theacidskull

Couldn't have said it better myself. They did a lot of good for certain characters, but after fantasizing over Endgame and how epic Hulk's and Thor's return would be, I was really disappointed in how they turned out. With Thor, they took a completely different direction then what they were setting up with Infinity War and Ragnarok. Such a shame, he was shaping up as a very kind and just ruler - the last bit of his arc was overcoming his rage and arrogance but instead of making him a bitter warrior they made him "The Dude." I don't even mind the "drunken belly" choice they made in terms of appearance. That could have been reworked into making him a bitter yet wiser king. One who doesn't gloat before the kill or let arrogance and revenge get in the way of what must be done.

Instead, Thor now plays fortnight

Though I will say this, I think He can still recover from this to a certain extent, but I'm not so sure about Hulk. They never know what to do with him and they literally left the "strongest there is" out of the climactic, epic battle...

It's not so much as what they did with Hulk that annoyed me it's the fact that they didn't show us the process of him making peace with his other self. The "Hulk" persona is essentially dead at this point, and we never know how that happened, which is sad because he wanted to be loved and accepted. We get a throwaway breakfast scene that completely undermines the character arc Hulks been going through. We don't even get to see him have an actual cool moment where he smashes or something. No "strongest there is," no "that's my secret," and not even a simple "Hulk Smash!" Such a waste, because I liked how wholesome Banner was in Endgame, I just wished they retained some of that ragingfire Hulk mentioned in Ragnarok. The whole point of "merging" Hulk/Banner is to retain both aspects of the personality.

Other than that it was such an epic movie, it's just sad because we won't see these characters for a while and we barely got anything out of either of them in the climactic battle. It really brought down the overall film for me. In fact, I might be done with the MCU for a loong time, seeing as how they've either turned every character I care about into useless jokes or they've killed them off (save spider-man).

What a damn shame.

I liked it a lot - It's not nearly as "epic" as the other games and it kind of has a different vibe to it, but maybe that's okay given the kind of character Fury is. I enjoyed Fury's journey and growth, in fact, I think she is by far the most dynamic horsemen. Also, like with the previous Horsemen, gunfire studio chose a suitable antagonist for Fury, much like how the corruption and abandon were connected to the character development of death and war. In fact, I ended up enjoying the seven a lot more than I thought I would, with Wrath and Gluttony being my personal favorites.

I'm not a huge fan of the changes in combat seeing as how this one definitely takes after the soulsborne 1v1 style - There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but I just liked the hack and slash style of the previous games a lot more. I don't think the soulsborne style fits in with the aesthetic of the series given that you are a HORSEMEN of the apocalypse. You are supposed to be powerful, so it's kind of disheartening when one grunt gives you a run for your money. It made more sense to me when Death and War were juggling large crowds of monsters because that presented a reasonably difficult experience without undermining the protagonist's prowess in combat.

I will say though that given the new difficulty curve, winning a fight was particularly rewarding.

Moreover, I missed the loot system, but the Hollows were an excellent replacement. I was skeptical about them from the trailers, but they ended up being a great addition to the game, and they were excellently integrated given that I ended up using all four of the hollows against different monsters. Even in situations when the game clearly wanted you to use a CERTAIN hollow, I managed to find use for the others in the very same situation, which shows just how well these abilities were designed.

Overall, while it's far from perfect, it's a pretty solid game given the small budget and history of the production. 8/10 BRING ON STRIFE!

Considering that this game comes out in March, this DEMO looks spectacular. I'm really surprised that From Software updates and builds upon every game they produce in some interesting way, considering how many games/franchies remain stagnant in design.

I'm going enjoy abusing the shit out of that grappling mechanic.

I'm with you on this one. Game looked fucking incredible, but the first one suffered a similar problem. I was one of the few people who loved the DOOM multiplayer too, but this ambiguous damage soak made it really hard to tell who was winning or loosing a fight. There were times were I died and exploded to pieces and I had no idea what the hell (no pun intended) was had happened.

You're asking a bunch of hardcore gamers about sports, I don't know why you thought anyone would truly give you a solid answer regarding why it may be disliked lol.

On a serious note, I'm not a huge football fan despite the fact that my family basically (literally) has it's livelihood from it - but it's a captivating watch once you really tune into it, even if it doesn't happen often.

I third this motion.

I'm not talking shit since I know americans love their sports, but I could never get into or even tolerate Handegg. Like literally, the game stops way to often so any moment of suspense is immediately killed. It's why I've always preferred playing rugby. But people like what they like, and most American's think "football is for pussies" because you know, faking an injury to gain leverage is very out of character for American sports (as far as I know.)

