location and change of it usually were clearly communicated. Characters either well introduced, or well established stereotypes (which I generally dislike, but if used to shorten the needed time for character introduction, I can get onboard with). I feel in TFA characters where not well established often. Kylo for example is a kinda confusing mess from a characterization point of view. Rey is... well, we kind of get nothing on her past, or why she is so good at everything, or why she does what she does anyway. Finn I already talked about at length. So much wasted potential. At this point I hope we get a reboot-ish spinoff where we see Finn turn away from the First Order in a full length movie, with real character motivation involved. Compared to Darth Vader, which was a mysterious dark overlord ON PURPOSE, and was well handled within the confines of staying a dark and mysterious bad guy until the shocking outing of his blood relations to Luke. Luke, who was given quite a lot of character progression from a youngster on a remote desert planet to the Jedi to face off against his father and the emperor. Han Solo, who had just enough backstory to fill out the blanks left by the smuggler stereotype, and turn him into a well rounded character. Many of these characters had less "Room" in the movie to tell their story, but told more of it and more consistently than the new characters in the new trilogy. To me the biggest mistake of the new trilogy is how badly the bad guys are handled. As a saying goes, a story is only as good as its bad guys. The empire in the original trilogy was... well, kinda incompetent at times. But they combined cool tech with 2 of the most iconic and cool, in a sinister way, bad guy leader in movie history. in the new trilogy we get a pathetic temper tantrum boy wearing a mask for no real reason with a grandfather complex. And a poor mans emperor, which many people seemed to like, but was killed off in an unsatisfactory fashion in the second movie according to what I read. The henchmen are still incompetent, maybe even more so. So only the cool tech remains. Yeah, the trilogy definitely needs more Darth Vader.... And I think this might be the closest deal to getting to the root of the schism in the SW fanbase we are seeing today: Disney is not respecting the SW canon. Disney wanted the name, but not the universe that came with it. Disney, and by extension, the crew creating the new movies does not care about SW beyond the brand. Well see, Vader is vague and mysterious on purpose. The whole character is built in a way that you don not need more information to get that he is a bad guy, and a bad ass. There is a character arc that needs the details of his true identity to be not revealed to the audience for dramatic purpose. There might be a need to shorten Finns introduction for brevity... but that is a pretty lame excuse compared to hiding whose father Darth Vader is to have the maximum effect for one of the most iconic fight scenes of all time. Finn did embark on a mission as Storm Trooper. He most probably knew that he was expected to kill people. And the way how he freaked out in that battle was called out by people to be rather weird. He freaks out seeing his own friend die. Now, that could still be salvaged. I think you could make a point that he is a newbie, and the indoctrination didn't work that well on him. It probably would still take some more scenes where he questions if he should stay a storm trooper, maybe some superiors being d*cks to him, maybe him getting punished unfairly, maybe more scenes where he gets confronted with the reality of what the First Order really was, to come to the conclusion that he should turn on the First Order. Maybe some more exposure to Poe and more time to develop a bond between the two so Finn chosing to save Poe makes more sense. Because even if Finn is not that into the First Order... he has been raised, fed, and trained by them. He must have been subjugated to some heavy indoctrination. I don't see other Storm Troopers being treated as prisoners, and most of them seem to be fine with what the First Order does. So obviously, live as a Storm Troopers seems to be not bad enough for most of them to defect, and they seem to believe themselves on the right side of hsitory. For Finn to shake all that in a matter of minutes, without ANY mental struggle, is quite frankly nonsense. And lets not get on about he immidiatly starts killing his former comrades like there is no tomorrow after turning. Must have hated the bastards he shared a condo with for years to be so happy to blow them up. Here I can agree. Yes, I also like seeing new things... which inevitably will cause some canon rules to be expanded (until some fans claim they have been broken). I just don't feel I got something new really from TFA. More of the same as in the originaly, with a shinier outside and effects, but sloppier story writing and less engaging characters. I guess a lot of it comes down to personal preference, sure. Still, let me ask you this: wouldn't you be more excited about something completly new, as in "Why the death star was built to such stupid plans", or (hopefully) "How Han Solo