A series about the greatest weapons in first person shooters (although I might widen it to shooters in general).

Preliminary list

• Flak Cannon (Unreal Tournament)
• Rail Driver (Red Faction)
• Super Shotgun (DOOM)

And the winner is...

People wanting everything to be on the Nintendo Switch.

This year I felt like I couldn't browse the internet video game sphere without running into these types of posts, videos or articles constantly.

The argument usually revolving around some variant of

"WHY ISN'T EVERYTHING ON THE SWITCH TO MATCH MY BUSY/MOBILE LIFESTYLE!?"

Either you stand around inspecting your loot and weighing your options for a considerable length of time which holds up your partner(s) or you ignore it and defeat the core progression mechanic and point of the loot game.

I'm just going to add my film review posts here so I can retrieve them more easily.

.

.

Us

Maybe Jordan Peele films are just not for me?

Much like Get Out, it's well-acted, well-shot, well-scored, but nothing more than that. Us makes a little less sense as well, featuring some sizeable plot holes.

There is just nothing really remarkably bad or good about either of these films (other than how they function as reference and easter egg hunts perhaps). They're totally fine.

3/5

.

.

Alita: Battle Angel

Review:

The writing/script is terrible, probably the worst part of the film. On top of that, character motivations suddenly shift without any good reason or foreshadowing. I've seen people criticise some of the actors for being bad but I really think it's more the writing/script letting them down some of those lines... yeesh

It also has the CGI film problem of a decrepit slum/city looking too clean.

Good Robert Rodriguez-style action, a lot of brutality they got away with due to most of the characters being cyborgs. Decapitations, bifurcations, quartering, etc. A lot of remorseless killing by the main character.

They try to cram a lot of the source material into the film but at the same time it's mostly a setup for a sequel.

2/5

.

.

Deadpool 2

Good golly this film is every bit as good as the first one, only real downside is that it doesn't feel quite as fresh the second time around.

I can recommend this to everyone who enjoyed the original without reservations. It's still clear to see that this is a passion project for Reynolds and that passion shines through wonderfully.

This is the first time in years that I've had tears in my eyes from laughing at a theatre. (If you must know, it was during the parachuting sequence.)

Lots of fun references to the source material, other (comic book) films, and more but they never feel out of place because of the kind of character Deadpool is. I was never much of a fan of him in the comics or 4th wall-breaking stuff in general but it all just works in these films.

Notes:

• I'm happy to confirm that Colossus is still the heart of these films. What a loveable dork. It's quite something that the Deadpool films have been the only truly great adaptations of the comic book character.
• Zazie Beetz, the actress playing Domino did a good job but luck powers are still terrible unless they have clear limitations (E.g. luck can run out) because otherwise there is never any tension. Luckily this film isn't serious enough for it to harm the final product too much.
• Josh Brolin does a fine job portraying a character I never liked. Kudos! Perhaps because they kept it simple and cut out most of the bullshit in terms of his background and powers.
• Some mediocre CGI but then an R-rated film like this does have a lower budget and it was definitely not as bothersome as in, let's say, Black Panther. (A film with twice the budget.)
• Weird Matt Damon cameo!
• X-Men hiding in the mansion to pretend it's empty when Deadpool is around is great.
• The dubstep jokes are a bit meh, especially combining it with Skrillex' Bangarang, it's a shame they couldn't get Junkie XL to do the soundtrack again. Juggernaut's theme is good though.

4/5

.

.

Avengers Infinity War

This film has no real ending since it's part 1 of 2 so it's hard to properly grade it.

There is also no dramatic impact or stakes since you know characters like Spider-Man, Black Panther, etc. are not staying dead so any them fading out of existence doesn't mean much of anything.

Other than that there were few real missteps, but nothing memorable either. It's just kind of there. It's just a well-trodden formula at this point and Disney has its execution down to near (soulless) perfection. I think it's telling that for all the film's length (2.5 hours) I have barely anything to say about it nor any standout memories of it.

In terms of Avengers films I would place this below the original one but above the awful second one and Avengers-film-in-disguise Captain America: Civil War.

Notes:

• Drax thinking he can turn invisible was the best bit of the film, and I'm not even that much of a Bautista/Drax fan.
• Have a big female villain? Better have your female protagonist(s) fight them! Stop putting the females up against the females. Such a lame clichéd thing to do.
• Speaking of villains, importing Thanos' shitty cronies from that terrible "Infinity" Thanos/Inhumans comics event was pretty awful. At least they mostly just functioned as punching bags anyway.
• The star forge re-activation seemed to have bits of it missing, maybe some cuts for length?
• Trying to give Thanos emotional depth by suddenly going hard for the angle that his daughter is the only thing he loves just didn't work.
• Speaking of Thanos, his face was wonderfully animated but the rest not so much. Nothing bad or anything, but for Disney/Marvel's flagship title I expect nothing but the best in terms of CGI.
• At the end it also felt they were putting a lot of pressure on the shoulders of Captain Marvel. This seems risky, considering there hasn't even been a (good) Captain Marvel film yet.