I don't know what people are talking about to be honest - I agree with you that it looks like a normal modern day game.

Besides, I kinda like the rusty grim look - FromSoftware's choice of aesthetics have always been beautiful in my opinion, and it helps with the horror aspect of their games. For all it's great content, Nioh never once scared me or filled me with dread. The demons in the game always looked cartoony, which of course is fine, because they were clearly going for the more vibrant, anime oriented style, but I'm glad Sekiro is keeping the soulsborne rusty looks. Hell, even the humans look monstrous.

And I'm happy to hear that they are keeping the style of storytelling. The best thing about From Software games is that they quite literally communicate through the gameplay.

Here's my take on the game.

For a vampire you move like a stiff statue that can teleport and that becomes a chore after a while.I liked the main quests but my biggest gripe with this game is the surprising lack of variety with enemies and combat - for an RPG game, they sure reuse a lot of enemies and beyond a few bosses, most of the enemies you face appear in boss form a little too frequently. God of war has this problem too, but unlike Vampyr there is so much variety with gameplay and enemy selections you have to step up your strategy frequently. With Vampyr I did the same thing over and over again and it pretty much worked 90% of the time. The stiffness of the gameplay can also be a bother, which is only made worse by the sudden loading screens and occasional bug. There was a boss where the entire game was encompassed in a glaring light and I could not see what the fuck was happening. Literally, I basically had to fight a boss completely blindfolded.

Given the nature of the combat and how quickly enemies become a lot stronger than you, it's very tempting not to just eat every civilian and wreck through these assholes. For instance, I was level 22 and the enemies spawning in certain areas (areas related to the fucking main quest) were 29. Now you can BEAT them, but given how unsatisfying the combat is it's less of an "OH SHIT HERE WERE GO" moment and more of a "Ugh, this again?" Enemies behave the same way every time, they just deal more damage and take less from you, so while you can beat them, it would take forever to do so, and every time you die the game loads for ever so basically, it's a hassle. The enemy scaling just works in a weird way - it's not as smooth as Witcher's or bloodborne's for instance where there were moments I genuinely felt dread at the sight of a giant monster near by, or felt relief when I painstakingly defeated one in combat by carefully observing it's move set and AI tactics. There needs to be a rule all enemies abide, and there were times where I felt that the game didn't give me enough room to actually fight beyond the one strategy I assume everyone came up with to defeat stronger foes. I never had to spice up my approach, it was basically "VAPE AWAY, NOW VAPE BACK CLOSE AND HIT AND VAPE AWAY AGAIN." Rinse and repeat.

This forced me to literally avoid and sblitz through enemies constantly because I just didn't want to fight them, which you do in every RPG when you encounter something MORE powerful, but here it was more of a "yeah I'm not dealing with this shit" moment. You do get experience points by healing people and completing their quests , but it's not nearly as rewarding. The game wants you to make hard choices but it never puts you in positions where you really need to do so, and even if you do there's not a lot of payoff in it because the combat is just not that dynamic or satisfying, it's a chore, which is probably the worse thing I can say about the game, it felt like a chore.

The story was interesting, and the game of course isn't without it's merits. It's very fun gathering clues about people, and Jonathan Reid is an awesome character. They do vampires justice in a way I haven't seen in a while, but the combat seriously needs some work, because when you are following an interesting storyline or even a side quest you need to have incentive to actually want to meet challenges along the way, or at least BE willing to face them. I just never got that with Vampyr.

6/10. Again, this is my experience, I'm sure a lot of people had a blast with the game - not trying to be a dick, this is just my takeaway.

Naaah I saw it in Georgia (country). There are frequent Russian showings here, and there wasn't an english so I had to see a russian screening.

And I got that part, the one part I didn't get is how the daughter and the son become the host for the king at the same time? Like does one become the host in spirit or in body? How does the possession work? That's kinda why I thought the movie's plot significantly went down in quality once the cultist agenda was revealed. It would have been a lot more interesting if the family just grew relatively insane with the deaths.

And I assume, if we go by the note, because of power and riches? I think in terms of horror it works not to reveal the inner machinations of what we are not meant to understand, so I don't mind not knowing what the goal was. Though the rest yeah, it kind of fell apart.

Still i did like the cinematography and acting quite a bit, though you do make fair points about the writing.

