Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by feltmonkey

  1. Bruuunoooo! Great move and a great finish!
  2. What a save! Brilliant effort as well. He was starting to celebrate before De Gea got a fingertip to it.
  3. It's not a classic so far.
  4. You could have the Stourbridge bands - Pop Will Eat Itself, The Wonder Stuff, and Ned's Atomic Dustbin.
  5. feltmonkey

    High on Life

    I tried out High On Life for about an hour or so. It's interesting that the game polarises opinion, because for me it's a solid 7/10. It gave me nostalgia for the raft of 7/10 shooters on the Xbox 360. The game it reminded me most of was The Bureau: XCOM Declassified, a game I had forgotten about the second I finished it. I have no idea why I bothered to finish it. Relentlessly average, utterly forgettable, with a gimmick that must have kept me playing, even though the gimmick itself is a bit "meh." However there is something nice about a solid 7/10 shooter. You follow the corridors and do the gameplay and the story happens and then you get on with your life. They're just unstressful. I quite liked going down HOL's colourful corridors and shooting the generic enemies, and exploring the little game hub. There are some powers - a hook thing that you use to swing from one place to another, and I just got a warp thing. Some of the enemies seem to parody Halo enemy behaviour. Obviously, the thing people are bouncing off is the humour. Other posters have pointed out the phenomenon of people claiming to have never heard of Rick and Morty or saying they've watched two minutes of the show and could tell instantly that it was beneath them. I'm not one of those guys. I've watched all of the first four series' and I really like it. It's funny, and sometimes unexpectedly deep. The moment in the first series when R&M have to bury their own mangled corpses from an alternative dimension and assume their identities while Mazzy Star's Look On Down From The Bridge plays is pretty powerful. However, High On Life is not prime Rick and Morty. I'm not going into Justin Roiland's recent domestic violence charges. He's not been convicted yet, so I'll wait before branding him a piece of shit just yet. However, HOL makes me think that perhaps Roiland is better with his full writing team. Dan Harmon isn't involved. I haven't seen any of the post-Harmon R&M episodes yet, so I can't compare HOL to them. HOL does contain some of the flavour of R&M, particularly in the voice acting and style of dialogue. The talking guns. The people claiming they don't ever shut up aren't quite right, but they do go on a bit. "Oh God you just shot that guy oh wow is this what we're- oh I guess we are I guess we're doing this okay I guess this is what we're doing this is what's happening oh you shot them all even that guy oh man oh wow" It's not funny in and of itself. It's the kind of thing that might sound funny in a pitch - "Hey, what if we put talking guns in this and they - get this - they never shut up!" Big laugh in the room. A funny idea, but if that was actually in the game it wouldn't be much fun to play unless the dialogue was genuinely funny. Most of the time, it's not funny. Sometimes it is. You can see the kernal of that writing room idea and the sheer audacity is kind of amusing. Like, later there's this character that pops up - a flying yellow guy who floats around in front of you and talks and talks and talks. I think it's a parody of Navi or Tingle or the thing from Destiny. Only this guy complains about his mother and his exes then starts getting creepy about the protagonist. Quite a funny idea. In practice it makes that 15-minute or so section really irritating. You can't shoot him. However I did laugh out loud a few times, and not many games do that. HOL might be suffering in comparison to Psychonauts 2 which I'm also playing at the moment and is funnier, but when I shot an enemy and as they fell they said, "With my dying breath… I renounce… Jesus" I laughed. We've all seen the bit where the game basically forces you to shoot a child. That's not particularly funny in itself, but the fact that the game gives you an achievement for the murder called "Fallout doesn't let you do that" is pretty good. Then seconds later you meet the kid's mother and she doesn't seem particularly bothered and tells you it's fine. That made me laugh. It's a sly dig at the way some games will have you do something terrible and then absolve you for some convenient reason. Rick and Morty is at it's best when it's humour is clever and when a bit of heart undercuts the nihilism. High On Life's humour a lot of the time is just cruel. I'm no edgelord, but I don't mind when humour has a bit of darkness to it. These days "edgy" humour tends to mean invoking Hitler, mocking people who don't deserve it, or just being an awful human being, but the best black humour is actually very right-on. I'm thinking of the likes of Get Out or Dr Strangelove. There should be a point. It shouldn't just be, "look at this pathetic guy. He's not even got any legs. How disgusting." The general silliness of the game is welcome, the mean-spiritedness is not. I mentioned that this is just Roiland, and perhaps he's missing the rest of his writing team, but this feels like we're getting only half the Rick and Morty experience. The ideas and understanding of the larger universe are missing, and in their place are nastiness, a belief that mentions of drug use and constant swearing are edgy, and frequent attempts to troll the player. Despite these criticisms, I can see myself continuing to play it. I like the gameplay, and I wonder if the reason I am seeing the humour as a bit too mean is because I haven't got to the part where it becomes a bit more human. It's not a bad game. It's colourful and creative, and it certainly has character, unlike a lot of modern games. TLDR - It's a 7/10 shooter with hit and miss humour. If you're the type to skip all my hard work writing all that and go straight to the tldr, that's all you deserve.
  6. It's all very well tipping your hat in a self-congratulatory manner but that joke doesn't work. United last failed to qualify for Europe in 2013/14. Before that, it was 1989 when English clubs were banned from European competition. If only Brexit was specifically to do with the Champions League, eh?
  7. There's no such thing as a non-evil billionaire. At least he hasn't chopped up any jounalists in that ski-lodge, as far as we know. He was also very pro-brexit, of course. He's the popular choice because he's supposedly a fan, although he holds a Chelsea season ticket.
