Raven10's forum posts

#1 Posted by Raven10 (2040 posts) -

(the fuck is up with these forums? My original post didn't even get posted...)

I think she's a talented, well-rounded actress which you would very much need for a character like Motoko who can often be quite complex so I'm not too worried about casting. It's the fucking director that scares me. Nothing he has done fills me with the least bit of confidence. That said, I'm hoping...praying to the gods I don't believe in that you don't try to tackle something like GITS without some sort of reverence for the source material and a decent budget to match. But then again, this is Hollywood so...man, I dunno.

For all of his (numerous and far reaching) faults, Rupert Sanders is a massive anime fan. I don't need to know anything about him to know that. Simply watch Snow White and the Huntsman. The movie is basically a combination of Nausicaa and Princess Mononoke. The sequence with the forest God/spirit is lifted almost shot for shot from the nearly identical sequence in Princess Mononoke. And the spirit itself looks almost identical to the one in that film as well. Plus the story is about a princess who uses her ability to charm animals to free her peaceful kingdom from the clutches of a warlike nation bent on the destruction of nature. It includes a warrior queen and her bumbling male general as the main villains. I was surprised there was no Joe Hishashi soundtrack going on in the background it so deeply stole from those two films. So reverence to the source material should not be a problem.

As for Scarlett, she's got the action rep from Lucy and the Marvel movies, and the philosophical/meaning of life rep from Her and Under Her Skin. She's basically played all parts of this role in other films. I honestly couldn't have named a better actress. As far as her not being Japanese, well the whole point of a Hollywood remake is to take a foreign film and reframe it as an American one. That is what I always expected it would be. If they want to keep an oriental setting they could set it in China. Big audience there with an affinity for films about robots (I know she's an android) and the nation has the know how and finances to believably be able to create a society like the one in GITS.

The thing I'm most curious about is are we going to get a more humorous take like the show/manga or an ultra serious, hyper-violent take like in the movies? Personally I'd prefer dark and violent, but that would probably be a harder sell. That said GITS did directly inspire The Matrix which was a violent, sexual, R-rated philosophy course so it could happen.

#2 Posted by Raven10 (2040 posts) -

@cornbredx: The interesting case for me is with games made by companies that no longer exist and where the ownership rights are murky at best. Even if some dude did pay a small sum in an auction for those rights, he or she isn't the creator of the game. If the game is still being sold by its original creator(as is the case with a lot of old EA PC games) then there is a fair moral argument against it.

The thing is, copyright laws are stacked in favor of large corporations. When US copyright law started, a work could be copyrighted for a maximum of 28 years. Under those rules, many of these games would now be in the public domain, and those whose original owners went bankrupt would have been in the public domain for over a decade. Over time, though, Disney has lobbied congress, turning 28 years into 75 years in 1976 and 75 years into 120 years in 1998. The goal of copyright initially was to give creators a chance to profit from their creations, while eventually giving the work to the public to possess freely. In some nations, especially communist ones, this is still the case.

There are reasons to follow modern copyright laws, mainly that you'll be arrested if you don't. But don't for a minute feel morally obligated to uphold copyrights that are more than 3 decades old. That was never the point of copyright law and just because Disney paid members of congress off to change the federal law, and to have it override a variety of State and Local laws that were much less far reaching, doesn't make it right.

#3 Posted by Raven10 (2040 posts) -

I think the timing of this release sucks. Blaming EA for the timing and calling them tone deaf is silly. They obviously began work on this game a couple years ago. There's no way they could have known how the social climate surrounding police militarization would be today. Is delaying the game even further a good idea? That's hard to know since the public perception could either improve or worsen depending on any number of factors.

I will say that EA needs to be very careful about how they market this game. A poorly worded answer during an interview could easily sink this game with the way things are. If I was them I would not be putting any developers in an interview setting pre-release. They need to create very targeted commercials that put the focus on the fact that the criminals in this game are awful people and that the cops are not above the law. If that isn't how the story was written they need to either change it or position the story as a commentary on how society is and not how it should be.

#4 Posted by Raven10 (2040 posts) -

Works on PS3 and Vita. Don't have a PS4 to try but it's been mostly working on those two systems for a couple days now.