@dudeglove:I definitely don't share you hatred for the film lol but but there are things that keep it from being great. I liked the film a lot more and having younger siblings myself made it easier for me to connect with the characters I guess. The first two acts and the half of the third acts were great, but after the father dies things tend to fall out of place. I get that they are trying to resurrect some or provide the host for some ancient King but how was the girl the ancient king? Peter (the boy) was clearly taken over by his sister towards the end of the movie so I don't quite get how she = some ancient demonic king? That's the part where the movie was falling a part for me and keeping it from being a a great one. It's definitely a better movie than a lot of horrors, but I thought the hereditary part of the movie related to the fact that every member of the family eventually saw and was tortured by the spirit of a dead relative or something like that. Then they introduced the whole demonic possession thing and it kind of took my by suprise. Still a cool idea and It makes sense in a way that the family had a long line of cult worshippers, which also ties into how the grandmother sunk her teeth in to the youngest daughter as fast as she could, but I still don't get how the spirit of the daughter related to the ancient demon they were tying to resurrect or reincarnate. Was she already a reincarnation of the monster? That doesn''t make any sense because the cult established that the host and or prodigy needed to be a male? Did they explain this at some point? Like I said, my Russian is rusty as fuck.

This film is profoundly bad and the crowd I was with spent most of the time mocking and laughing out loud at the film.

Did we watch this in the same theatre lol? I was consecrating hard to tune everyone out lol. Where are you from if you don't mind me asking?

I will say this - Hereditary is better seen without an audience, especially since modern viewers aren't used to no jump scare movies.

* Really? Open with a wall of text? Can't you just skip that? It's blatantly obvious we're at a funeral.

I mean, this seems like a personal preference.

* Where the fuck does this film take place? My friend and I looked it up and it's apparently shot principally in Utah but there's no clear idea where everything takes place. I was guessing Colorado but the locations all seemed disparate.

I mean, I don't see how this is a flaw of the movie to be honest.

* Why are all the characters and the setting so utterly unlikeable? I'm not gonna preach film writing here, but if I can't get involved in any character's dilemma, how the fuck do you expect someone to be scared or shocked? This makes me sound like a monster but I was glad the kid died (the least pleasant and actually horrible part was her choking from her allergy) because I couldn't stand her irritating presence on screen.

Goddamn dude... I felt bad for the kid since the family clearly had some serious family issues and it's heavily implied (if not once explicitly said) that the psycho grandmother fucked with the poor kid form an early age, so it makes sense that she why she was such an outcast. Plus she seemed very introverted if not autistic a little bit and seeing her head slam against the pole was by far one of the most surprising and shocking things ever. I've seen a lot worse in films, don't get me wrong, but the execution was really good, at least in my opinion. I did not expect it to take such a brutal turn, especially since I thought the movie was pretty much about her.

* What sort of horror film is this trying to be? Psychological horror? J-horror? Spooky ghost story? Gore/slasher? Comedy?

Psychological Ghost story I assume, though not sure what the comedy part is about.

* Why is Toni Colette doing a bunch of bad Shelly Duval impressions?

I dunno man, I thought she did great.

* Why is the director ripping off both the Shining and Lost Highway? ? Why do they make movies like this nowadays where utterly obtuse callbacks to other, better media is considered appropriate filmmaking?

Haven't seen lost highway but I don't see a lot of similarities between this and the shining beyond the fact that both protagonists basically go insane or are possessed by something.

* Who the fuck is the "bad guy" here? About the only character that isn't is the dog - speaking of, who killed the fucking dog?

I will agree about the bad guy kind of being obscure. Again, I thought it was some hereditary problem the mother was exibiting but then they introduce King pilmeni or whats his face and it kind of got weird after that.

And the dog was probably killed either by the possessed mother or by the hordes of cultists that show up at the house?

* What the fuck is the point of focusing on all the miniature house shit and doing next to nothing with it? Don't give me that "oh it's foreshadowing" bollocks - they did jack shit with it and you know it. And then the main lady just smashes her things and I guess that's the resolution to that story then huh..

I think it was meant to document how the family were just pawns to something they didn't understand. It also documented Colette's progression into madness.

* Why does all the CG look like shit?

There's only one scene that i think that looks a little awkward, beyond that there isn't a lot of CGI used. Mostly practical effects.

* Why do we not find out what the fuck Gabriel Byrne does all day until about three quarters of the way in? If he's a friggin psychologist, shouldn't he have been helping his entire family this whole time?

* I lost my shit at Colette's wailing at the second funeral and it broke everyone else. The film was a joke from thereon in with folk mocking the tongue clicking.

Man you really hate the actors don't you lol.