3/5

.

.

Black Panther

Maaaaaaan, this hurts. I feel like I wanted to like this more than I actually did.

Sadly, it is very standard MCU fare. Nothing about it is particularly bad, just really average.

• First of all, the costumes in this film are grrreat! Some of the battle suits are typical MCU plastic looking but the actual clothes, make-up, jewellery, etc. are just so damn cool.
• Andy Serkis is great as Klaw.
• The action scenes are let down by the camera work and lighting, making them harder to follow than they should be.
• The cgi/sfx are not up to par with some of the MCU's better films.
• The humour is skates the edge of eye-rolling a few too many times E.g. The car crash with Nakia sliding on the asphalt in her car seat while still holding the steering wheel. Shuri's very hit-and-miss "young & hip Q" character.
• The end battle is disappointing and outdated. The general sequence of it and the action choreography is rather uninspired. The cgi rhinoceroses really don't help either. The Martin Freeman plane chase stuff is weak as well.
• The plot is simple but fine. There are some pretty big logical/character leaps (W'Kabi's quick turn against T'Chala, just how devastating it is that T'Chala's father hid his brother's treason and subsequent killing, the interventionist vs seclusionist arguments.) but nothing too out of the ordinary for a superhero film.
• Martin Freeman's character feels needlessly fleshed out. Maybe they plan to do more with him in the future but at times I was getting the weird feeling he was just there for the white people to relate to.

I'm happy to see this film is a commercial success since it helps prove that films directed by and mostly starring people of colour can rake in the big bucks but it reminded me a lot of the latest Wonder Woman film in a negative way. There is a decent basis here for a far superior film down the line. Sadly they'll have to wade through the whole Infinity War morass first.

All in all, Black Panther is a culturally significant, decidedly average film that should probably get an academy award nomination for costume design.

3/5

.

.

The Shape of Water

Very much a Guillermo del Toro film.

A standard but well-told story enriched by fantastical elements and intermittent sharp edges that prevent it from getting bland, boring, or cloying.

All this is supported by utterly gorgeous production design with a wonderfully tactile look. (The film stumbles just once in this regard in a throwaway scene: When Elisa and Zelda are dusting off the giant engine, it looks very CGI.)

4/5

Additional notes:

• I can see why this film would do well with the Academy voters. del Toro's love for cinema and references to/bits of classic cinema in general feature prominently throughout The Shape of Water. Perfect non-biopic Oscar bait!
• Michael Shannon oh so very good at portraying the kind of character he portrays in this film, to the point where I am starting to feel like he should actively avoid being typecast too often in these types of roles.

.

.

Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri

Sharply written, dry, funny and tragic. Martin McDonagh has not made a bad film yet and it doesn't look like he will anytime soon. Highly skilled actors acting together in a sharply written film.

It's kind of acting exchanges people come to Tarantino films for, only not as self-indulgent/wink wink nudge nudge as those films have become in recent years.

4/5

That deer looked fake.

.

.

Star Wars: The Last Jedi

A few niggles here and there but mostly a good experience I'd say!

All in all I am quite pleased with the film. Rian Johnson did what Abrams could not: Actually make a film about a new beginning instead of poorly rehashing an old one. The fact that Abrams is at the helm of the next one (and I assume last one in the trilogy?) does not fill me with confidence at all.

4/5

.

.

Spider-Man: Homecoming

I enjoyed this one quite a bit! Top 5 MCU film so far. Maybe even top 3.

The casting is great, the tone is fitting and the story and writing are more than decent. There are numerous references that should please the more dedicated fans. It also manages to set up future films in a non-hamfisted way which is uncommon in this genre.

Criticisms include the messy, hard-to-follow end fight and the perhaps a little too "focus-group-tested-to-death-and-checking-all-the-boxes" school environment. The CGI isn't top of the line but adequate enough and, aside from a few odd cuts, there is very little else to really complain about visually or cinematographically.

A quality effort from relatively inexperienced director Jon Watts. May the sequels be at least this good!

4/5

.

.

Wonder Woman (2017)

Wonder Woman is... OK.

Nothing remarkable. But compared to the other DC films of recent years I guess "OK" is a huge step up.

