User Profile

Forum Activity by Wooley

Anthony Hurley
Wooley
Anthony HurleyThe Friday the 13th game is coming out on May 26th. I can't wait for that.

Are there early reviews or anything?

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/friday-the-13th-game-launches-in-may-single-player/1100-6449529/
Details are still Sketchy to some degree.
It will launch as a ?multiplayer game on Maybe 26th for digital download at a 40 dollar price tag. Single player mode is supposed to be added as a summer time update, but I suspect that it will be somewhat tacked on,
I don't think there are any reviews yet, but there is plenty of footage to see on youtube.

Aw, bummer, I don't do multiplayer
Apr 24, 2017 2:08 AM
Anthony HurleyThe Friday the 13th game is coming out on May 26th. I can't wait for that.

Are there early reviews or anything?
Apr 23, 2017 10:36 PM
Started the remastered Bioshock: Infinite.

Man, it's gorgeous.
Apr 23, 2017 4:20 PM
Finished Bioshock 2.
Wow, was that good. I guess I'd forgotten. Absurd that it gets hate. Game just gets better and better as it goes along, does about 1,000 little things right, and has a better ending than its predecessor.
I'm not saying it's better than Bioshock, to me nothing will ever be better than Bioshock, but man was it good. Hard to believe I actually disliked it and quit the first time around.
Apr 22, 2017 5:58 PM
I gotta say, almost at the end of Bioshock 2, I think it's an excellent game.
I think getting over "it's not Bioshock" was hard for me the first time (I didn't even finish it), but I remember thinking the second time that, "wow, there's some gold here", now playing it like 6 or 7 years later, the game stands on its own with something bordering on excellence. The villain's backstory, which I thought was a weak-point the first time around and I don't remember what I thought the second time around, is actually cleverly conceived and pretty well executed, giving the game an enemy that may not be as leeringly menacing as Ryan and Fontaine, but might stir even more thought in the player than either of them did.
Some really great levels and set-pieces just to savor, one leading into the next, it really is just a well put-together game with great atmosphere and a lot of overall fun to mine.
It takes a level to get itself going, but really, by about halfway through the second level, it starts to become inspired.
Apr 21, 2017 6:54 AM
crumbsroom
WooleyHas anyone here seen House of Whipcord?

I'd like to read some feedback on that film.

I have. In fact I was sure we had briefly talked about it before. I'm a pretty decent fan. I generally like Walker's mix of British kitchen sink realism and exploitative horror/violence. It works best with his Frightmare, though.

Also, Sheila Keith is Walker's equivalent of Craven's Robert Englund or Coscarelli's Angus Scrimm. She should be a legendary baddie in the horror universe.

I think we did, now that you mention it. My memory is not so good these days.?
Agree with your description.
Need to see Frightmare.
Apr 19, 2017 5:22 AM
The GuyThe problem for me is that when you strip away the nostalgia what you're left with just isn't a very good film. Gareth Edwards has proven he can conjure up an awe inspiring image, but much like Godzilla this film is missing a crucial human component. This was no doubt aided by the rushed production schedule which saw the film go through reshoots a month before release, all in order to meet Disney's quota of one film a year.

The arguement that we arent meant to empathize with these characters because the movie is meant to highlight the unforgiving nature of war is a flawed one. Maybe they just weren't very good to begin with? This film is a misstep, and it only succeeds in watering down the star wars mythology.

Oddly enough I have higher hopes for Lord and Miller's Han Solo film. The production cycle for that film is more forgiving and everyone from the cast to the writers to the directors is too notch.

All true.
Apr 19, 2017 5:17 AM
Popcorn Reviews
Wooley
Popcorn Reviews
Wooley
Popcorn Reviews
WooleyI like the Director's Cut best myself, but all the later cuts come across like an very different film. It's amazing how much just losing the narration changes not just the feel of the movie but the story itself. I hear what you're saying about the scene between Deckard and Rachael, but it is basically taken right out of 1940s Noir, which is what this movie is.
Anyway, I hope you enjoy it, the movie gives me so much pleasure it's hard to describe, which is why I can never consider it overrated. Because for me there are no superlatives for the movie and at the same time, at least half the movie-going world has never even seen it.