built up his smuggling career", or (now I am fantasizing... one can dream) "How a Storm Trooper expieriences the conflict and ultimately defects to the rebels", maybe even "Why palpatine started to dream of building a space empire" than about redoing the same galactic conflict story, from the same angle, with a very similar story concept, just different characters, different names for the empire and rebels, and set in a different time? Well, and that is fine. I get that just as many people liked, or at least didn't mind TFA, and it seems TLJ is getting the same mixed feedback. To each their own. I guess these people, and you, are simply looking for something different in a Star Wars movie, and in a space opera story in extension. As to the plan. As a self proclaimed Weeabo that likes anime and manga: when has there ever been a time where a Manga written without a grand overarching story, issue by issue, have been a superior story to one where the creator had an overarching vision? It did work out in some cases. Battle Angel Alita was written issue to issue as far as I can tell... which was a pretty good epic overall. Berserk had some story archs laid out, but clearly not the total (which isn't surprising given the story has been going on for decades). But even in the good cases, it shows that there is not bigger narrative connecting the issues. Alita was a vastly different story issue to issue. With some being their own "mini series" which kind of ties into the grand story at the end. It worked there because its such a grand "epic" story at the end, and the fact the main character does all thos things kind of shows how Alita lives multiple human lives, so to speak, before she finally confronts the "main boss", Zalem. As to Berserk, its clear that story should have had a story written for it, and a creator sticking to his own story. It has outstayed its welcome and has sunk deeply into "yeah its alright" territory because the author just couldn't kill it while it still had plenty of live. And I think the biggest problem was that he got tangled up in side stories. Which probably were never planned from the start. good side stories at first. Then less and less engaging ones. And whith each, the universe he created grew. But not always in the right direction. Now when you have 3 movies, done by 3 different directors, with no pre written stories, don't you think it would be better to make 3 standalone moview rather than to try to tie these together somehow? Yeah, I am sure Disney is raking in the moolah.... and given Rogue One happened, I hope that means they also keep pushing out those spinoffs, and are giving their directors the license to get more experimental and freeform with the spinoffs. I think plenty of good could come out of that even if I dislike the direction the current main trilogy is taking.
  7. Star Wars: The Last Jedi

    Good to know... gotta check my usual online store then. I only buy bluerays seldomly so I kinda miss the dates when they come out. Well... Lets analyze this: Sure, I have seen the usual anti-SJWs up in force against the Movie. With some going pretty far with their "reviews" (calling the died hair chick "Admiral Gender Studies" and such, which while amusing, is obviously going too far), and at least one of them actually admitting to having made a joke of the whole movie review afterwards. (Kinda funny how some anti-SJWs start to become just as dogmatic as most SJWs at some point... where the latter see sexism and racism everywhere and the patriarchy and nazis behind everything, its the same with the anti-SJWs seeing feminism and far left collectivism everywhere, and the SJWs behind everything. Funny when its much simpler to explain everything with mistreatment of the franchise by Disney, mediocre writers and directors not interested in star wars instead of some "SJW conspiracy") So I am sure that Rotten Tomatos got somewhat played. But: according to some sources its the same with other sites showing pretty bad audience values. So the trolls would have to tamper with multiple sites. And then when you read the actual text reviews you see a lot of negative ones, and they all make consistent points, with quite a lot of words. Clearly not the work of trolls. And while its true that you always will find more negative feedback than positive, when you go through the first few pages and hardly find a positive text review... well, then its more than just Trolls. And then there is the fact the 54% (last time I checked) came from over 120k people (last time I checked).... unless someone REALLY played rotten tomatos (which I cannot rule out), that explains maybe 10% of the bad reviews. And it does not explain the many bad text reviews which I don't think a troll did... So maybe the actual score, minus the anti-SJW trolls would be 65%... maybe more. Still a long way from a great movie for the average audience member, and still a long way from the clearly biased critics score. Of course, this is also just speculation on my part. Let me just say I was more swayed by the many negative text reviews people left on rotten tomatos, and how bad the score still was when adding some points to make up