Acornactivist

@Turambar said:

@jdh5153 said:

@KrypticKiller said:

@jdh5153 said:

@KrypticKiller said:

@jdh5153 said:

@fiberpay said:

Except that Activision has said that was old footage not released by them. Unlike the professionals at Giantbomb I will wait till the game is out to say that Alex should review it.

Exactly. Besides, look at videos of something like DayZ. That game doesn't look outstanding at all and yet thousands of people love it. I'm thinking this will be the same way.

One is free, one will probably be $60. One was made by ONE guy the other a team... Yeah, it's totally the same.

I'm saying how can you judge this to be bad though? If it looks on par with Day Z and Day Z is 'awesome' why can't this be awesome? Because it doesn't look like Call of Duty? FTL looks like absolute shit then. It's just a static screen....Yet it's fun.....the fuck?

Isn't Day Z awesome for what it is? I'm not sure you will find anyone who can defend it without using the words beta, free or mod.So again different expectations. We can look past the visuals if you want though, does this game not look clunky as fuck to you? Granted we are all speculating but with a trailer like that I don't believe we are getting to carried away.

Sure, but how hard is clunky to fix? How old is this footage? Is it OFFICIAL footage? I've never known Activision to push anything out that isn't high quality. Maybe it is a little clunky at release, but it'll be patched. They wont push it out and abandon it. I'm keeping my hopes up. There's no reason to call this bad until someone has played it and it's in a release state.

Activision published X-Men: Destiny.

Oh man. Oh man, this was so great. So much this.

Gah, I'm having the exact same problem. Video player update is a good likely culprit. Darn :(

Not gonna lie, I threw a bit of a fit reading that there announcement. But I think y'all have your priorities secure. Giantbomb is awesome, and as long as it's awesome, I'm with ya.

Just promise me you'll stay away from Kotaku. Yeah? Ok we good.

Well, now they just look like a little kid who didn't get to watch the cartoon he wanted, so instead of dealing with what got picked, he turned the tv off and ran away crying.  
 
it's sad they they feel so threatened by OnLIve (because really, is ANYONE using it?), or that they are too proud to admit they made a bad decision that they are just going to return their games.  
 
However, returning their copies IS a better way of handling it than tampering with the product. If only they had done that in the first place... 
 
I'm not one to wish bad on other people, but their original decision (to physically remove the coupons), is one that deserves to have the person responsible fired.

Everyone has already said everything worth saying, but I figure I might as well add my voice to the wave of disapproval.  
 
This is just terrible business practice, and I really don't know if it's even legal. I'm really interested to see how Eidos and/or OnLive react to this. And even if it IS legal, it's still terrible business practice. You do not open a customers product and remove something provided for them, approved by the publisher, simply because you don't like it. It would be like Barnes&Noble removing the chapter where Dumblerdore dies because some manager didn't like that it happened, and then selling the book like nothing changed
 
It doesn't matter if you like it or not. You don't get to alter your product and sell it as unaltered. There's no argument to support that.

I'm hopping into this months late, i know... 
 
as for mafia II, I can't say much. I played the demo and found it enjoyable enough. But as far as Batle: Los Angeles goes, I have a really hard time giving that movie much credit, even after separating it from other "war movies", which it absolutely should be.  
 
I recently watched Battle LA, and I went in pretty much with the same expectations you did. It's not gonna change the world, but it should be a fun ride, right? It's aliens in LA and guns. It wasn't ever billed as a, to use your term, poignant war film, but more as a popcorn theater spectacle. That is completely true.  
 
But that is NO excuse for completely missing the very basics of filmmaking. Just because you're not setting out to make another Private Ryan doesn't make it ok to have a wafer thin narrative absentmindedly delivered through one of the most unimaginative and lazy scripts I've ever witnessed play out before my eyes. You can't expect flashy visuals to make up for an utter lack of storytelling (and let's face it, at the end of the day, those big budget effects were decent at best). Even Michael Bay is slowly, SLOWLY, learning this lesson.
 
They didn't show us any reason to care about any of the characters. We were given a two minute montage introduction to each of their generic personalities and were TOLD to care about them, because they used "all the right imagery". And when your completely illogical explanation for the alien invasion is told through the speculation of a newscaster, which is then treated as indisputable fact by every other character, you should automatically be put on probation from making movies.  
 
And yes, the cliches were definitely all in there. But it was delivered as if the filmmakers thought they had come up with the material themselves. Similar themes and tones you can blatantly lift from other sources if you make them fit into your own work for your own purposes. But the only way so many boring generic character archetypes and bland bargain bin war scenarios can work is if they are acknowledged as such, and usually with some amount of wit to let the audience know that you are in on the joke with them. Kick Ass, Zombieland, That Thing You Do, those movies deal with cliche maturely. Battle: LA is completely straightfaced for each and every concept they recycled from other, better movies. 
 
I was never expecting the movie to be great. But I was expecting them to try. However, this opinion is just that – an opinion of one person. It is shared by many others that I have talked to about it, but it certainly isn't everyones. But I simply cannot stress enough how important it is that we as moviegoers and consumers of this form of art (and it is most assuredly an art) to hold filmmakers accountable. To not settle for less simply because a filmmaker focuses on one aspect and one aspect only of filmmaking, and expects us to be ok with it. Everyone has different tastes and standards, but can it really ever hurt to raise the standards and expect more? 
 
And, basically dito this for video games. 

sorry capcom, but im not buying it. especially since their first statement was that it was a technical issue, and their expanded statement (after the response) was that it was a design choice. So EVEN if this isn't a play against used games seles (which i find hard to believe), it's an obviously poor cover up of some serious lack of programming capability. maybe if this game was specifically marketed from the get go as a retro style game, this might be slightly more acceptable. but trying to connect those dots after all of this was let out looks pretty bad on them.  

oh man, i love the differences of opinions here. Dave is giddy as a schoolgirl, vinny's humoring him, but ryan is just NOT having it. hahaha