Search Results

I NEED DIGITAL MOVIE CODE HELP STUFF So I just started actually redeeming the codes for Digital Copies of my movies, but many of them are asking...

OK SINCE I ACTUALLY LIKE TRANSFORMERS AND LOVE BEAST WARS AND OWN THE THREE BAY-VERSE MOVIES:

Transformers. The best of the three released so far (which is already a pretty low bar.) Far too much of the film focuses on annoying humans instead of the interesting Transformers, but when the robots are actually on screen, I loved it. A juvenile-level screenplay, with the best acting coming out of Peter Cullen (who's...the voice of Optimus Prime) and, for me at least, the military guys (yeah, I'm surprised too.) I saw the film three-and-a-half times in theaters: the spectacle is just freaking candy to my eyes in certain parts, and that shows in the sequels still too, regardless of the poor directing, acting and writing.

Revenge of the Fallen. Unfortunately, they listened TOO well to the complaints of too little Transformer action, and this one suffers for it. Completely nonsensical plot with a bland-as-hell villain (Megatron at least is memorable with his dialogue and banter with Starscream in the first film,) the introduction of two completely unlikable racist robots (whom even the film makers made sure to not feature in the next film,) some God-awful unfunny dialogue (like John Turturro being forced to utter the lines "I am directly below enemy scrotum",) and just a whole bunch more wasted opportunities at something at least decent. At the very least, the forest fight Optimus has is one of the best action scenes I've seen in years.

Dark of the Moon. The second best of the three released. MUCH better balance between Transformer action and human scenarios, though the writing is still low-brow, especially with the unnecessarily long toilet scene...Sentinel Prime was a pretty interesting character though. What's unforgivable in this one though is the VASTLY out-of-character actions taken by Optimus pertaining to two of the villains: the guy who's supposed to be the paragon of good principles in this universe resorts to The Shining-esque violence. It's nuts and really hard to watch again. Still, it's got enough fun scenes to stomach the bad. Also, why is John Malkovich in this movie?

I'm going to see The Age of Extinction with what I hope are the appropriately adjusted expectations for a film that's less concerned about having a well-told story (even though it pains me to say that since Transformers and Beast Wars both have had some excellently written episodes each) and more concerned with shoving amazingly detailed large-scale battles between gigantic shape-shifting mechanical titans.

Parent? I feel like an alien overlord, forcing my captured specimens to mate and produce genetically superior offspring.

Harleyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

...

Not when I wake up at like 7AM and clean until 10PM ._.

The past three days of my week have been cleaning my house.

Inside and out.

The backyard is finally empty after years of being comparable to a landfill.

There's still more being planned for tomorrow and Friday.

wutislife

I already brought up the underlined parts being present in the game lol. Heavy Rain does some cool stuff with the investigative scenarios, which is why Nahman Jayden was the most interesting character to play as for the story to me...though then the writing mucks it all up anyway, but that's beside the point for this subject.

The thing is, for me at least, the QTE's in Heavy Rain that you think were making it a "cinematic experience" to me just didn't belong in the story at all, at least not in an interactive manner. Why does the conclusion of a murder thriller story stop itself just because I have to manually set plates on a fucking dinner table? They could easily have just made stuff like that an uninteractive cut scene; the way it is now feels so awkward, like I'm supposed to simply be watching this little event happen, but for whatever reason being forced to set it into motion. Sure, they try to make the cinematic experiences that you can't do in game feel interactive and controlled by you, but they come off as completely unnecessary and uninteresting (again, at least for myself.) And I actually do find God of War to be better at the QTE job as well: you feel adrenaline having to mash a button, just as you would (though thousand times more) ripping off a dude's head. Having the player interact with the scene there actually enhances that experience, rather than potentially detract from it.

Best Friend: Satsuki Kiryuin (FUCK YEAH)
First Kiss: Uzu Sanageyama (Best choice for a non-female)
Lover: Ryuko Matoi (FUCK YEAH)
Flirt: Nui Harime (OK)
Crush on You: Ryuko Matoi (No shit?)
Cockblock: Uzu Sanageyama (....dude, you already got First Kiss)

I believe that if it's a regular trade (not Wonder Trade or GTS,) you should be able to see what Pokemon he's offering in the trade, along with what item that Pokemon is holding.[DOUBLEPOST=1403076259][/DOUBLEPOST]

Oh ok, and exactly as you said, you can always back out if he tries changing his offer, so long as you pay attention.