  8. INEOS is Jim Ratcliffe's company, isn't it? Some "journalist" on twitter was claiming that the club has already been sold to Dubai earlier. We're going to be wading through lakes of horseshit looking for nuggets of truth until the sale actually goes through, I guess. That's not to say that the news about INEOS is horseshit - that seems to be getting reported fairly widely, and seems to have some credibility.
  9. Another angle of the celebrations after the second goal. I like that Fred seems to have a specific friend in the crowd. https://twitter.com/ManUtd/status/1614324215196356609?t=kOrl5kqtOUFSQBpz_EpFtw&s=19
  10. All this talk about Fernandes' goal has meant that Liverpool have got off really lightly in this thread after they got battered by Brighton.
  11. Yeah, I agree as it happens. I don't think there has been any guidelines on interpretation regarding interfering with play, but I bet as a result of this goal, there will be soon. City are a powerful lobbying group in football. They may not have any fans, but they have all the money in the world. I can see the law changing, which I think is a shame as I like it as it is. My preference for the law as it is probably does come from my own bias, both as a fan of the team who benefitted yesterday, and as a former striker in my playing days who had a bunch of my goals disallowed because someone was standing in an offside position out on the wing as I shot. I always hated the interpretation that if anyone on the pitch was in an offside position then it's offside. That hasn't been the law for a long time, and there has basically always been some version of "interfering in play" but at the much lower level I played, linesmen always disregarded that part of the law. It was infuriating. Part of the problem was that the linesman was quite often one of the opposition's subs. We also didn't have VAR. Or corner flags most of the time.
  12. If you mean the letter of the law then yes of course that's the justification! That's literally all we have to go on. It's all any of of us have to go on. Okay, this is worthy of debate. I think the laws have been written that way for a reason, and I gave my opinion on that a few posts ago. So we're getting into rules as written vs rules as intended now? This is giving me flashbacks to Warhammer games. In that setting, I'm very much a rules as intended guy, but it's notable that in tournaments when there's actual money on the line it's always rules as written. The Premier League is arguably even more serious than Warhammer tournaments. A qualified ref of similar ability to Stuart Atwell (I know, I know, but we have to work with what we have) did look at a replay, and concluded that technically - technically - Rashford was not offside. I don't care as much as it probably appears I do. The goal stood, it felt wrong but was technically the correct decision, it certainly isn't going to change now. I just genuinely enjoy debating the details of football decisions. I'm that kind of pervert.
  13. I am wasting my time here.
  14. Maybe in the plain English definition of the phrase, but as I keep pointing out, NOT by the clear, very specific definition in the law. Argue that the law is wrong, you'll be on far less shaky ground.
  15. If you're arguing that the law is wrong, I can see that. I personally kind of like it the way it is and always have done*. However the fact is that for it to be offside, Rashford would have had to either play the ball, physically impeded a defender from getting to the ball (just being in the general vicinity does not constitute impeding him), attempted to play the ball, or challenged for the ball. Or, weirdly as @ryodi pointed out, been fouled. He didn't do any of that, so by the letter of the law it's a goal. There's no question. Being in proximity to the ball does not automatically constitute interfering with play now. I can absolutely understand why people think it shouldn't stand, but they're technically wrong. The best kind of wrong. I'm a massive nerd about the laws of the game, and seem to find myself checking minutiae every other game. *The reason I like this part of the law is that you avoid the situations where a goal is disallowed because someone strayed offside miles away from the ball, even though they weren't involved in the play at all. You used to get goals disallowed like this, and the upshot was that it needlessly took goals away from the game. Goals are the best bit of football. Disallowing someone's 20-yard belter because his teammate was watching it from an offside position does not serve football well. Brian Clough's quote, "if he wasn't interfering with play then what the hell was he doing on the pitch?" is a great soundbite but a poor starting point for creating laws.
  16. What are you trying to prove with that still image that you think will override the evidence of the moving images we've all seen? Personally, I'd like to see more of your TV stand. It looks a beauty.
  17. Regarding Fernandes' goal, here's the offside law as it currently stands, regarding the nebulous concept of "interfering with play" - So, he didn't touch the ball. He didn't prevent an opponent from playing the ball. He didn't challenge for the ball. He didn't attempt to play the ball. He didn't make an obvious action that impacted an opponent's ability to play the ball. As the law stands, it was a goal. You can complain that the law is wrong, but you can't argue that it should have been disallowed based on the current laws. Where the controversy comes in is that to the average football fan, and particularly those who have any form of bias against the team that scored, it feels offside. So we either adjust the laws in order to fit with this or we get used to it. I think there are areas where the offside law needs to change, but I personally think this part is fine. It's been like this for years, and we fairly often get situations where a player is offside but leaves the ball and another player who is running through gets onto the ball and has a chance. Some teams do it deliberately and defences are aware of the tactic. It happens several times a season and never before has there been quite such a fuss. That's the Manchester United effect, I guess.
  18. Any one of the back four could have been man of the match. I was surprised how good Wan-Bissaka was. Shaw didn't put a foot wrong. Varane was his classy self. Malacia battled like a madman.
  19. This is going to be a long few minutes.
  20. Hahaha no penalty. Never been so pleased to hear the phrase "check complete." On the replay I think it's the right decision.
  21. Bring on all the defenders! Begin operation extreme time-wasting!
  22. RASHFORD YOU BEAUTY! Oh my god. Breath. Garnacho has changed the game.
  23. Play to the whistle City you clowns!
  • 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.