for the bad actors always present on such sites On this we can agree. As said, I have no idea if I could watch those movies again. But when you forget Jar Jar and Kid Anakin, the whole podrace nonsense (and luckily the brain has that tendency of only remembering the good), the actual story that happened in the movies, minus the gibberish (pod race, Anakin being a d*ck as a kid, JarJar being just a slap in the face in general, cute robot nonsense, Anakin being a d*ck as a youngster, hard to remember redshirt characters being shoved into the meatgrinder), is really gripping and good. A fascist empire forged by political intrigues and the incompetency of the republic, and the rise of Vader and the Emperor. Now, that is mostly the first trilogy, and the original story notes of George that set that one up. If whoever has directed the abominations that where episode 1 and 2 (was it George?) had to come up with an original story at the time... I guess the movies would have even been worse. This way, I am still standing by my prior word: At least the background story was good. Something I cannot say from TFA. Maybe the full trilogy, taken together, will serve a good and meaningful story. Given we have seen 2/3, I doubt it. 1) True. Still not an excuse to continue to make sh*t up as it fits the story, instead of fitting the story to a consistent tech. But agreed, the original trilogy started that nonsense. 2) The Backstory of the Emperor wasn't important in the originals. The movies, and the character were/was set up that you knew everything you needed to know... he was evil, and corrupted to the core. For me, the problem is not that a lot of story threads are kept hanging, or a lot of characters and things are badly introduced in the movies. The problem is that its often things that actually would matter that are just handwaved away (only speaking for TFA here). If you have a sinister, darkrobed, sickly and evil locking space wizard talking in an evil voice to his underlings, you kinda get the drift. More story would be interesting, but not mandatory at that point. When you have a storm trooper killing civilians left and right that turns against the empire just because of seeing his friend die, without any kind of mental conflict... that is just bad character development. Maybe the movie skipped the part where Finn would fight with his own concience... maybe the movie skips Finns backstory which might explain it (which might be delivered in the third movie, who knows)... but at that point, in that movie, its simply bad writing to jump over such inconsistencies... because its not clear from the context. 3) True. Still doesn't make these failings less of an annoyance to fans. If I may theorize, what would be simply a general "MEEEH" by fans of the classic Marvel Comics in a Marvel Movie causes a huge uproar in Star Wars because the fans are just that little bit more crazy about the universe. 4) Granted, maybe the third installment will blow us all away. Maybe, seen back to back, TFA is no longer such a sh*tshow, and TLJ not such a divisive expierience thanks to the information the third movie delivers us. That would still show how much they ****ed up the first two movies... if I need another movie or background books to actually enjoy a movie, then the story is badly written and presented. Now, the thing that makes me a little bit sceptical about the third movie being better is the thing that made the first movie suck in my eyes, and the second in the eyes of many others: Obviously they do the movies movie by movie. According to some information on the web, they write the movies as they go along. Not only are the original scripts by George not used, but nobody took the time to sit down and actually write at least the skeleton of a trilogy before starting with the first movie. Add to that that with every movie we get a new director, and these are big names directors, thus most probably selected for their "brand name" by Disney and not because they were the best for the job... Thanks to all of this, the third movie is a total wildcard. Disney could completly throw the steer around and move into a completly different direction (which I would welcome)... but I doubt that is going to happen. TFA made them good money, even if the Movie sucked. TLJ will make them good Money, even if the Movie will not be remembered as fondly as the original trilogy. They will produce another Star Wars lookalike that tries to be different without swaying to much from the old recipes set up by the original trilogy. Trying to satisfy everyone yet pleasing no-one completly. No, I think the spinoffs are the biggest hopes I have for getting good, different Star Wars movies that are not rehashing the galactic conflict versus space nazis yet again, instead of showing us something new in the universe we all love. Well, I would love to be proven wrong. I would have said the same thing with only TFA behind us. I think rescuing a trilogy with just one movie left that pleases MOST fans, its going to be hard to achieve. Anyway, I guess one day I will have to watch the Movie when its running on TV. I will reserve my personal final judgement on TLJ for that day.