However, I don't see how the fact that the scene with Deckard and Rachael being taken out of 1940's noir makes it a better scene. It's still flawed.

If you say so. It is what it is.
And one scene does not destroy a masterpiece.

Okay, but I don't see how the noir aspect makes it any better. Could you elaborate?

Also, I criticized the movie for more reasons other than that one scene.

No, I'm just saying that that one scene doesn't torpedo the movie. I realize you had other issues. I'm just saying it might be worth trying to put those aside when you rewatch it and don't go in thinking "I hope they did this or that better" but try to watch it as if you've never seen it. If you still don't like it, well, we were just born on different planets.

I know that it doesn't torpedo the movie. It is a minor criticism compared to my other issues for the film. But sure, I'll take your advice. I'm not sure if my opinion of the film will change if I pretend that I've never seen it before, but I'll see what happens.

Well, I say that because, now in my mid-40s, I've gone back and watched all these movies and listened to all this music that I had maybe negative opinion of from my first go-round and when I revisited them I tried to get in a frame of mind like they were knew to me and I would evaluate them without any of what I brought to the experience. And I have had really positive results with this and found that I like more movies and music now than I ever did before and in a lot of cases there were movies that I really thought were shit and I now appreciate a lot of them. Recently Dragonslayer was one of them.
Apr 17, 2017 4:59 PM
138My second viewing of Rogue One made me realize just how extraneous that Vader scene is at the end. I mean, at this point the movie is over. It's ended on a powerful, dramatic note. But then we get the fanboy wet dream of Vader slaughtering rebels. It's tonally inconsistent and quite jarring. That and the football follies handoff of the Plans just didn't need to be there.

The plans were beamed, everyone dies. The end.

I could not possibly agree with you more.
Apr 17, 2017 3:02 PM
Ned Flanders
Richard Guy
Wooley
Richard Guy
Wooley
Ned FlandersI think recently I've come to the realization that I just don't like RPG games. And it's not just one game either it's basically the genre as a whole. I found Witcher 3 confusing and repetitive, Skyrim bored me out of my mind, Fallout 4 was a chore to finish, I'm barely enjoying the Mass Effect games. It's strange because I really wanted to love all these games but I just couldn't bring myself to do so. And it's not like it's the repetitive nature of the gameplay in all these games because some of my favorite games are extremely repetitive (Counter Strike for example). I can't put my finger on why I don't like them either. The idea of a world where you're free to be who you want and do what you feel is fascinating to me and all these games attempt that to some extent but it just isn't enough to interest me. It's strange because people pump dozens and dozens of hours into TW3 but I feel like I'm perfectly content and almost bored of it at only 16 hours playtime, maybe even less (I leave games on pause when I eat sometimes).

It's a strange realization to come to but I guess I can stop wasting my money on these games I don't really like.

Interesting, but I can totally see it. They give me great pleasure, whereas pure shooters (except Doom), pure puzzle games, etc., just bore me to tears. Different strokes.
I personally don't find anything more interesting than exploring a world and building a character and making a hero. The games you name, Fallout, Mass Effect, Skyrim, they give me great, great pleasure, a real escape from this grim, repetitive world that doesn't have any room or opportunity for heroes, and an opportunity to transcend the realities of the ethical failings of society.
The Witcher 3, on the other hand, was almost impossibly boring and I'm not sorry at all that I just abandoned it and will never restart it. Just a painfully dull game with way too much management required and bad combat mechanics.

The Witcher 3 is one of the most overrated and overhyped games to ever be released. Seriously, I just could not care for any of it.

And it may sound like a strange complaint, but there's just TOO much to do. I like when there's enough things to keep you busy, but at least make it feel needed or rewarding to the main narrative of the game. The Witcher 3 sidetracks you so many times that you can't help but feel frustrated because you just want to finish the main story and see the conclusion to the narrative that was opened up in the beginning.

EDIT: I checked my playtime and I sunk around 40 hours and only completed like 12% of the main story. Didn't even leave the first map yet. Kind of ridiculous if you ask me.

Your last point, especially, is very interesting to me, is the scope-race, meaning the competition between developers to deliver a bigger and bigger world, actually undermining the experience of playing the games? Certainly No Man's Sky would say, "yes".