#5 Posted by Raven10 (2040 posts) -

@mbradley1992: I'd highly suggest NOT playing on heroic for Halo 2. There are sequences towards the end of that game that are a bitch to get through solo and the Brutes just aren't fun to fight. I enjoyed Halo 1,3,Reach, ODST, and 4 on Normal and they are all not exceptionally hard on heroic, especially with a co-op partner. But 2 is just frustrating and not fun. I never even finished it until years after it came out. Blew through it on easy just to complete the story.

#6 Posted by Raven10 (2040 posts) -

My total currently stands at 35, but I also spent a ton of time on turn-based-strategy games this year which can't exactly be beaten. I also have a handful of additional games I might be able to wrap up by year's end. 35 is a pretty good number for me. I usually end up in the mid-30's so I'm pretty pleased with the games I beat.

#7 Posted by Raven10 (2040 posts) -

@professoress: I like the UPlay and Steam systems. I don't get why people have problems with them. You are getting something for nothing. If you don't want to interact with it then don't but I really don't see how anyone could have an issue with a system that rewards you for playing the games you purchase.

#8 Posted by Raven10 (2040 posts) -

People who are complaining about the economy of this might not understand it. In theory there are a limited number of total possible gems (basically the value of every item that can be traded for gems on Steam). Once someone wins an auction those gems are removed from the economy, lowering the total. So while early on bids will be very high, over time the top bid will get lower and lower as fewer and fewer gems remain on the market. At the same time the value of each gem will then increase, meaning if you have too few gems to actually bid on anything I would suggest waiting until later in the auction when the difference between winning and losing an item will be a couple dozen gems not a couple thousand.

Of course players can always get more gems by playing more games and getting more Steam Cards and more badges from those cards and so on, but there are only so many cards you can earn in a day. Even if you have dozens of games with cards left to drop, you need a computer with enough memory to run all of those games at once if you want to farm enough cards for it to make a difference. I currently have five games running at once with two more waiting in the wings. But at the rate of about 10 cards a day I will still end up with under 1000 gems by the end of the auction.

#9 Posted by Raven10 (2040 posts) -

@thankyougiantbomb: Are you certain it isn't any sort of Metal Gear trailer? That sounds a lot like the trailer for MGS2 they showed on the It's Just a Bonus episode of Metal Gear Scanlon and it is also vaguely similar to one of the MGS5 trailers (the one that takes place on a ship where they are sending a body overboard). The other possible option would be Resident Evil Revelations. It takes place on a ship and I'm pretty sure there are enemies with snipers in the game and you do play as at least one military operative.

#10 Edited by Raven10 (2040 posts) -

@quarters: Arrow is an interesting case study in modern TV show pacing. It has so many subplots going on at any one time that many episodes feel hectic and quite a few feel pointless when they first air. I think the brilliance of the show, and why I always watch despite some episodes not being all that great on their own, is that by the end of each season, each and every character in every single episode ends up having a purpose. It's hard to imagine how certain episodes will amount to anything more than filler, but then suddenly these seemingly unrelated things all tie together in a way you don't expect. In SHIELD this season I don't think they've had one bad episode. But the overall structure of the show isn't as tight from a storytelling perspective. It can be hard to get into and stick with Arrow, but if you are willing to watch a show that is MUCH darker than SHIELD or The Flash then I would give it a go. It's a dark and brutal show, the type that The CW normally doesn't put out, but I think the way the story arc of each season concludes makes all of the tonal issues and seemingly pointless characters and sub-plots feel worth it and in a way even intentional.

@theht: It's truly amazing how SHIELD went from a mediocre teen melodrama with occasional sci-fi elements to one of the best parts of the MCU in such a short amount of time. It really makes you wonder what would happen to other shows with great premises that start off on the wrong foot if they were given a chance to right the ship for a second season instead of getting cancelled after three episodes. Networks are so obsessed with having the very best ratings every single week they don't give shows enough time to grow. I always mention Looney Tunes when things like this happen. While not a TV show, WB put out its first Looney Tunes short in 1930. But they didn't introduce Daffy Duck until 1937, Bugs Bunny until 1940, and most other popular characters until after that. If the studio had cancelled the project after a couple mediocre episodes, instead of 40 years worth of incredible cartoons we would have had 40 minutes worth of crap.