Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates

  1. Past hour
  2. I think most of us are. Almost all of us are in VR so that's driver's view by default (I hope), and I'm using driver's view as well but I'm a 4K 'pancake' tv pleb. I am using the in-game 'have the camera turn when in tight corners to see ahead' feature, otherwise my FoV is too narrow (and I'm using a correctly calculated one). So basically a poor man's VR headset effect. There's 3 cockpit views (press F1) - one allows you to use said manual driver view movement, another is a fixed view and the third is with automatic head movement (under G forces). I have the in-game hands and wheel switched off as well. I don't fancy 2 wheels in my view.
  3. I looked up the same user's other reviews and he appears to hate 99% of games. He reviews almost everything as 0/10, usually starting with a statement that "this is complete garbage". Then after four pages of 0/10 reviews he gives Forza Horizon 5 (and only Forza Horizon 5) a 10/10 score. It makes me a bit angry that idiots like this are allowed to spread their stupid opinions around really.
  4. “I expected to beat up some bad guys” was the best bit. Yes mate they totally got the marketing wrong there didn’t they, everyone assumed it was going to be a spiritual successor to Golden Axe
  5. I'm not sure there is anything to be gleaned from user reviews like that. You get them for nearly anything that isn't the same old bland CODswallop.
  6. Whenever people say ‘this isn’t a game’ my ears always prick up as I know it’s something I’d be interested in, something different. It’s not like we’re short of ‘games’ is it?
  7. Counterpoint - narrative length is often nothing to do with the narrative the team want to tell, or the 'games makers' as in the dev team - it's so often a sop to the publisher. I've literally been in pitch meetings where we've been told that the publisher is only signing games of 12 hours plus, and our narrative will need to meet that if we want funding, so can we put in grind mechanics to pad everything out? It might be nice to be able to stick to your guns and say that the narrative won't work at that length, but then you won't get signed and won't be able to make the game. Given that Days Gone was a Sony exclusive and from what I can tell is more or less the same template as their other exclusive action adventure games, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that the game started out as something much tighter, narrative wise. That's pure speculation though - I've never played it and have no firsthand knowledge of its development. It might just as easily be that the woke-hating director was pushing for a boring, drawn-out story all along.
  8. Is he? In what sense? I don't see any difference in their balance and footwork, they're both similar in how they can lure in opposition, nutmeg them, accelerate past, but Alli has scored some exquisite technically sublime goals that Bellingham hasn't yet shown he's capable of the same. He has that dribbling goal against Bielsefeld but that was more composure and determination than dribbling accuracy as he just does a feint twice to get through. He's got a wonderful goal against Stuttgart where he receives it back to goal outside the box, dribbles towards a player, spins back, dribbles towards goal and on the edge of the box curles it into the bttom corner. But nothing close to what Alli has shown: The leap chest and volley for no.9 is incredibly difficult. Of course his breakout goal against Palace of knee, flick, spin, volley was maybe overated at the time but then probably not as you don't see goals like it. The curler against Watford is one of the best curlers you could see. The goal against Chelsea, to take a long ball as fast as that from behind is something he seems to find easy. The goal against United was Bergkamp like. The delicate lob against Brighton. This goal: 'technically in a different stratosphere to Alli'? How? Bellingham's mentality, composure and leadership matter more at the highest level i know, he doesn't need to score worldies to get where he is. Do people forget Alli was linked to Real Madrid early on, his wikipedia has 'In 2018, Alli was considered the world's most expensive midfielder from a transfer value perspective by the CIES.[117]' on it. Alli, even with the years of decline has a goal every 4 games in his career, Bellingham every 6.7 games.
  9. sure. I thought this was going to be a thread about Harry and Megan
  10. The peach one is good, and the snowy course is great for Christmas (remember when games did that?) also love the ghost house level. All in all a strong selection, enough to keep me playing until the next lot.
  11. Where is it £8.69? I can't find it
  12. Lego Star Wars Skywalker saga has just come out on it and has split-screen coop.
  13. Did anyone see these yesterday? Loving Zidane as left wing-back I have to say. Also a shocking amount of pundits and journalists picking Cristiano Ronaldo for some reason, despite him having the same amount of World Cup knockout goals as me. Anyway you're only allowed one player from each country basically, and should be based solely on World Cup performances. I would go Yashin; Moore, Beckenbauer, Cannavaro; Deschamps; Modric, Puskas, Cruyff; Maradona, Pele, Eusebio Considered Iniesta over Modric but I think I was placing too much weight on that winning goal, also the pathetic team showing in 2014 has to count against him a little bit whereas Modric has excelled in multiple tournaments. Went for Deschamps over Zidane/Platini/Fontaine for balance reasons really, and I guess maybe you can factor in winning it as a player and manager too (same with Beckenbauer).
  14. I've started this game a few times and play a few hours and then stop. My main issue is that the playable character is such a complete tosser that I can't take it anymore. He is such an idiotic, self-centered, narcissistic moron who thinks that his way of existing is infinitely more important than anyone else's. He is exactly the sort of person I actively try to avoid in RL.
  15. If I have a criticism of the film, it's that it seems really engineered, rather than organic. It's like you can see the plot points sliding smoothly into place at just the right time to tug on the intended heartstring/emotion/audience response. It doesn't feel natural. It's manipulative. But that's all plots, really. This is just more noticeable because of quite how slick it is. And when the manipulation is done to such phenomenal effect, it's frankly churlish to let that slight artificialness get in the way of the experience. I haven't seen it since the cinema, and would like to watch it again, but there's no way my crappy sound system can produce the same effect as the cinema did, and that was so good. I'm apprehensive, because I think it'll lose such a lot of the impact.