Gal Gadot still isn't a very good actor but director Patty Jenkins manages to mostly work around that and surround her with good actors who can help shoulder the load. The classic "fish out of water" setup and the humour that it brings can also only be used once so I wonder where they'll go from there. The plot itself isn't the most sensical but my expectations were sufficiently low to not really care.

The quality of the CGI lags behind its contemporaries, giving the scenes which make heavy use of it a look that reminds me of Zack Snyder's early work and not in a good way. The action choreography is serviceable. Nothing really standout or impressive but nothing really terrible either except for the "final battle" which is pretty poor and really shouldn't have been there at all, although the studio execs would probably not allow that.

All in all, a step up for the DC movie franchise but not exactly a big one. Let's hope it's the first step towards something good or even great.

3/5

.

.

La La Land

Very well-made and overall solid film. The song and dance routines weren't on the level of some of the greats but other than that I have no complaints. It also has one of my favourite scenes I've seen in quite a while. Without too obvious of a spoiler: "I Ran".

4/5

.

.

In a fit of what was apparently self-hate, I watched Suicide Squad and Batman v Superman a few days ago. Both in their extended versions of course!

... Batman v superman might be the worst superhero film I've ever seen.

I mean, Suicide Squad is a weird collection of ill-fitting strangely cut scenes strung together with an aggressively stupid plot and its lame attempts at copying Guardians of the Galaxy are painfully transparent.

But holy hell.

Batman v Superman! 0 redeeming qualities!

• Terrible dark, murky and bland look
• Awful pacing
• Aneurysm-inducing plot
• Abysmal action choreography

Suicide Squad extended edition: 2/5

Batman v Superman Dawn of Justice extended edition: 1/5

And to think people paid money for this burning trash pile. It made $873,260,194

.

.

John Wick: Chapter 2

[In-depth spoiler review first, then a non-spoiler general thoughts bit at the end.]

All in all, John Wick 2 has some lesser spots but I liked it quite a bit on the whole. It definitely didn't peak too early and then petered out in an uninteresting way like the first film. And while there isn't a scene that reaches the same level of choreography as the JW1 night club there is still a lot to love.

4/5

.

.

Logan

[In-depth spoiler review first, then a non-spoiler general thoughts bit at the end.]

A well-acted and reasonably solid film that doesn't aim extremely high but in return nails most of what it's going for. A worthy send-off for Huge Jackedman.

4/5

I hope it does well so other serious R-rated superhero films get another shot at life in a world of extremely sanitized, edgeless, never bad but also rarely (if ever) remarkable factory-assembly-line-produced Disney flicks and whatever garbage WB and the others are producing.

.

.

Star Wars: The Force Awakens

[Not really a review, just assorted notes and responses]

• Overall the film looks quite good although some of the sets and gear felt plasticy and weightless at times. Not that there is anything wrong with plastics and maybe that's how that future works but it's still something I noticed. That being said I am very happy with how many actual sets and props they used compared to the green screen nightmares that were the prequels.
• The acting is far better than the prequels and they managed to remove or avoid most of the cringe.
• The humour was surprisingly OK as well. My personal highlight was Finn and BB-8 giving each other the "thumbs up".
• At first it seemed like they were going to go too far in trying to show how Rey was "a strong independent woman who don't need no man". I feared they would lean into that too much but thankfully they let that go pretty quickly after her first few scenes with Finn, allowing her to be an interesting, fleshed-out character and not a statement.
• There are are few things worse than stories/universes where talent alone rules everything. People being better at something with little to no training at all than others who have years of hard work and experience under their belt is one of the most annoying things in all of fiction. Having someone be incredibly powerful just because he or she is a descendant of someone powerful is also terrible. It also leaves a character nowhere else to evolve to because why actually train or study or learn when you're already the best without it?
• Before watching it I feared it was going to be very cloying and referential but I have to say that most of the callbacks were OK and they managed to keep the schmaltz down to a minimum. I'm impressed at the amount of restraint Abrams managed to bring to the table.
• Speaking of cloying and schmaltz, while BB-8 most likely designed in an executive room with the aid focus groups to get the highest possible attachment rate from the widest possible audience, eliciting the highest amount of "awww"s and "how cuuuuute"s per minute and and sell the highest amount of merchandise I think that, ultimately, they managed hide that pretty well and make the droid feel like a valuable an interesting member of the cast.
• I was kind of weirded out by just how much "Javier Bardem as Raoul Silva" Adam Driver was channelling in his performance as Kylo Ren. Especially during the Rey interrogation scene.
• Kylo Ren's voice while wearing the mask was annoying in a bad way. I hope they drop it in future films.
• Snoke is extremely uninteresting and lame so far. It could change in future films but I'm already thinking that CGI was definitely not the way to go with that character. (His name is really dumb as well but then it's Star Wars.)
• The new Death Star (yes that's what I'm going to call it) was really lame. "Oh hey it's bigger and this one can blow up multiple planets at once!" *Yawn* They did manage to salvage it somewhat by adding the explanation of how it was powered but overall it was pretty goddamn stupid and boring. Not in the least because of just how simple and easy it apparently was to destroy this one as well. Maybe it indicates a pacing issue towards the end of the film but I suppose I'm glad it's gone now at least. DON'T MAKE ANOTHER ONE OF THESE.
• This brings me to my final point and biggest gripe with the film: It's extremely formulaic and predictable. Kudos to them for not even bothering to keep Ben/Kylo Ren's lineage and Rey's force sensitivity a secret for long but even disregarding that you can see pretty much everything coming from a parsec (sorry) away. It just mirrors what's been done before so much. It's like the script was a checklist or something. And with Snoke being extremely unimpressive so far I really hope they have some big twists up their sleeves because if they want this series to go on for a few more films they're going to have their work cut out for them in terms of keeping it fresh and interesting.

