You may not want to take offense over the blockbuster article, Patrick, but I will.
I don't think he's outright wrong, but he seems to vehemently dislike big-budget productions that don't follow what seems to be his preferred type of narrative: a simple, straightforward action-hero flick. It feels like he can't imagine what people enjoy in the punishing challenge of a Souls game, or in the modular, explorative experience of an open-world Ubisoft title. As if he knows what he likes and just can't understand what people see in anything else.
Some of his individual criticisms seemed narrow-minded or just plain obtuse. Yes, entertaining things like the visual spectacle that was Avatar are fun, which is pretty well implied in the meaning of the word "entertainment", and I personally still really like Avatar despite fully understanding the Pocahontas comparison and think its a great movie. And the reason people keep watching the same things over and over in different forms is the same reason roller coasters are still exhilarating the millionth time you ride one (assuming you actually enjoy roller coasters, that is), or why Apple is drowning in a torrent of money even when they do nothing truly innovative for years on end (not since the iPad). Those just happen to be what tickles peoples' fancies enough to always want more of the same.
I will agree that its silly how most open-world Ubisoft titles copy/paste a lot of the same gameplay designs, or that many big-budget franchises are just the same game with different coats of paint, but to generalize nearly every blockbuster title as shameful out of narrow-mindedness, and then claim that Tomb Raider of all things is an example of a quality blockbuster game (a decent game but by no means perfect) is just really silly and really irked me to post three full paragraph on an internet forum.
In other news, my eyes are blood red from crying in laughter after reading the new Breaking Madden.
Log in to comment