  16. The first 8 hours or so twice. I bought it not long after it came out, didn't really click and traded it back at CEX. Then when it came to Plus I tried it again and kind of liked it a bit more.because I knew what it was but it still didn't grab me. It's just a stew of every video game mechanic ever with a protagonist I can see a seam of good in but ultimately seems like a petulent bell end. Also I like Fix You by Beige: The Band.
  17. The new tracks are pretty good. Had zero clue where I was going on the Berlin one, but it was great!
  18. I maintain that any game that takes ten hrs to "get going" - or anymore than 10 minutes - is doing itself no favours at best and is a shit game at worst. EDIT - see also games that go on too long. They have a gameplay mechanic and loop , it works and is enjoyable but has a lifespan. Sadly the narrative the games makers have come up with means the gameplay outstays its welcome.
  19. Coldplay are one of the worst bands to have ever existed. Day's Gone was one of the best videogames in the year of it's release. These are not the same thing.
  20. Gang Beasts, Human Fall Flat and Turtles. There's also Ben 10 which the kids liked and seemed decent enough.
  21. Christmas is saved. I've genuinely missed these characters.
  22. The breakdowns are hilarious jank, they’re part of what makes it a good 6-7/10 game. That and the BOOZEMAN of course.
  23. My rewatch is now 3/4s of the way through season 3. I can see why they got rid of Darabont mid season 2. Darabont wanted an achingly slow simmering build which he couldn't quite pull off, I am not sure why he went so off piste with this as Darabont knows how to entertain with horror. 2nd half of season 2 showed what they wanted which was more action and protagonists. Season 3 so far is pretty good, probably as good as Season 1 with some caveats. As I mentioned before there should have been 1-2 episodes covering their 6 month winter hell which would have given the audience a good reason for why they holed up in a fucking prison full of zombies! If we had seen the desperation of those months then maybe we could understand but all we saw was actors returning after a break between seasons all saying "yep winter was tough" and then they go live in a prison, full of zombies! I wouldn't mind but Woodbury is a short drive away you would have thought they would have spotted that! The other thing I worked out in Season 3 (due to the prison zombie scenes) is why the Walking Dead seems to rely on teleporting zombies and 50 zombies round a corner. THe filmmakers and editors don't know how to do slow zombies and don't know how to shoot action with them. We all know that slow zombies are tricky beasts to make scary as you can run away, you can outpace them and you could even walk round them (as Barbara points out in Night of the Living Dead 90). Good directors and editors like Romero make it look easy as they direct and edit the action so the zombies are a threat, and if they teleport a zombie (all slow moving zombie films do it all the time) they do it with sleight of hand or sleight of edit. The walking Dead creative team seemingly don't know how to do this. So Rick turns back to look lovingly at his crew in the prison compound and suddenly there are 20 zombies there, Virgil loses a leg, Carol ends up hiding in a cell, T Dog has to die and Lori dies. ANd all because they couldn't spot 20 teleporting zombies and instead of reacting to 20 slow moving zombies sensibly they all fly off in different directions. The other thing they can't do is edit/direct action without confusion. Those prison corridors make no sense and I cannot follow who is going where and why, I am sure they are trying to give the impression of confusion but you don't do that by confusing the viewer! The trick of a good sequence is we completely understand the layout of corridors, we know they are confused, we know they are doing the wrong thing and going the wrong way and can feel the oncoming disaster. But no the Walking Dead creators think it is better that we are as confused as the cast. Other thoughts on aspects of season 3 (I am on episode 12). Governer. Good villain poorly used. David Morrissey does a damned good job even though some of the material he has to work with is clunky, some of the switches between strong leader and damaged human being just fall flat and make it look like he is two different characters. His humiliation of Maggie was a really uncomfortable watch, probably one of the creepiest scenes in the Walking Dead. That showed how he ould ahve been used more effectively. Anthea is almost good. Her build up through the season and falling for the governer makes sense and works as she wanted something like normality and Woodbury seemed to be that. Her viewing the experiment by the science guy works as she is appalled but there is a tiny glimmer that she hopes he is right. However once she realises what the Governer is really upto it falls apart. Sending her to the prison is a mistake unless you intend her to rejoin the group. Her character deciding to still go back to Woodbury to fix things is madness as it is obvious the governer is as mad as a box of frogs. Michonne is a great character and it is a good introduction to her. She is a bit too stand offish when she finds them at the prison but it still works. Strong scenes for her throughout Merle is great and helps to save Woodbury being just the Governer's bland backdrop. He is one dimensional but Rooker plays it to perfection. The attempt by Daryl to save him is a good set of moments but those scenes also highlight that Norman Reedus is out of his depth playing against Rooker, the latter acts him off the screen. Merle's desperation when Daryl leaves him is palpable Woodbury itself lacks texture and colour, it is too bland a backdrop. It is completely about the Governer (and Merle) and that is it. SO much wasted potential Lori is a wasted completely and she is just a vessel for Rick's plotline which is pretty unforvgiveable. In fact her character is poorly written from the start, she exists just to help form the male characters of Shane and Rick. Rick - I like the actor but having him stumble around for two episodes answering phones and being out in the wilderness - well 5 yards from the prison gate really did him no favours. PRisoners - wasted potential as they were barely used. Tyreese's group - wasted potential so far.
  24. Today
  25. Haha yes I did think to myself "Surely there's something on Bathurst I struggle with more" and I do absolutely shit myself every time through that section.
  26. Treadstone Poor follow up to the Bourne movies. A plot that is overly confusing and it doesn't really go anywhere. No idea why there were two timelines running. 2/5
  1. Load more activity
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.