Jump to content

injurai

Members
  • Content Count

    2,524
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    13

injurai last won the day on November 3 2019

injurai had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3,411 Excellent

About injurai

  • Rank
    Arch-Mage

Profile Information

  • Location
    Not the oceans
  • Interests
    Jungle/DnB/Techno
    History
    Rust-Lang
    1st pressing olive oil

Badges

  • Pillars of Eternity Backer Badge
  • Pillars of Eternity Kickstarter Badge
  • Deadfire Backer Badge
  • Deadfire Fig Backer
  • Black Isle Bastard!

Recent Profile Visitors

7,838 profile views
  1. If there is anything I know about next-gen launch titles. It's that they are uninspired derivative shovel-ware cash grabs, meant to capitalize on the low hanging fruit of slapping the newest shader technology on everything. It's the psychology of the graphical hike that gets people, filled with promises of being in the works longer than the previous end of generation titles. But it's the opposite, it's taking everything that comes for free, and gives nothing that is worked hard for. The only reason Breath of the Wild was a launch title, was that it was 6 years into development. Was meant for the Wii U, and was used to kick-started the Switch when Nintendo panicked at the Wii U's flop by essentially resetting what their hardware foundation was. Games like Killzone Shadow Fall come with the added benefit of being 1st party, and thus feel less generic than the 3rd party flavor of next-gen launch titles, but often still suffer from the fact that hardly anyone owns the system, and thus they are mostly developed at a loss, and typically are underbaked in some essential way. Let's be honest KZ is rather basic other than an above average art direction. Occasionally a big title ends up cross-gen GTAV and soon to be Cyberpunk. Those aren't launch titles. More than anything it's just publishers packaging up the test games that weren't made while practicing on new dev kits, and slapping the reject pile art and narrative design into them.
  2. I always thought it was weird another studio was jumping on 3. Figure the studio doing the remake would be better suited if the first sells well. Shame though, I was looking for a return of Warren Spector.
  3. Scams exist, I also think you have people pursing dreams without the capital, business, and even technical/creative savvy to pull off their dream project. Life events can totally derail these projects, like healthy concerns, losing one's primary job, etc. I think kickstarter somewhat eschews the responsibility of the backer in taking risk. Traditional investment is much more centered around risk. I think since people aren't buying into a company they are left extra entitled that they receive the product as the payout. But once the project falls through, you do have people endlessly drinking from subsequent funding despite the project clearly being in the ****ter. Those instances are certainly scams, but it can be hard to tell when the project keeps telling people what they want to hear. Which is why normal investors might actually sit on the board of a company, can walk through the studio, request proof, and generally control allocation of budget to specific sub-goals through a accountants and a producer. But you can't get your average person to actually take an skillful and more involved approach to half the things that they are willing to throw cash at, and let other's do all the hard work, then bitch when it doesn't meet their expectations. Grassroots venture capital as a lot of growing up to do.
  4. Thinking that way means you can't be morally righteous and indignant, which is no fun. After all, you can't have fun if you actually play games.
  5. Syd Mead, 86 Easily the greatest Sci-fi artist of all time, and probably forever more. Now the vision of the future is so diluted, over-shared, crowded. Never again will their be such a stark authoritative vision of the future brushed into the zeitgeist. http://sydmead.com/
  6. Was not familiar with the person, but was with the art. A very iconic style that helped color the tone of an era.
  7. Or so guerilla marketing teams would have one believe. Though Aladdin is probably more a result of rewriting a story being a doomed effort, rather than some corporate sexism masquerading as veneer of progress #ghostbusters. Still Jasmine's number was awful all around, tonally a departure from the score, and thematically could have been actually empowering without immediately denying her her moment by turning her into a damsel in distress.
  8. I think the major sin of that movie is how they tried to pad out the Jasmine sub-plot. It seemed really hamfisted and turned her from a strong female character, into a character that had to spin a narrative of being strong, only to be extra-ineffectual and need extra saving. Absolutely bizarre. But if I'm being honest, this sort of backfiring is really common with female characters. Otherwise I enjoyed it, and Will Smith's take on genie wasn't half bad.
  9. Saw The Irishman. Didn't realize it had a historical placing prior. Solid film, the whole 3.5 hours of runtime was filled with meaningful plot. One of the better long dramas I've seen in a minute.
  10. Ever heard a "genre song" from a genre your intimate with, written just for some film/show that totally misses what's good about that style? Ever peruse the posts in r/badwomansanatomy? Ever read fantasy that was a derivative of a derivative of a derivative of Tolkien? Ever take a test on a copy of a copy of a copy of the original test the teacher wrote a decade ago? Star Wars today feels like that. Probably because it is that. I legit loved Kotor because it was significant departure from SW staples. The aesthetics looked different, like it truly was a thousand years earlier. Star Wars is worse about being a degrade after image though. Because it also feels like a recreation of an imitation of a derivative of a copy of a rehash of a film, that while had charming fantasy elements, really found it's legs in good plotting. SW has been taken over by world building, and the characters within the world become subsumed by the setting. And it's the setting that is the grievous simulacrum of the original. Another thing, in OG SW you had people that carried themselves in ordinary ways. Now every character looks like they are stunting. Everyone wants to be the badass in Star Wars, even the elderly advisors. The plot all the time is about how spry and with-it it everyone is. Everyone walks or runs with a super hero posture, someone lacking confidence instead comes off as confident while claiming not to be, and really they just are uncertain. (Rose.) It's like entire substrates of humanization are left out to somehow elevate the epic setting, it's like I'm watching a dramatization of a religious legend. And that feels awful. Actually I don't think it was as bad in TFA, but TLJ and every other new thing they've put out suffers from this. It gets worse as the characters (allegedly) grow into competency. I'll probably see the film in the coming weeks with family, but it's been bizarre to see the tonal shift of the franchise. Hardly anything is salient anymore but of course that matters not to kids who mostly engage in the franchise by self-inserting themselves into the world. I know I did, but even I knew as a young kid that the prequels somehow threw out the rich(er?) [not claiming this is Lawrence of Arabia] substrate of the originals.
  11. I beta tested Hidalgo years ago, before the final edit was done. Not sure if it was prior to reshoots, I was too young to be savvy about those things. Nor do I remember how far before theatrical release I saw it, but I'd probably place it 4-6 months prior. It's the only time I've ever done something like that, and I'm not sure how to come by that sort of opportunity again.
  12. Wrong question. You don't ask which is better. Both are media by the X. Ergo bias and selective reporting. You want <something analogous to media> by <many different sources> reporting <corporate / state> affairs. False options like this are exactly the sort of wrong think, by people who support right think use to force through their right think, which is wrong. Right?
×
×
  • Create New...