It is most certainly a trend that is on the rise in single-player titles. Most recently being Andromeda, with actually embracing an open-world setting in multiple planets (and opening to a universally mixed reception). Almost exactly the way Dragon Age: Inquisition is structured. I would say that it seems that developers are keen on padding a game out if it's only single-player with the sole purpose of making it hundreds of hours long to fully complete. This is all due to reviewers and gamers alike taking a deeply rooted stance against games that take a small amount of time to complete single-player.

Thus the obvious and easiest solution to developers is to develop their next game as open-world that guarantees a whopping 200 hour completion rate for a full playthrough (this is of course a hyperbolic statement, but you get the gist of it) because they are able to pad out the game's main and actual narrative with separate stories that ultimately mean nothing in the grand scheme of things other than giving the player XP and loot to be able to continue the main story. I mean it's fine if people like it and they feel it "fleshes" the world out, but in certain cases it's just too much. I mean come on, 40 hours and I have yet to progress in any meaningful way in the main narrative of the game? By the time I get around to moving a step further I'll have forgotten so many details from the actual narrative that I should have remembered, but instead I remember having to cook potions up for some dying widow or something along those lines with a quest that took hours to complete because of so many twists and turns.

Gets on my nerves at least. Got no time for that son.

I think Fallout 4 is one of the worst offenders for this. I tried to do the main story as fast as I could and I beat it in roughly 20 hours. However one of my more completionist friends is actually trying to do all the sidequests and he's already 100 hours in easily. Thing is, I keep asking him if he's actually having fun doing it and he keeps telling me he really isn't. I would much much rather have a game with a good 20 hour long story and 30 or 40 hours of decent sidequests than a game with a decent 20 hours story but 100 hours of sucky side missions. Hell, I'd rather have a game like The Last Of Us which took me 14 hours but was really quite good than a game like Fallout 4.

See my post above on Fallout 4 and my reaction.
Apr 17, 2017 2:27 PM
Richard Guy
Wooley
Richard Guy
Wooley
Ned FlandersI think recently I've come to the realization that I just don't like RPG games. And it's not just one game either it's basically the genre as a whole. I found Witcher 3 confusing and repetitive, Skyrim bored me out of my mind, Fallout 4 was a chore to finish, I'm barely enjoying the Mass Effect games. It's strange because I really wanted to love all these games but I just couldn't bring myself to do so. And it's not like it's the repetitive nature of the gameplay in all these games because some of my favorite games are extremely repetitive (Counter Strike for example). I can't put my finger on why I don't like them either. The idea of a world where you're free to be who you want and do what you feel is fascinating to me and all these games attempt that to some extent but it just isn't enough to interest me. It's strange because people pump dozens and dozens of hours into TW3 but I feel like I'm perfectly content and almost bored of it at only 16 hours playtime, maybe even less (I leave games on pause when I eat sometimes).

It's a strange realization to come to but I guess I can stop wasting my money on these games I don't really like.

Interesting, but I can totally see it. They give me great pleasure, whereas pure shooters (except Doom), pure puzzle games, etc., just bore me to tears. Different strokes.
I personally don't find anything more interesting than exploring a world and building a character and making a hero. The games you name, Fallout, Mass Effect, Skyrim, they give me great, great pleasure, a real escape from this grim, repetitive world that doesn't have any room or opportunity for heroes, and an opportunity to transcend the realities of the ethical failings of society.
The Witcher 3, on the other hand, was almost impossibly boring and I'm not sorry at all that I just abandoned it and will never restart it. Just a painfully dull game with way too much management required and bad combat mechanics.

The Witcher 3 is one of the most overrated and overhyped games to ever be released. Seriously, I just could not care for any of it.

And it may sound like a strange complaint, but there's just TOO much to do. I like when there's enough things to keep you busy, but at least make it feel needed or rewarding to the main narrative of the game. The Witcher 3 sidetracks you so many times that you can't help but feel frustrated because you just want to finish the main story and see the conclusion to the narrative that was opened up in the beginning.

EDIT: I checked my playtime and I sunk around 40 hours and only completed like 12% of the main story. Didn't even leave the first map yet. Kind of ridiculous if you ask me.

Your last point, especially, is very interesting to me, is the scope-race, meaning the competition between developers to deliver a bigger and bigger world, actually undermining the experience of playing the games? Certainly No Man's Sky would say, "yes".