I just remembered one of the best female characters I've seen in a video game:

Spoiler

Heather Mason

• She's not a tomboy, because she clearly enjoys shopping (you first find her in a mall, she refuses to put her hand in a toilet for what could be an important item, her gender is very important for the story, etc.)
• She's not a blank slate badass, because she clearly reacts in ways that don't constantly display dominance of the situation she's in, instead, she's expressing emotions that most of us would also express in similar situations.
• She's not a static character, because the events that occur in the story affect Heather and change her into a stronger character, both in her constitution and her ability to fight back against the world she's put in.
• She's not boring, because she likes to make jokes and insult other characters in the story, but not to a point where the story becomes a satire, and thus she feels that she still fits in the game's world.
• She's not fan service, because she's not put into situations that give her a submissive personality while displaying her body.
• SHE'S JUST A COOL CHARACTER WHO COULD TOTALLY EXIST

Well, in the case of Dark Souls, it's not so much that I meant a direct, written story, but rather a story that is told implicitly by the game's world and what fills it, if that makes sense?

This is personal opinion (of course) but I played Heavy Rain and found it lackluster for the same reasons that I wouldn't dare waste a dollar on BEYOND: Two Souls. It's an interactive story with no actual gameplay, which is ok, but it's form of interactive storytelling is by having tedious QTE's (shaving your face, shaking a carton of orange juice, manually climbing up a hill of dirt) rather than simply focusing on doing what interactive storytelling does well: having the player use things like observation and memory skills to make effective decisions, especially in constrained time periods, which is what I feel The Walking Dead and The Wolf Among Us both do well. I mean, a few of these non-essential QTE's are fine, but it plagued the majority of the game, when I just wish the game would either implement an actual system of gameplay mechanics (beyond walking, talking, and looking at/picking up stuff), or skip the QTE's altogether, if that makes sense? Please do feel free to enjoy the game still, I just like discussing stuff like this.

Totally agree with The Last of Us being a strong combination of gameplay and storytelling.

While I liked what Shattered Memories tried to do (changing the appearances of characters depending on player decisions, for instance), things like a literal psychological profiler really fucked up the implicit storytelling that the first 3 games were much better at. It destroys subtlety when you have a character literally saying "This is what's wrong with you."

Ok so my post got fucked up a bit somehow and it's 2AM so this will probably not sound as well-written as I intend:

Within the first...8 seconds(?) I heard Franklin talking...but I already did agree it was a bad point to make.

I don't really give a damn what he did before; I'm just sticking to this article and the words contained in it, if that's ok, and in this case, I didn't find him at all sounding like a Social Justice Warrior (something I find VERY annoying.)

I can't speak for the author, but I can at least say what I interpeted from his writings:

Dark Souls is one of the best cases of a strong game that also has a strong story, it does this by making the story and the gameplay work well with each other and respect each other (I feel so weird typing that). The idea of finding the story for yourself rather than it being crammed in your face to interrupt the gameplay and remind you OH YEAH THIS HAS A STORY is well-done. BEYOND: Two Souls is a terrible case, because it's pretty much a pick-your-adventure that uses quicktime events to wake up the player and give them a false sense of agency: it lacks both well-done game mechanics and a well-implemented/well-written story.

The idea isn't having LESS combat games, but more high profile, non-combat games to balance it out a lot better.

Ok, I agree that immersion is a bad reason to not want multiplayer features in a dominantly single-player game. The idea isn't that playing games with your friends is bad though, but that forcing you to log into systems essentially meant for multi-player features while you're playing a dominantly (if not solely) single-player game is pretty bullshit. I can say for myself that uPlay is the best example of how shitty that system is, at least on the PC platform. I can't legitimately play Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon, a game that I bought on Steam, which features no multi-player, unless I sign into uPlay, a system designed around primarily multi-player features. We get systems like this, yet we get fewer and fewer co-op features with stronger consoles? The Wii-U is the system I want most party because of that very reason.

