I would say that "Sci-Fi" has to have some science based thing (that is not currently possible/encountered) as one of it's main focus. Like Mad Max: Fury Road (awesome movie) and Children of Men (probably my favorite film on this list) really don't qualify. So win defaults to Ex Machina - a fantastic peak at the alien nature nature of the AI.
@rorie: At least on the PC they seem to be extremely rare. This might be because (beside from lower active players since launch) FOB events offer better rewards with no risk.
3rd episode was on smaller scale than pilots but had better pacing. Still having trouble understanding why is this Star Trek. It is darker, follows singular protagonist and does not seem to pull from the lore in major way. Michael is still somewhat unlikable character and there is a valid fear that she is written like a Mary Sue (just look at Mary Sue on the TV tropes and count how many similarities there are with Michael). There is heavy feeling that the Expanse has influenced Discovery very much.
@pezen: At least Netflix version had that contrast jump in the middle of a scene. It was kind of hard to figure out if she show was meant to be low contrast or too high contrast.
OK, so you make Discovery part of your title but offer no exploration? You have stupid logic like high tech radio can't reach trough a storm but human foot prints will been seen from the orbit? First officer who just can't follow orders? Again with human emotions clashing with Vulcan logic? Klingon's that have trouble of moving without appearing comically stiff?
Kind of combination of "already seen that" and "that's stupid" combined with really bad visual look and you got a very "meh" start to new Star Trek. When shows like The Expanse exist, this is really clearly a B-tier offering.
Original was kind of rough on spots but somehow luckily managed to work well and be something unique. Sequel tries to follow a story that ended by recycling some bits that were scrapped from the original movie (like the Batista meeting). Visually it looks kind of flat and soulless in a boring way. So, yeah, I would not be surprised if it would tank.
Base game XCOM 2 runs like crap and the early game has a lot of cheap bullshit in it unless you already know what to do and probably still had to get lucky to survive.
One of the first few missions for me was a rescue mission. In order to clear it in the time limit, I had to constantly rush as much as possible. Doing that meant that I managed to clear the mission with no turns left. This in turn means that major deciding factor for successful mission was the out come of all those 53% shots. You basically had to do everything right AND get lucky. I don't know how Xcom 2 fudges the % numbers but that seems like bit of a bullshit for beginning missions. Few easy missions after that, I get a mission with a snake dude(tte?), bunch of those kind-of-sectoids and 2 walking tanks - all with that strict turn time limit. This was before I had a chance to develop any weapon or armor tech. Oh and the skulljack thing...
I think Xcom 2 front-loaded the difficulty bit too much for the most people. This is common problem with most Xcom games as almost all of them start hard but get way easier (and offer way more tactical options) towards the end game. Also at the beginning the game does really good job of confusing you about the geoscape gameplay. These things combined with various technical issues - it is no wonder why people got bummed out by this game.
@paulmako: Yes, but it would make some sense for Bethesda to pay modders same way as for the game developers: one time fee (~salary for duration of development) regardless of how well the game sells. Logistically it would also make sense because would they make small pay outs if mod would sell poorly or would they hold modders money until some threshold would be reached? One time payment would streamline things nicely for Bethesda, but would be not as convenient for the rest.
But yes it based on rumors, hence "how it could be" and video mentions this also.
Log in to comment