It is most certainly a trend that is on the rise in single-player titles. Most recently being Andromeda, with actually embracing an open-world setting in multiple planets (and opening to a universally mixed reception). Almost exactly the way Dragon Age: Inquisition is structured. I would say that it seems that developers are keen on padding a game out if it's only single-player with the sole purpose of making it hundreds of hours long to fully complete. This is all due to reviewers and gamers alike taking a deeply rooted stance against games that take a small amount of time to complete single-player.

Thus the obvious and easiest solution to developers is to develop their next game as open-world that guarantees a whopping 200 hour completion rate for a full playthrough (this is of course a hyperbolic statement, but you get the gist of it) because they are able to pad out the game's main and actual narrative with separate stories that ultimately mean nothing in the grand scheme of things other than giving the player XP and loot to be able to continue the main story. I mean it's fine if people like it and they feel it "fleshes" the world out, but in certain cases it's just too much. I mean come on, 40 hours and I have yet to progress in any meaningful way in the main narrative of the game? By the time I get around to moving a step further I'll have forgotten so many details from the actual narrative that I should have remembered, but instead I remember having to cook potions up for some dying widow or something along those lines with a quest that took hours to complete because of so many twists and turns.

Gets on my nerves at least. Got no time for that son.

I agree with you.
And I think some games do it well and some don't.
I actually thought Fallout 4 was fantastic.
And one of the reasons that I think it works is that the narrative is not the main focus of the game. The world they've created and the role-playing aspect of it are the focus and there is a main narrative if you want to get into it and you can really kind of weave in and out of that main narrative as you like or not at all. Oblivion was the same way. I reached points in both games that felt very satisfying to me and that's when I quit playing and moved on to another game. In Fallout I was a sort of civilization-builder who'd ended the tyranny of the Institute and was providing a safe place (several actually) for survivors to thrive. In Oblivion, I defeated the cult of evil wizards and became the Arch-mage. Both were amazingly fun and rewarding experiences and I was utterly content, yet I can go back at any time and do more if I like (and I may do that when I finish the Bioshock trilogy as there's not much out right now I'm interested in).
But The Witcher 3 and No Man's Sky, they just didn't have their world-shit together in a way that made all the side-stuff rewarding. I spent over 20 hours, I think over 30 on each game and I still had no sense of identity or accomplishment whatsoever. There was no sense that I was moving forward and gaining... well, anything. So I quit those and I doubt I will ever revisit them.
Apr 17, 2017 2:22 PM
Richard Guy
Wooley
Ned FlandersI think recently I've come to the realization that I just don't like RPG games. And it's not just one game either it's basically the genre as a whole. I found Witcher 3 confusing and repetitive, Skyrim bored me out of my mind, Fallout 4 was a chore to finish, I'm barely enjoying the Mass Effect games. It's strange because I really wanted to love all these games but I just couldn't bring myself to do so. And it's not like it's the repetitive nature of the gameplay in all these games because some of my favorite games are extremely repetitive (Counter Strike for example). I can't put my finger on why I don't like them either. The idea of a world where you're free to be who you want and do what you feel is fascinating to me and all these games attempt that to some extent but it just isn't enough to interest me. It's strange because people pump dozens and dozens of hours into TW3 but I feel like I'm perfectly content and almost bored of it at only 16 hours playtime, maybe even less (I leave games on pause when I eat sometimes).

It's a strange realization to come to but I guess I can stop wasting my money on these games I don't really like.

Interesting, but I can totally see it. They give me great pleasure, whereas pure shooters (except Doom), pure puzzle games, etc., just bore me to tears. Different strokes.
I personally don't find anything more interesting than exploring a world and building a character and making a hero. The games you name, Fallout, Mass Effect, Skyrim, they give me great, great pleasure, a real escape from this grim, repetitive world that doesn't have any room or opportunity for heroes, and an opportunity to transcend the realities of the ethical failings of society.
The Witcher 3, on the other hand, was almost impossibly boring and I'm not sorry at all that I just abandoned it and will never restart it. Just a painfully dull game with way too much management required and bad combat mechanics.

The Witcher 3 is one of the most overrated and overhyped games to ever be released. Seriously, I just could not care for any of it.