It's not that I want less mini-games in games. Frankly, I liked the hacking mini-game in Bioshock 1, because, to me, it made sense in its world, and I didn't find it boring or annoying, but rather an entertaining way of keeping some variety in the game. Which is why I didn't bring it up; I specifically brought up the collectables in [PROTOTYPE] and (most of) the mini-games in Kingdom Hearts II; the first example makes no sense either in terms of testing the player's skill with the game's mechanics (beyond running and jumping, I guess?) or the game's story, and the second example was an annoying, non-entertaining way to stretch the length of the experience (though at least they usually did fit in the game's worlds.) However, I do find the Riddler trophies in Batman: Arkham Asylum/City to work as a mini-game, because they actually make the player test the game mechanics in different ways while also making sense with the story.

Like I said, I'm on both sides of the argument pertaining to console exclusives. I agree with your points, but I am still a consumer with limited income...so yeah, no big answer there ._.

(Implying the guy didn't even play Bioshock Infinite is pretty damn harsh) Could you explain how he missed the point on this? Not because I think he's right or anything, but simply because I didn't quite follow what you're saying here.

I don't think he's saying that EVERY game needs to use narrative either; I'm just disappointed that each year, it's always the minority of games that are interested in connecting gameplay with story in meaningful ways, and the majority are only really doing one or the other well. If they try doing both, it's usually with a clear, jarring disconnect. Maybe the population is just not as interested in these kinds of games as I am? I dunno. I love my action games, and I love my story-driven games, but why are we being so accepting that these elements can't work well together?

On the asexual character thing: it's just kinda hard to write that as a thing and not make it a big deal, which is what most popular movies/books/games/etc feel the need to do. It's dumb, but yeah, it's gonna be a while for it to catch on. Hell, we're still waiting for more openly homosexual main characters in linear stories for non-indie video games...and I don't expect that such characters will be handled with much finesse for a while.

I...don't think you're getting what he's going at here. And no, I'm not a fanboy as this is like the first article I believe I've read from him.

He wants more games that are immersive that uses gameplay to actually improve the way that their stories are told, rather than making the gameplay feel almost like a distraction from the story. The problem isn't that these games don't exist; the problem is that they're so often the exception than the rule. I don't see a problem with that at all.

The console exclusivity thing is one thing I'm kinda on both sides about. While I am sick of having to shell out ~$300 for another system so I can play specific games for it, competition does still breed quality, and specific system sellers are helping make certain games happen at all (like Nintendo did for Bayonetta 2.)

He's not at all saying that giving players the option to play with friends is bad. It is annoying to me that more developers are forcing multiplayer features into games that can function perfectly fine or even better without these features automatically being on. I've heard many complaints already from my friends playing Watch_Dogs who were being annoyed with constant hack attempts on them while they're trying to simply play the game on their own. While Watch_Dogs at least has an option for turning it off, being unable to pause a game where you're not even trying to play with other people (like in Need for Speed: Rivals, as he mentioned)...that's seriously a thing that shouldn't be continued.

Offering the player more things to do is a good idea, but most of the time, those things really are badly implemented and don't work at all with the core gameplay. Who actually wanted to run around and grab collectables in [PROTOTYPE] instead of having more creative mini-games that would utilize the fact that you were a mutant superhero? I dunno if that's a good example, but I'm tired of mini-games that are annoying sidetracks to what I'm actually playing the game for, like almost all of the mini-games in Kingdom Hearts II.

...who said he was talking about Lamar?

But anyway, I will agree that using Franklin was a really bad example: he fits the universe he's in, and it makes sense why he is the way he is. I actually like him the most out of the GTA V protagonists (which...isn't that hard, honestly.)

Silent Hill pre-Homecoming is seriously such a good example for what I think gaming can do to evolve as a story-telling medium, so I'm glad you brought it up. I get sick of choice systems in games like inFAMOUS, where the game blatantly tells you how you're being judged. Silent Hill 2, on the other hand, doesn't ask the player with explicit questions; the game sees your choices as how you play, and I love that. That's the kind of choice system I want in games, rather than more GOOD GUY/BAD GUY meters and special prizes for sticking to one or the other, but giving nothing to the player who actually thinks out each choice and concludes that being aggressive or nice here and not there is better.

And probably the Xbox 360 version as well, but I'm not too concerned about how good my custom leather seats are when an entire city looks as good as it does on the PS3 version of GTAV

From what I've seen on the interwebs and my friend groups, it's half and half.

So, is the new Dead Rising 3 DLC that was recently released going to stay exclusive to the Xbox One? If so, that's disappointing ._.