  8. Star Wars: The Last Jedi

    55% User Score on Rottentomatoes... vs. 93% critic score. I am thinking on passing on this one after the force awakens really pissed me off, I passed on the surprise that was the good Star Wars movie Rogue One (besides the retcon-complains and some plotholes according to online reviews) because of the huge disappointment that was TFA, and after hearing so much bad about the new SW movie online, I think I will now concentrate on the side-story movies like Rogue One... Seems like these are the only ones that Disney allows being a cohesive story instead of a hard to follow mish-mash of subplots and sub-sub-plots, and they seem to be more into actually getting into the lore of universe instead of delivering shallow popcorn entertainment and a platform for toy-sales. Kinda interested in the Solo Spinoff movie, will certainly watch Rogue One on Blueray when that is out, but I don't think I can force myself to sit through another pile of boring subplots served by mary-sue-ish nobodies, cool character ideas badly executed (how incredibly cool would it be to have a big, 2h story about how a Storm Trooper slowly shakes off his brainwashing, and driven by guilt starts acting against his former comrades... but no, no time for that, lets drop all deep characterization to make room for more shallow characters), and old fan favorites brought back just to be killed off in lame fashion one after another. Really, I HATED episode 1 and 2 with a passion, and episode 3 was only saved by having darth vader in it, as brief as those scenes were. Darth Vader makes everything bearable.... one a more serious note, as soon as things got dark and Anakin wasn't such an annoying brat anymore, the story got almost interesting... But after having sat through TFA, and reading up on the apparent clusterf*ck the last jedi is to some of the audience, I can finally say this: I still prefer episodes 1-3 to TFA, and maybe even TLJ, if I believe some online reviews. Episodes 1-3 were bad movies with a great background story.... after all, the political trickery that led to the creation to the empire, and how Anakin turned to the dark side was an interesting and engaging story. Told differently, it would have made for one good movie. Maybe two. TFA had a non-existant story. A story that was so clearly just rehashing the existing content, so badly written, that the movie was doomed from the start. Don't get me wrong... great effects. Certainly some of the sequences entertain. But with such a crappy story, even that leaves a bad taste. Don't know if I could sit through episode 1 and 2 again for the full runtime, but after time clouds the memories of Jar Jar and young anakin, the memory of a very gripping story about how the empire rose to power stays. When I no longer remember the bad characters and all the events from TFA... I don't think much will stay in my memory. Early online reviews generally promise more of the same fron TLJ, sadly. I might still watch the last jedi when it runs in TV.... until then, I will concentrate on the Spinoffs. Hope Disney is not also screwing these over. Hope Rogue One was an indication of what is to come, not an outlier. One thing that I keep pondering since having seen TFA... How would these movies look if the original Ideas from George Lucas for Parts 7-9 would have been used by Disney, and the directors of the movies? Or if at least George would have been more involved in the process as originally promised by Disney? George has given us the atrocities that were episode 1+2... and he shot from the hip very often, especially when it comes to technology in his universe. But at least he had a will to keep the backstory consistent, and to build up characters and give them room to shine in his movies. I still believe his original ideas were better than the parts 7 and 8 we have been served by Disney until now.
  9. Debate: Proper Time For Microtransactions?

    I couldn't agree more... well said. Well.... again, I wouldn't generalize like that. An AAA game using microtransactions to give you ADDITIONAL content you can selectively buy is a good thing to me... you know, a Fighting game with an already choke full selection of fighters cramming in some additional classical characters from older games, charging a fair price per additional character (lets say 2-3$ per character) is cool for me. You could say that they could have produced a full expansion pack / DLC pack out of it for 10-15 bucks, giving you more bang for the bucks. Sure, there are limit to what I am ready to pay for such small additions to a game, I would never pay 5$ or more just for an additional character... unless its that one character that I want in every installment (and then expect me to bitch and moan online about that character not making the cut for the normal fighter roster... yeah, I can be quite whiny about little things like that ). There still are cases where microtransactions make sense for an AAA game. Tastes differ here, for me the line is where ADDITIONAL content gets put in as microtransaction for FAIR prices. Cut out stuff that should be part of the normal game, or overcharge me, and I will no longer think its a good thing (and certainly not pay for the microtransaction, maybe even not buy the game)
