leebmx's forum posts

#1 Edited by leebmx (2238 posts) -

Nice. Hope this winds up on consoles at some point.

#2 Posted by leebmx (2238 posts) -

Fire walk with me is something you kinda have to watch too, but it's not exactly good.

I just came to say that seeing BOB on the show gave me nightmares when I finally got around to watching it recently. Still have to watch Fire Walk With Me.

Fire Walk With Me is hugely underrated. I remember being really excited for it at the time because I loved the series so much, and then it got absolutely savaged when it came out, and I didn't go and see it because I didn't want my memories of the show spoiled. I finally caught up with it last year, and I really think it is up their with Lynch's best stuff. It really captures the feel of the T.V. show, while being able to move into much darker and even more surreal territory. There seems to have been a bit of a critical turnaround as well -

Mark Kermode tells it much better than me:

#3 Edited by leebmx (2238 posts) -

I absolutely loved it when it was on, but I haven't watched it since, and I am betting it hasn't aged amazingly. Although I did watch Fire Walk With Me recently, for the first time, and that was way better than I had been lead to be believed, so who knows.

Also you have, have, to watch the second series. The last four episodes are some of the best television I have ever seen. It gets a bad rap because I think Lynch had plans for the series to continue but ratings slumped and they were cancelled. However they managed to write it to a close, even if it wasn't the finale they might have envisioned, and I think it really works.

The problem is that the show gets a little meandering and full of slightly pointless, but oh so quirky and loveable red herrings as it moves into series two. However it is really worth sticking with for the way it ties up. The end of series two is truly terrifying and surreal, while still making perfect sense. If you love Lynch's ouvre then you will enjoy it - and you won't know who kill Laura Palmer if you don't....

#4 Posted by leebmx (2238 posts) -

@leebmx: I think it would be ludicrous to put a camera on every police officer and a huge invasion of privacy but that's probably the way things are going. Sure it may keep some of them in line but a camera would probably be used more against citizens than the actual police officers.

I don't see how it would be an invasion of privacy. They wouldn't have to wear it at home or anything, just when they are interacting with the public. It has already been trialled in areas of the US and UK and complaints of police malpractice drop significantly.

I can only see benefits really. It keeps the police in line and stops the naughty citizens from making stuff up. I am not really sure how it would be used against citizens - how were you thinking this might happen?

#5 Edited by leebmx (2238 posts) -

The sooner all police officers are forced to wear cameras which record all their interactions with the public the sooner this kind of shit stops. It will also help the police because there are undoubtedly times they face false accusations as well.

I see this from both points of view. It must be scary to be a policeman in the U.S. where anyone could be armed and crime is such a huge problem, however this seems to have bred a shoot-first policy which when allied to a culture of legal impunity for the police force (when you can execute a guy on camera and just serve a year in prison, you know the police can get away with almost anything) makes needless death an inevitability.

I don't live in the US, but it seems as if the police there think their first job is to protect themselves from the public rather than the public from crime. The police in the UK are incompetent, scary and racist in all sorts of ways, but there is still a tenuous link to the concept of policing by consent, rather than through force.

#6 Edited by leebmx (2238 posts) -

Good God I hope this is good. I feel there hasn't been a good character based RPG for ages...

Having watched the video I am reasonably encouraged, the tactical view is there and it looks deep-ish. The main thing is the story and the variety and Bioware normally do well. - I really, really hope they get back on track with this game.

#7 Posted by leebmx (2238 posts) -

I don't mind exclusives when it is something that the platform holder has helped develop, but to just sling a load of money at something already in development, and which the first game in series was multi-platform, is pretty shitty.

Even if this does come out on PS4 in the end, it just seems really anti-consumer. Trying to get people to buy your console by ransoming games doesn't seem the best way to engender good feeling.

#8 Posted by leebmx (2238 posts) -

@hermes said:

@leebmx said:

@benmo316 said:

I can't help but think, and I could be 100% wrong, that EA charges Microsoft, and wanted to charge Sony, a fee to carry the service and Sony didn't want to pay it. It's a business decision that Sony thought wouldn't be best for them. Granted it's taking away the decision the consumer could've made if they wanted the EA service for not.

Why would EA being charging Microsoft? What possible service could they be charging for? MS are letting EA sell games through their infrastructure. It would be like a shop charging the mall owner rent. I don't think even EA has the balls to try that.

The only way EA could charge would be if they are giving MS a cut of their sales, which still doesn't really make much sense. I think they reason Sony said no was because it is a competing service (if a crappy one) and they don't want it drawing customers away from PSN.

There is a second possibility outside downright "charging them", which is EA does not want to pay for maintenance fees of PSN (currently, publishers pay Sony for the bandwidth users use to download demos, trailers or games). Since EA Access would only use PSN for login, they may want to renegotiate so it doesn't pay those fees, and Sony didn't wanted to.

The reason MS is different is because they never charged the publishers for maintenance of their online network. That is the reason PSN remained free for the public while XBox Live was always behind a pay wall.

That makes even less sense. If it was EA that had turned down Sony because they thought the maintenance fees were too high why would Sony be shit talking EA's service and saying they refused it. That would just be a huge lie which EA could easily counter.

The reason this service is not on PS4 is simple - Sony do not want someone offering a service which competes where they have been very successful. I really think it is that simple. You people are trying to make this way too complicated.

#9 Posted by leebmx (2238 posts) -

@goldfinger: That was pretty much my point, maybe I didn't express it very well. Obviously MS will be taking a cut from EA's sales or charging a fee. I just meant it would be bizzare if EA were also somehow charging MS to host their service as well.

I totally agree with you about Sony just not wanting someone offering a service which has the potential to compete in the very area which they have used to help push them ahead of MS. (Its also not a very good deal, but this is just helpful co-incidence.)

#10 Posted by leebmx (2238 posts) -

@extomar said:


Like other subscription systems, it is whether or not you get the value of it over time that they are banking on. Paying $30 a year to get access to Dragon Age Inquisition and only that probably not a good bargain.

Dragon Age Inquisition will retail for 60 dollars. $70 in Canada.

Isn't the deal that you get 10% off titles and get access to the game 5days early. I don't think you just get all EA releases for free for $30 a year. The titles you get for free are at their discretion.

I think paying $30 a year will get you into Dragon Age 5 days early and for $54/$63.