And it may sound like a strange complaint, but there's just TOO much to do. I like when there's enough things to keep you busy, but at least make it feel needed or rewarding to the main narrative of the game. The Witcher 3 sidetracks you so many times that you can't help but feel frustrated because you just want to finish the main story and see the conclusion to the narrative that was opened up in the beginning.

EDIT: I checked my playtime and I sunk around 40 hours and only completed like 12% of the main story. Didn't even leave the first map yet. Kind of ridiculous if you ask me.

Yeah, I think that really was true of Witcher 3.
I actually generally enjoy that, my time with Fallout 3 and Oblivion was spent, I mean I don't exaggerate when I say that 60-70% of my time was spent wandering around, exploring the world, getting into random encounters, etc., and I absolutely LOVED it. But, to me, Witcher 3 just failed all over the place by somehow making the whole world seem so difficult, nothing about the game was smooth or had any real flow to it to me. And side-quests seemed to just take forever so that it became discouraging to not just follow the narrative as tightly as possible, but then that didn't flow so great either.
I found it really frustrating and I'm glad I didn't spend one more minute on it than I did.
Apr 17, 2017 2:04 PM
DaMU
Wooley
DaMUAnd here it is.

If you don't wanna click through, both have:

1. Lucasfilm Logo
2. Landscapes and a Little Rey
3. ?Twin Suns? Theme
4. Narration from Luke
5. OT Callback: (Darth Vader / Leia and Green Holos)
6. Narration From (Luke / Rey)
7. OT Callback 2: (R2-D2 / Darth Vader)
8. Narration From (Luke / Rey)
9. OT Callback 3: (Saber / Alliance)
10. Narration From (Luke / Rey)
11. Black Screen Dramatic Beat
12. Final Disembodied Dialogue
13. Star Wars Is Christmas Now
14. Fighters Flying Along Ground!
15. Explosions and Running!
16. Image Flurry!
17. Spaceship Battle!
18. Original Cast Member Speaks
19. Kneel Before Your New God

NOTE: This isn't some sort of condemnation. It was just an observation that developed into a breakdown of their identical structure and near-identical choices in music and image cues. (One thing I didn't clarify is that they even make sure the final dialogue moment is half against screen black and half in full view.)

Hmm... I feel like you have a point here but maybe stretch a bit to make it fit. Not a lot, but some.
What is your overall point though? Are you saying that they have decided, in the trailer only, to mimic their own winning formula?
Or are you saying that the trailer is redundant and perhaps somehow evidences a rote nature to the new films?
Or something else entirely?

Just pointing out similarities. I didn't want to editorialize. Made it in part because I'm fascinated by trailer formula/structure. But mostly I made it because I knew some other jackass on YouTube would try to do it too and would do a crappier job by cobbling together all available Force Awakens footage instead of actually noting explicit parallels in teaser structure (which is much more interesting to me than "this shot sorta looks like that").

It is interesting to read comments from people who assume the goal is to insult Star Wars. I might not love TFA, but I got no beef with teaser formula, and this new one has some intriguing differences to the previous teasers, e.g. how the "Cast Member Speaks" moment is inverted: Han's optimistic and welcoming in TFA, Luke's pessimistic and distant in TLJ.

Love it.
Apr 17, 2017 2:00 PM
DaMU
Wooley
DaMUAnd here it is.

If you don't wanna click through, both have:

1. Lucasfilm Logo
2. Landscapes and a Little Rey
3. ?Twin Suns? Theme
4. Narration from Luke
5. OT Callback: (Darth Vader / Leia and Green Holos)
6. Narration From (Luke / Rey)
7. OT Callback 2: (R2-D2 / Darth Vader)
8. Narration From (Luke / Rey)
9. OT Callback 3: (Saber / Alliance)
10. Narration From (Luke / Rey)
11. Black Screen Dramatic Beat
12. Final Disembodied Dialogue
13. Star Wars Is Christmas Now
14. Fighters Flying Along Ground!
15. Explosions and Running!
16. Image Flurry!
17. Spaceship Battle!
18. Original Cast Member Speaks
19. Kneel Before Your New God

NOTE: This isn't some sort of condemnation. It was just an observation that developed into a breakdown of their identical structure and near-identical choices in music and image cues. (One thing I didn't clarify is that they even make sure the final dialogue moment is half against screen black and half in full view.)