  10. Debate: Proper Time For Microtransactions?

    Interesting... why do you say it led to failure? Do you mean financial failure? Was it a premium game? Did the fact it cost something upfront led to lower downloads? That would mean not going F2P led to failure, NOT microtransactions itself. I think microtransactions in F2P games itself are fine, even though they still can be harmful towards the weak minded, people with gambling addictions or minors. But nobody REALLY complains about mobile games or other F2P titles implementing microtransactions (of course, I cannot speak for everybody, or the poster you quoted)... The current controversy revolves around microtransactions in premium games. Which CAN be done in a non-intrusive way that DO give players that want to spend extra money options without interfering with the play expierience of everybody else (which is NOT what EA has done in BF2 as far as I understand it). While certainly true that SOME types of microtransactions have been created to be a predatory as possible, and some companies, especially in the mobile space, seem to take their data collection mania to creepy levels, in essence stalking their whale prey on social media to get more information on how to squeeze the last penny out of them, I would dare to say this is a little overgeneralizing. I have seen the good kind of microtransactions. I have spent quite something on it myself actually in F2P games I liked. Because I wanted to support the dev and the game, AND because I got something in exchange which was worth my money without screwing up my or anyone elses play expierience. I feel like the premium vehicles in the Wargaming titles are (mostly) a good example. You get some unique vehicles, which offer a different play expierience, and a vanity item at the same time (given you cannot get access to these vehicles without spending money)... while at best not being overpowered at all (some recent additions are not as cut and dry there, but thanks to the game having a lot of skill needed to pull off about anything, an overpowered vehicle alone does not make for an automatic win). Now, are these premium vehicles designed to get some money out of non-paying customers? Yes. Are they sometimes designed to "force" true collectors to buy them (by using historically relevant vehicles)? Yes. But they do not affect the play expierience of other players in the best case (until a total newbie buys a high tier vehicle and trys to ruin a tier 8 game for everyone else by being total useless... even then, as long as its only one person, there are 10+ other persons left in the team to make up for his inexpierience). They might be making some collectors and historical nuts grab grudgingly for their wallet because they HAVE to have the Tirpitz Battleship, or they need ALL the US Ships they can get in game... but they do not incite gambling addiction, as you get what you buy. So I wouldn't say ALL microtransactions are bad. Only the ones that work only thanks to addictions being abused, and a game being made grindier to incentivise players to spend money are in my eyes. And Pay2Win schemes of course.
  11. What is your Game of the Year for 2017 and why?

    Well, the trailers I have seen kind of painted the 3D graphics in a not to kind light... though as usual, it seemed to look fine-ish during normal play, just when drawing the camera in for a cutscene did the closeup geometry revealed its lowpoly nature. If I had a 3DS, I probably would keep it on my list for games to check out during sales. Not sure if I really will like it over AM2R, but on the other hand its a 2D-ish Metroid... which is probably something we will only get as remakes of older titles now. (I will probably have to get a 3DS when prices fall due to the switch with all the gems I missed like Bravely Default... guess that would be a chance to also play Samus Return) ... I really hope Bloodstained: Ritual of the Night will wake up some AAA studios, including Nintendo, to the fact that the Metroidvania genre still has some live in it. If a game has the chance to create some wave in this genre, its this one. Please be good, Bloodstained..
  12. What is your Game of the Year for 2017 and why?

    It is really a shame that Nintendo didn't dip into the pool of pure fan-love that gathered in the AM2R Project. That remake is really amazing. As much as it is still riddled with some of the downsides of the original M2 (for example not that much enemy variety), its amazing 2D Graphics, and the really out there sound design show both the love for the original by the group who made the remake, as well as the sound designer credentials of the lead (who must be the biggest M2 fan ever for sticking with the project for so long). All the complaints about the controls have been fixed, and a lot of the good changes to the formula from Super Metroid has been brought onboard I get that Nintendo isn't Sega (who brought remakers in to work on a Sonic title before after a very good fan remake), that Nintendos vision for the project was different (no pixelated retro style on official 3DS Titles, thus 2D Pixelart would likely be much more expensive than the low quality 3D art used for the official remake), and that Nintendo probably was already working on their rework when ordering the remake crew to take the links to the AM2R builds down. But boy, is AM2R what Metroid has needed to be for quite a while. A classic Metroidvania with amazing 2D graphics (even if retro style), an amazing Soundtrack that concentrates on telling its story through gameplay. I cannot comment on the official remake, but I kinda was underwhelmed by the graphics even though it was a 3DS game, and I have my doubt if the soundtrack can come anywhere close to the AM2R soundtrack: As much as it was probably never gonna happen... I would love to play THIS game on a Nintendo console as an official remake of M2. Would it make me reconsider and buy the Switch? Probably not. Nintendo would have to put a GOOD, NEW entry in the series into the bag too. But it would certainly sweeten the deal enough for me to buy the Switch just for some Metroid glory.
