thomasnash's forum posts

#1 Posted by thomasnash (654 posts) -

@jauntyhat said:

Apparently the Crow Crystal Skull that's in the opening cinematic can be picked up near the very first starting area in the game. I have been told it also disappears if you don't pick it up before completing the Gryphon fight.

WHAT

It also ends up in the "quest items" section of the inventory, worryingly...

#2 Posted by thomasnash (654 posts) -

@john1912 said:

The voice actor has never bothered me, but hes not great. That is until I just played a section where he gets shit faced with two other witchers mid game. There was probably a drunk Geralt in the past games, but I cant recall. I really enjoyed his performance. It made me laugh pretty good! He did a WAY better job with the char, so I can only assume the stilted talk is intentional, and or partly from recording a sentence at a time.

I got the impression the game may be nearing its climax which I REALLY hope it isnt. Think the "lets wrap this up quick" endings in so many recent past games have tainted me. Would really lower my opinion on it it did end in the next 4-5 hours. But seemed like there was a number of side quests to pick up allies. Im just hoping things fail, which leads to another 10-20% of the game or something. Which it should as Im only level 21 out of what 60 levels? Isnt 60 the cap? Be sad if I could finish by 25 :-/ Ive been trying to do most of the side quests as well.

I saw someone say somewhere else that the cap is 70 and that they were level 40 odd by the end, but I can't tell you if that's true...

#3 Posted by thomasnash (654 posts) -

So I guess I'm in the rare position of STILL PLAYING dragon age. I rented the witcher for a couple days, played about ten hours, thought it seemed great and certainly better written but I did feel the desire to go back to my 60 hour dragon age save before I buy Witcher and really go balls deep with it. This poll is a little unfair since everyone is currently playing the witcher and obviously hipped up on it. Wait a couple months for contrarian opinions to take root and make this poll again.

I think most people playing DA on normal is a huge mistake. Although the tactical view is not as good as it was in origins, it is at least competent and adds a significant challenge to the game. At this point I'm pretty used to commanding my crew around, and having tailored my own effective strategies for my main party is really satisfying. I think I might be the only person who actually finds Dragon Age's combat to be a real highlight of the whole game.

I actually far prefer the tactical view stuff in Inquisiton to Origins, but I think that is mostly down to playing on consoles. Inquisition was a lot more controller friendly, and gave those of us on consoles a lot more freedom to think tactically. It didn't quite solve the issue for me, though. My biggest issue with those games is just not having quite enough control over your party. DA:I went a little way to helping with this by letting you queue orders though! I had a good time with the combat in DA:I, just less so with the rest of it.

But with this question - I actually quite enjoy the Witcher's combat as well, which seems to be a minority opinion - and the rest of it is just so far ahead of Dragon Age. Dragon Age feels, maybe has always felt, like a gameplay style in search of a story. The one they have is decent, if derivative. I can't help but feel they consistently short-change the bits that are actually interesting about it though - namely the stuff about the Fade. Inquisition did focus a lot more on that stuff though. Early on I though I would really like it, but it really quickly devolved into something less interesting (to me).

The Witcher has a feeling of being developed around the lore of the books - a top down approach that makes it all feel really coherently put together, especially with the attention to detail the CDPR seem to put into it. This does mean that some of the gameplay decisions are a bit divisive I think, and so how much you enjoy it will depend a lot on how invested you are in the lore, I suppose.

#4 Edited by thomasnash (654 posts) -

I have a beard IRL so I'm going to roleplay as a man without a beard.

#5 Posted by thomasnash (654 posts) -

Would you all compare the first movie to Alien and the second to Aliens? Because I like Alien more than Aliens. Just saying.

I don't know if this comparison will mean anything to you, but I would say it is more like the difference between El Mariachi and Desperado.

The first is a shoestring production, made by a fledgling group of filmmakers, and as such it is slightly tentative, and at least partially concerned with demonstrating an ability to construct a "traditional" narrative effectively. The second is a lot more stylistically distinctive and confident in doing what it wants to do. What both pairs of films share as well is that they second films cease to be as concerned with character as much as they are concerned with creating a sort of mythological heroic epic in the vein of Leone's Dollars trilogy or something of that sort.