I still think the extreme ease of destroying Death Star 3 might have been due to a pacing issue. Phasma being little more than a joke character was pretty disappointing. You're absolutely right about how casually she gave in and disabled the Death Star's shields. Maybe they will give her some character in future films where she's more like a Boba Fett type of mercenary character who places her own survival above all else but right now it's pretty disappointing.

Copied from this forum post: http://www.giantbomb.com/forums/general-discussion-30/share-your-2016-goty-lists-1805181/?page=3#js-message-8505202

The top 10 list I submitted for Giant Bomb:

1. DOOM ; The ultimate, well-oiled murder machine. Filled to the brim with lovely action scenarios, great interplay between its fast-paced action and ripping soundtrack and just the right amount of humour. *kisses fingertips*

2. Stardew Valley ; A hugely impressive one-man project which strikes the right notes and achieves its goals in just about every way.

3. Titanfall 2 ; I bounced off of Titanfall 1 during its beta phase but I thought that with a few changes and additions it could be a great game. Respawn totally delivered with Titanfall 2. Both the single player and multiplayer are great.

4. Hitman ; I've been a fan of the series for a long time and while there were gameplay improvements this time, the real reason it's up here is because of the release model, elusive targets and other non-gameplay tweaks and additions. ♫~Come with me, and you'll be, in a world, of pure assassination~♫

5. Guilty Gear Xrd -REVELATOR- ; An incredibly deep fighting game with lots of lovely, player-friendly touches. Did I mention it also looks positively stunning?

6. Superhot ; [Disclaimer: I helped kickstart this video game.] It may be a g bit of a gimmick, but damn if it isn't a fun one! This game's got styyyyyle out the wazoo.

7. Thumper ; AC⚡DC's Highway to Hell performed by Aphex Twin or Squarepusher by the way of Guillermo Del Toro's Cronos. I'm terrible at rhythm games but this game's sinister attraction proved irresistible.

8. Abzû ; 2016's Soulja Boy Award for Games To Play If You Drink And Get Drunk or Smoke And Get High.

9. Dark Souls III ; The formula is getting a bit long in the tooth and repetitive. The series frustrates me in its inability to improve on what seem like brilliant ideas executed kind of poorly or incompletely. That being said, it's still a damn fine game. I'm just glad it's over.

10. Dishonored 2 ; Dishonored seems like the series a lot of people want to say they like but don't actually like or play that much. It's hard to deny this game's sense of style, design and its level construction though. What an impressive toybox to tool around in. And then they give you The Darkness as well? I'm totally on board with that!

-

I also want to give a special mention to the 2 games I played the most this year. Neither of them made it onto the top 10 list.

1. Street Fighter V

I played a solid 650 hours of this game, not including the beta, but I could not in good concience put it on my top 10 list. Don't get me wrong. The core aspects of the game are mostly sound and I also know why it launched in such an unfinished state but in the end I feel like it was a massive misstep for Capcom. A dearth of content at launch, limited battle lounges, technical issues during both offline and online play, no protection against -or punishment for- ragequitting. Its list of problems seems near-endless. And let's not forget one of this game's updates basically had a rootkit in it. I don't particularly blame Capcom for malice in this case, just gross incompetence. When I look at the polish Street Fighter IV and Marvel vs Capcom 3 had at launch I can't help but be sad about how things have evolved.