  13. Debate: Proper Time For Microtransactions?

    Sure, as said, I am not implying that all the outrage is ever justified... nor that it matters that much, most of the time. I am just saying that for premium games, there is a very simple way to minimize backlash. Which is to go back to a 60$ flat price and deliver a game that can be made on this price point. If that is possible in the current market, if the games that do manage it are outliers, or if constant damage control PR is good or bad are different questions again. But I feel like I need to touch on one subject in your response: conflating people outraged about some "nerd rage" topic like the guy from DMC no longer having white hair (which made me giggle a little bit, even though I did had to question why the change was needed) with people actually calling out real p2w issues, or exploitative tactics that will trigger gambling addictions in weak people is comparing apples to oranges. I do think a lot of the people not happy with the latest resident evil games are "nerd raging". Hell, in case of the resident evil games after RE4, I kind of understand it. I didn't play them, BECAUSE they looked more like action games. I don't get exactly the rage about RE7 which does look interesting and for the love of god, gives us a break from the constant Zombies-in-disugise enemies from the earlier titles (as far as I can tell, haven't played it yet)... is the change to FPS perspective really worth "nerd raging" over? IDK... But this is a completly different subject to people getting outraged about the star cards in BF2. No matter how much EA tones down the system, it reeks of P2W until they take all star cards out of the paid lootboxes. It will even out in the end given a player puts in the hours and gets all of it through normal play... but that just means grinding through a p2w infested expierience as the underdog until you have randomly been given enough stuff to catch up to the whales dominating (given their skills match up) the scene. I don't think anyone wants to discuss why p2w is bad in a meritocratic system like a first person shooter... And then the gambling addicts... yeah sure, most people raising the issue probably are not affected themselves. It doesn't make it less of a problem. And its nowhere near on the same level as some people disliking mechanical or graphical changes in their beloved game series. ... probably I have made the same mistake in the thread before, so I have to remind myself too to not place all the outrage in the same category. Some of it can and should be dismissed (unless you fear loosing your fans over)... some of it should be really looked into (because p2w is the community killer no.1 in online gaming, so if a dev wants to keep a game alive, p2w should be kept out of it outside of the mobile market)... some of it should be top priority (because gambling is treated pretty seriously by many countries, and could damage the whole industry if it gets out of hand). My opinion here: yes, they can. But it will take time. Consumer trust is hard to loose... many consumers tend to give many chances over years, because they have no other choice (if you are a sucker for SW games, EA is the only shop in town that can give you what you want), because of what the publisher or dev has done or was in the past (I remember when Borderlands came out and I was excited what Gearbox would do in the future... now I am less so after all the scandals and mediocre games), because "it was just that single time", "they have learned their lesson", and all that. But once lost, I would reckon consumer trust is hard to win back. And yeah, I do agree that this will only ever affect a % of the consumers. The informed ones. The ones ready to walk away and play something else. But the current market is not exactly starved for alternatives. If anything, some upstart AAA devs and publishers will profit from it (until they become the big company doing the same thing as all the others). Funny enough, after a lot of people were fairly disappointed with BF1, EA has launched one hell of a PR campaign to win customer trust back, and from what I have seen online and in vids, it did its job. And sure enough, it wasn't all faked BS, instead EA and Dice DID listen and delivered the content lacking in the first part from the get go. They did move away from the season pass scheme... they just didn't mention how they would monetize it else. I reckon IF EA doesn't get the SW license pulled by Disney over its continued mishandling of the license (because no matter how you see the individual games as good or bad, every SW game EA has put out to date was either controversial, or just not that successfull), IF the next SW game takes ALL the critisism onboard, without new controversies, I think at least the SW fans among the players will forgive EA. Its SW after all... and the BF games, apart from being a little shallow contentwise or mechanical maybe, don't seem to be bad games. The graphics of BF1 made SW drool all over the planet. But I guess this will not happen. I am unsure if Disney really will leave EA messing with their license now that EA messed up just in front of a big SW movie. If they do, I am sceptical if EA will ever do the right thing. Because it would mean baking smaller cookies for once, and EA isn't known for that lately. If they manage to pull it off, call me amazed and happy at the same time. It is SW after all. And no matter what George Lucas' episode 1+2, and the Disney atrocity which was "the force awakens" have done to the legacy... I loved the original trilogy, I loved Darth Vaders origin story, and I would love to play a good story campaign in a game I want to support financially, with the beatiful graphics Dice has crafted. I am not going to hold my breath though.... On the other hand, as @Scouting Ninja puts it, no matter how much I might think EA has to redeem themselves, the question is if this controversy can even do enough damage to EA to make them change their way even an inch. I guess it will all come down to what Disney does over all this, and not really how consumers act... because there are always enough that buy games and not care about the controversy, or not even aware that much of the p2w elements....
