AngriGhandi's forum posts

#1 Edited by AngriGhandi (761 posts) -

It's tricky, because you basically have three different usages of the term. (As proven by this thread!)

You can say "Classic Rock" as a movement, where it specifically is only 60s and 70s (-ish) rock (although modern bands can be "Classic Rock influenced" in this sense);

You can say "Classic Rock" as a genre, which is a vague label for "non-depressing/non-angry guitar-focused music with solos" of any decade, which is how a lot of classic rock radio stations are choosing to expand the scope of what they play without being forced to relabel themselves as no longer being Classic Rock;

And then you can just say "classic rock" (lowercase) as a description of something having a certain level of quality, saying "oh man, that's a classic." But this use only confuses things further, and we should try to ignore it.

Myself, I'm okay with different uses existing, as long as people understand that they're describing slightly different things-- and, they realize that none of them merely mean "old rock music of all genres." Old Grunge and Nu Metal songs are not automatically Classic Rock, no matter how good they are. (Although some songs can be kind of half-and-half to the point where they'll play as both.)

...So whatever, I don't fucking know, I voted for the first thing.

#2 Edited by AngriGhandi (761 posts) -

They probably should have been more honest and just said "yeah, we already have one of those, thanks" in their douchiest tone of voice.

#3 Edited by AngriGhandi (761 posts) -

I read an article about this movie that made it sound really promising. Almost 100% real stunts and practical effects on those crazy-ass car chases, which is amazing - and these days, is practically enough to make me want to see a movie all by itself.

On top of that, apparently George Miller originally laid out the entire movie years ago using storyboards with no dialogue at all, so the cinematography and visual storytelling are going to be really strong and prominent.

I mean, I originally thought this whole thing was going to be another insultingly pointless Total Recall or Robocop style remake, but it's beginning to sound like it might actually be just about the opposite of that! I'm pretty excited.

#4 Posted by AngriGhandi (761 posts) -

I guess... but both of those games are holding it two-handed, which really seems to be missing the point.

#5 Posted by AngriGhandi (761 posts) -

I like it so far, myself! Feels good. I like that every level you gain is actually a new ability or new perk on an existing ability-- as opposed to Borderlands' boring "5% more damage with assault rifles" style.

On the other hand, like most games, I wish it would let you zoom/rotate the character you're creating to get a better idea of what it's really going to look like outside of the well-lit, high LoD character creation screen. My hunter looks a bit... uhh... sickly... when placed in the lighting model of the actual game.

Agree that the story could be presented a lot better, too, and I wonder if it's all in there yet. You're getting brought back to life at the beginning after being dead for 300 years, and assumedly you've been preserved somehow, but they don't really explain this to you?

And you're fighting "The Darkness?" Like, as a generalized concept? That part feels downright patronizing. (Especially compared to the item descriptions, which are full of amazing and very Bungie-esque lines like "Applied ontology is the art of convincing things they shouldn't exist.")

...Finally, is it just me, or does the recoil of the guns always go up and to the left? I've never seen that in a game, it's weird.

#6 Edited by AngriGhandi (761 posts) -

This sounds like the absolute best way they could have chosen to make this game. Brutal Doom indeed.

They get it, you guys. They fucking get it.

I'm so happy right now.

#7 Edited by AngriGhandi (761 posts) -

It's odd, but I sort of feel like Giant Bomb was more inclusive before, when it was dumb forums about hamburgers and concept pages about active reloading, then it is now, when people are regularly arguing about whether it's inclusive.

It just felt more implicitly welcoming to everyone; more... respectful? But like, respectful via irreverence? It's hard to say. (It was also a much smaller place back then.)

Which isn't to say these discussions are unwarranted-- but one thing is clear: I don't see too many people being convinced by all the arguments. The site's beginning to feel like a proxy war, at times.

...Maybe it's just been a hard month.

#8 Edited by AngriGhandi (761 posts) -

Really happy to see the level of self-reflection going on about the past week's experiments, @patrickklepek. And, I think I pretty much agree with what you took away from it!

(Edit: On a related note, I don't think Mass Effect's treatment of same-sex relationships is unrealistic at all. 2183 is more than five generations from now. People are going to be over themselves by that point.

Everyone's moved on to space racism, anyway.)

#9 Edited by AngriGhandi (761 posts) -

Giant Bomb has always been bad at naming things... but it's traditionally an endearing badness that brazenly flies in the face of all SEO strategies. "Quick Look?" "TANG?" "Endurance Run?"

All those sound like things named by one person, off the top of their head, with no strategic overtones. From the heart, man. Realness.

Clickbait headlines... are not that.

#10 Posted by AngriGhandi (761 posts) -


Well said.