2. Overwatch

As someone who sunk a solid 2000 hours into Team Fortress 2 (without idling!) I was very hopeful for this game. I had not really liked any of Blizzard's output since The Lost Vikings so I was a bit apprehensive but I definitely wanted to try the beta to see if Overwatch could fill the hole TF2 left when it died due to Valve basically using it as a testbed for their other video games and letting go of all quality control.

I reconnected with a few of my old TF2 friends and off to the races I went. The beta was promising, maybe not on par with TF2 in its heyday but I felt it had the potential to get there for sure. After all, Blizzard's support for its franchises has historically been very strong and enduring. With that in mind I put down the money for the full release and jumped in.

I ended up playing a whole lot of Overwatch. I'm not sure exactly how many hours since Battle.net doesn't appear to show that information but I reckon it's my second most played game of the year after SFV.

However, as I spent more time with it I started to notice some structural problems. The 6v6 nature of the game actually made it far less forgiving or beginner-friendly than many other competitive multiplayer games. It also made it a terrible game to play by myself (aka solo queue) due to the fact that if you only have 6 players on a team, even having 1 player not pulling their weight can pretty much destroy any chance you have of winning the match (depending on the hero). After trying it a few times I quickly learnt to only ever play it with my dedicated group of friends.

Its usage of the MOBA-style Heroes instead of classes or loadouts also didn't really make for a more varied game, it actually made for a more restrictive one, often slavishly adhering to a certain optimal "meta", basically being forced to have certain characters on the team because their abilities are too essential (hello, Lucio!) really drove home just how limited this system actually was.

Then there was the general issue that hurts many modern multiplayer games: A slavish adherence to the matchmaking system and no dedicated servers. This prevents communities from forming around these servers and generally prevents you from really making new online friends to play with. To this day, most of my Steam friends are people I met playing TF2 on a few great servers with awesome communities. Online friendships which have lasted for years and which are basically impossible to build up in many of today's online games.

The far more locked down nature of these types of games (no custom maps, no fun rule or physics changes aside from the ones Blizzard gives the community to experiment with, etc.) also limits the amount of variation you can have within a game which in turn hurts their longevity.

As these issues started to become more apparent my interest in the game started to wane. I think I had reached around level 79 when Blizzard rolled out its competitive mode and I stopped playing cold turkey shortly after that. (I went back one more time a while later because a friend invited me to try Lucioball but that's about it. Lucioball sucked btw.) The game's problems had combined and amplified, resulting in a profound sense of boredom and lack of self-expression. Playing became a chore even when grouping up with friends the lack of variety in maps, strategies and hero combinations turned me off faster I had thought possible when playing the beta.

For the reasons I stated above and a few others, Overwatch is the recipient of my "Most Disappointing Game of the Year" award.

↓7,ª♂▬7lBrwÐ

Not many people liked Raiden in MGS2. He had the whiny boy/manchild syndrome multiple Japanese works of popular fiction have and of course people were expecting to play as Snake, not some wimpy ersatz Snake. Personally, I never really had that much of a problem with him. Sure he was not cool or badass and his 'relationship' with Rose was cringe-inducing (mostly because of her), but he did get fleshed out and his backstory as a child soldier was interesting and humanizing.

That all changed with MGS4. MGS4 really made me dislike Raiden. They way they tried very hard to make him "cool" was immensely immature and ham-fisted. It's as if someone at Kojima Productions went "Well people sure disliked this character, what can we do to make him seem badass? Oh I know, let's ask an 11-year-old boy!" It's sad too because they were working with an existing template (Gray Fox) but made mistakes they never did with that character.

And the biggest mistake of all? They did it at the cost of making everyone else (and especially the player/Snake) look bad by comparison.

Some of these issues already appeared in MGS2 (E.g. Snake's encounters with Vamp and Fortune) but MGS4 Raiden does so much ridiculous shit in every action scene he's in it even makes the Metal Gear universe's take on nanomachines look tame. He's like an actor going off-script and chewing the scenery as much as he can before being escorted off the stage by security.

There is a lot of silly stuff in Metal Gear games but no sequence of events illustrates my problem with the evolution of the character of Raiden better than the last quarter or so of Act 4 in Metal Gear Solid 4:

This is also why I understand the people who don't want Revengeance to be part of the MGS canon. Although at the same time I think he already does so much damage in MGS4 that it's kind of a moot point.

The way the game forces Snake out of prone when near an enemy corpse just might be the worst thing in the history of MGS.

http://majornelson.com/2014/12/29/final-chance-buy-xbox-one-starting-349/

I am genuinely surprised and still think it's pretty insane that they are doing this. I was convinced they would make it permanent or at least create a bundle which would end up creating the same value per component.

https://twitter.com/MerryKish/status/546114692674895872

That is all.