  14. Debate: Proper Time For Microtransactions?

    Who again is pissed off by paying 60 bucks for an AAA game? The people who expect more game for their money than the classic 60$ premium game model without additional monetization can pay for, assuming you have to expect a moderate number of sales and cannot hope for making the game of the year before putting your game on the market and finding out how it does in said market? I am not going to try to deny that yes, there are players out there that expect more and more content and graphics and everything from their games every year, and are contributing to the budgets spiralling out of control, and these people will belittle every game not meeting their standarts... but really, I would expect that given a) a mechanically sound game with b) an at least mildly interesting story and c) a bare minimum of content, added with at least d) some small innovations in some places, you would see enough player interest to make your money back without having to increase prices. At least if you have the marketing reach of some of the wellknown studios and publishers. Because lets face it, some of the games that seem to fall into the escalating content and graphics threshold trap seem to be games which fail to meet minimum standarts in story and content (SW Battlefront 1 comes to mind), are mechanically repetetive and flat or just bring little innovation to the table (SOME of the yearly repeated games like FIFA come to mind)... If you got nothing to offer to sell people your new game over all the competition, for example last years FIFA game... well, you gotta crank up those graphics to show people WHY the FIFA game they already posses is inferior to the new one. As you said yourself before, and I guess many in this industry see it... games are an industrial product for the games industry. They probably have to be. And there is nothing wrong with that. But should the question not rather be "How can the games industry continue to create expieriences players want, charge a fair price for it without resorting to exploitative tactics in the worst case, and still make a profit of it?". And "do budgets really need to escalate like this, or do we need to pivot away from every AAA title needing to take part in this arms race?"... Because at the end of the day, I don't think the problem is one game having microtransactions with p2w elements. Or one publisher being notorious with their monetization growing ever more overbearing. Its not that players cannot for the life of them understand that a big, really big openworld AAA game with cutting edge graphics need to make big bucks from a lot of people or risk not turning a profit. The problem is when ALL the big publishers start showing the same trends, when ALL the AAA games coming out are monetized with additional microtransaction, its when ALL AAA games coming out try to be the next GTA5 and whatever-is-the-moneymaking-big-hitter-of-the-day game on the market irrespective of what people really want and expect from the series (Dead Space 3 comes to mind), when even games that do not SEEM to be all that expensive compared to games that did well some years ago on a 60$ premium game model contain all these additional monetization models (while developers explain them with rising cost), then players will get wipped into these huge fits of outrage. And yeah, when I say ALL here, I mean all from a certain slice of the AAA publishers. Because there are still the ones who seem to not partake in this whole microtransaction frenzy, or at least only with a lot of restraint. Sadly, it looks like a lot of the western AAA studios are getting more an more monopolized by publishers which do engage in these trends... and while CD Project Red is, at the moment, a shining beacon of light in this regard, a lot of the other AAA publishers who showed more restraint are located in Japan, and their games are not as big in the west as they once were. Thus for many gamers, especially on PC, EA, Ubisoft and Activision IS the AAA industry by now, because all the games they know and play are by now under the umbrella of these publishers. Players are sometimes entitled creatures... we all know that. A lot of player outrage comes from a vocal minority, and will fade away quickly. Normally. I do think this year, we might see a bigger wave of outrage triggered by BF2 BECAUSE of the groundwork laid by almost all the other big AAA games from the likes of EA, Ubi and Activision. I don't even think people would mind some of those as much as an isolated incident. I really think too much of this bad PR has happened in a too short amount of time. Sure, the AAA publishers can continue to concentrate on damage control. Has worked most of the time in the past. I am just not sure that with the current frequency of events that need to be damage controlled, this really is a viable strategy.
  15. Debate: Proper Time For Microtransactions?

    Well... as said, it was a theory. But then, this is one of the lamest reasons I have heard to boycott a game, until the game has been reviewed and the networking is found wanting (like in For Honor)... which is kind of hard to do with a game not out yet. So maybe they just had a change of mind on the matter and that game once it was out (and networking wasn't an issue)? Didn't really play MW2 over the net, have there been any issues with the networked part of it? Don't remember much controversy around that game back then.