Hmm... I feel like you have a point here but maybe stretch a bit to make it fit. Not a lot, but some.
What is your overall point though? Are you saying that they have decided, in the trailer only, to mimic their own winning formula?
Or are you saying that the trailer is redundant and perhaps somehow evidences a rote nature to the new films?
Or something else entirely?

Just pointing out similarities. I didn't want to editorialize. Made it in part because I'm fascinated by trailer formula/structure. But mostly I made it because I knew some other jackass on YouTube would try to do it too and would do a crappier job by cobbling together all available Force Awakens footage instead of actually noting explicit parallels in teaser structure (which is much more interesting to me than "this shot sorta looks like that").

It is interesting to read comments from people who assume the goal is to insult Star Wars. I might not love TFA, but I got no beef with teaser formula, and this new one has some intriguing differences to the previous teasers, e.g. how the "Cast Member Speaks" moment is inverted: Han's optimistic and welcoming in TFA, Luke's pessimistic and distant in TLJ.

Love it.
Apr 17, 2017 10:49 AM
DaMU
Wooley
DaMUAnd here it is.

If you don't wanna click through, both have:

1. Lucasfilm Logo
2. Landscapes and a Little Rey
3. ?Twin Suns? Theme
4. Narration from Luke
5. OT Callback: (Darth Vader / Leia and Green Holos)
6. Narration From (Luke / Rey)
7. OT Callback 2: (R2-D2 / Darth Vader)
8. Narration From (Luke / Rey)
9. OT Callback 3: (Saber / Alliance)
10. Narration From (Luke / Rey)
11. Black Screen Dramatic Beat
12. Final Disembodied Dialogue
13. Star Wars Is Christmas Now
14. Fighters Flying Along Ground!
15. Explosions and Running!
16. Image Flurry!
17. Spaceship Battle!
18. Original Cast Member Speaks
19. Kneel Before Your New God

NOTE: This isn't some sort of condemnation. It was just an observation that developed into a breakdown of their identical structure and near-identical choices in music and image cues. (One thing I didn't clarify is that they even make sure the final dialogue moment is half against screen black and half in full view.)

Hmm... I feel like you have a point here but maybe stretch a bit to make it fit. Not a lot, but some.
What is your overall point though? Are you saying that they have decided, in the trailer only, to mimic their own winning formula?
Or are you saying that the trailer is redundant and perhaps somehow evidences a rote nature to the new films?
Or something else entirely?

Just pointing out similarities. I didn't want to editorialize. Made it in part because I'm fascinated by trailer formula/structure. But mostly I made it because I knew some other jackass on YouTube would try to do it too and would do a crappier job by cobbling together all available Force Awakens footage instead of actually noting explicit parallels in teaser structure (which is much more interesting to me than "this shot sorta looks like that").

It is interesting to read comments from people who assume the goal is to insult Star Wars. I might not love TFA, but I got no beef with teaser formula, and this new one has some intriguing differences to the previous teasers, e.g. how the "Cast Member Speaks" moment is inverted: Han's optimistic and welcoming in TFA, Luke's pessimistic and distant in TLJ.

Love it.
Apr 17, 2017 10:48 AM
Richard Guy
Wooley
Ned FlandersI think recently I've come to the realization that I just don't like RPG games. And it's not just one game either it's basically the genre as a whole. I found Witcher 3 confusing and repetitive, Skyrim bored me out of my mind, Fallout 4 was a chore to finish, I'm barely enjoying the Mass Effect games. It's strange because I really wanted to love all these games but I just couldn't bring myself to do so. And it's not like it's the repetitive nature of the gameplay in all these games because some of my favorite games are extremely repetitive (Counter Strike for example). I can't put my finger on why I don't like them either. The idea of a world where you're free to be who you want and do what you feel is fascinating to me and all these games attempt that to some extent but it just isn't enough to interest me. It's strange because people pump dozens and dozens of hours into TW3 but I feel like I'm perfectly content and almost bored of it at only 16 hours playtime, maybe even less (I leave games on pause when I eat sometimes).

It's a strange realization to come to but I guess I can stop wasting my money on these games I don't really like.