Another thing that they have in common - which they actually share with the first two Evil Dead films, imo - is that both of them in some strange way feel disconnected from their original films. They are a sequel, but at the same time they act as reboots. They're not afraid of jettisoning elements from the first film that don't fit with the myth of the character or the world that they want to create.

Although, full disclosure, I haven't watched the Mad Max films in going on a decade, so take that as you will.

#6 Posted by thomasnash (654 posts) -

Power Bombcast is dead...

#7 Posted by thomasnash (654 posts) -

@golguin: I'm pretty sure I gave you one of those fines.

#8 Posted by thomasnash (654 posts) -

@i_stay_puft: It's weird as well because it's clearly intended to be a comment on the economic straits of the city that all their equipment is fucked up and old. I thank that element gets lost to some extent the further away we get from that stuff.

Also, I know most people don't like season 2 because it introduces a lot of characters who don't go through the rest of the show, but I really like it. I really like the Frank Sobotka character. I really like the tragedy of Ziggy. I also think it doesn't get the credit it deserves for establishing some of the themes around interactions of politics and shady capitalist interests that a central to the show as a whole.

#9 Posted by thomasnash (654 posts) -

I've never really liked the first Avenger's movie, so I had pretty low expectations, but I was actually pretty impressed.

Obviously it's total nonsense, but I think Whedon has learned lessons from the first film - He paces the back end of the movie in a much more engaging way. It's a lot harder to just let your eyes glaze over and wait for the explosions to stop. It's a smart move to try and develop the characters who don't get their own movies, and I think the way they handle Hawkeye with one eye on criticisms of his uselessness really did help me engage with his character - although I can see that it could come over as corny. It's nice to get a bit more depth to Black Widow.

Spader as Ultron is really good - he has a great cadence for monologue - but the character does sort of oscillate weirdly between serious menace and silly goofball.

It's also nice to see them take on, tangentially, some questions about military imperialism in a surprisingly nuanced way that takes in a pretty complete picture of the way that Western countries operate in war-torn countries. Of course my lady friend pointed out that that was probably intended as a way of building towards Civil War, which took the sheen off slightly.

With that said, it's also where I think some of the cracks in Marvel's from-here-to-eternity movie strategy starts to show cracks for me. Not on a business level, where it is clearly working. The main problem for me is that about 20 minutes of this movie are devoted to teasing the whole infinity stone saga or whatever. I'm not a comic reader, and I found all of that just totally uninvolving. It fragments the narrative to no particularly good end.

I also think that as much as I enjoyed this film, it doesn't bode well for the franchise post-Whedon. I was honestly pretty burnt out on Superhero movies before this. Guardians was pretty refreshing, but nothing else in the past two years has filled me with joy. This did - but a lot of that was because Whedon is good at balancing things out with humour. A lot of what makes this film an enjoyable watch is that humour is well deployed to leaven melodrama, action, tension. I think Thor 2 shows you the future of Marvel movies pretty well. Sure, there was funny Loki stuff in it, but it was used as fanservice, essentially, not worked in to the structure of the film.

So yeah. Enjoyable film. Well constructed, meatier than I was expecting, but doesn't turn me around on the Marvel Movie project wholesale.

#10 Posted by thomasnash (654 posts) -

I would say that it's probably worth watching to the end of Season 1 since there's only 4 episodes left.

If you don't like, or at least find yourself interested in, the characters, then a lot of what makes the show great is going to be lost on you. The only thing that might turn it around is that the stories wrap up in a way that makes you interested in the characters, so maybe it's worth taking it to the end of the first season.

It's a really different kettle of fish to Breaking Bad or Game of Thrones though. Those shows are all about plot. The Wire is way more about the way characters interact with each other, and building a really detailed picture of a community and how it affects and is affected by the people in it. That's not to say that "plot" isn't an important part of it as well, but it's a lot less about people reacting to situations, and more about the situation in itself. Basically, if that's the kind of experience you're looking for, you probably won't find that in the Wire.