Interesting, but I can totally see it. They give me great pleasure, whereas pure shooters (except Doom), pure puzzle games, etc., just bore me to tears. Different strokes.
I personally don't find anything more interesting than exploring a world and building a character and making a hero. The games you name, Fallout, Mass Effect, Skyrim, they give me great, great pleasure, a real escape from this grim, repetitive world that doesn't have any room or opportunity for heroes, and an opportunity to transcend the realities of the ethical failings of society.
The Witcher 3, on the other hand, was almost impossibly boring and I'm not sorry at all that I just abandoned it and will never restart it. Just a painfully dull game with way too much management required and bad combat mechanics.

The Witcher 3 is one of the most overrated and overhyped games to ever be released. Seriously, I just could not care for any of it.

And it may sound like a strange complaint, but there's just TOO much to do. I like when there's enough things to keep you busy, but at least make it feel needed or rewarding to the main narrative of the game. The Witcher 3 sidetracks you so many times that you can't help but feel frustrated because you just want to finish the main story and see the conclusion to the narrative that was opened up in the beginning.

EDIT: I checked my playtime and I sunk around 40 hours and only completed like 12% of the main story. Didn't even leave the first map yet. Kind of ridiculous if you ask me.

Your last point, especially, is very interesting to me, is the scope-race, meaning the competition between developers to deliver a bigger and bigger world, actually undermining the experience of playing the games? Certainly No Man's Sky would say, "yes".
Apr 17, 2017 4:11 AM
Has anyone here seen House of Whipcord?

I'd like to read some feedback on that film.
Apr 17, 2017 4:05 AM
Janson Jinnistan
MKSI also wish he'd collaborated with Christopher Lee more because he felt as at home in this castle as he did castle Dracula.

Castle of the Living Dead, a non-Bava gothic Italian 60s horror film with Lee, is well recommended as well.

I REALLY liked that movie.
Apr 17, 2017 4:03 AM
Janson Jinnistan
WooleyIf there were a Pantheon of actors, Hackman would not only be IN it, he would likely be in the throne room. Not sure who would be Zeus, but Hackman would be having coffee with him.

Could it be a coincidence that the old blind hermit from Young Frankenstein bears such a striking resemblance to Poseidon from the '81 Clash of the Titans? ?The universe is trying to tells us something....

Your point is well made
Apr 17, 2017 3:59 AM
Popcorn Reviews
Wooley
Popcorn Reviews
Wooley
Popcorn Reviews
WooleyI like the Director's Cut best myself, but all the later cuts come across like an very different film. It's amazing how much just losing the narration changes not just the feel of the movie but the story itself. I hear what you're saying about the scene between Deckard and Rachael, but it is basically taken right out of 1940s Noir, which is what this movie is.
Anyway, I hope you enjoy it, the movie gives me so much pleasure it's hard to describe, which is why I can never consider it overrated. Because for me there are no superlatives for the movie and at the same time, at least half the movie-going world has never even seen it.


However, I don't see how the fact that the scene with Deckard and Rachael being taken out of 1940's noir makes it a better scene. It's still flawed.

If you say so. It is what it is.
And one scene does not destroy a masterpiece.

Okay, but I don't see how the noir aspect makes it any better. Could you elaborate?

Also, I criticized the movie for more reasons other than that one scene.

No, I'm just saying that that one scene doesn't torpedo the movie. I realize you had other issues. I'm just saying it might be worth trying to put those aside when you rewatch it and don't go in thinking "I hope they did this or that better" but try to watch it as if you've never seen it. If you still don't like it, well, we were just born on different planets.

I know that it doesn't torpedo the movie. It is a minor criticism compared to my other issues for the film. But sure, I'll take your advice. I'm not sure if my opinion of the film will change if I pretend that I've never seen it before, but I'll see what happens.

But that's the thing, it doesn't matter if your opinion CHANGES because you tried to view it fresh, it only matters that you did try to view it fresh and see it in with fresh eyes. If the movie isn't better for your effort, no big deal for anyone, it's just not your movie. I just strongly advocate that when people go back to a movie they have an opinion about that they try to leave that opinion at the door and rewatch the film fresh, because that opinion can poison the way you see the film the second time. I am a bear about doing this myself.
Apr 17, 2017 3:48 AM