Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by jonny_rat

  1. While I agree that these could often be implemented in a smarter way (e.g. the game knows you're playing regularly at the moment in long sessions, so ideally it would tailor the tooltips to match), tooltips can be really useful in helping lapsed players get back into the basics of the game. Again, there's batter ways to do it, but they're something at least!
  2. T3 do borderline amusing clickbaity bollocks. One day I had two stories from them pop up in my news feed: one along the lines of 'Microsoft revels next gen Xbox to CRUSH PS5?' while the other was 'Incredible PS5 leaks show Sony's plan to DESTROY Microsoft.'
  3. The irony is that T:R isn't resolved by the fight at all. On some levels it counts as a subversion of the Big Fight trope (which would be more effective if it wasn't preceded by a Big Fight). Spiderman Homecoming is an interesting one. Technically it's two lads having a scrap, but the narrative thrust is spidey trying to stop a heist. And then trying to save the baddie.
  4. Rangnarok is definitely one that didn't need a big old horde battle, and I bloody loved Ragnarok. I guess it gave the wider cast something to do in the finale, but surely the Hulk fighting a giant wolf and everyone else battling Hera (who was a solid, credible threat) would have been fine. Still, at least it was short and involved that Led Zep moment.
  5. I think the Shining (film) does an amazing job of distilling the book's message by adapting it. The problem with WM is that it doesn't even try to do this: it replicates the source material. Watchmen - the movie - is the equivalent of the 1997 miniseries version of the shining.. To go back to @kerraig UK's post, I'm not sure the adaptation issue being argued in the article is just add, add, add; surely it's the choices that were made in adapting the comic? WM (the film) is quite flabby anyway, and stuffed with action sequences, and contains a pretty slavish nod to almost every scene in the comic book. That's quite the decision to make - there would certainly be an argument for a much less blockbuster style approach to the source material (especially post-Logan). I completely get why Snyder did what he did in mashing together the narration with Rorsach's investigation, for example; but that doesn't make it any better as a sequence. I feel like he did everything he could to get everything from the comic on screen in some shape or form, and in the process made it all a lot less interesting. I also get that this is total armchair booking - but I find the idea of an on-screen version of watchmen that chose to open with Rorshach's quiet, grunty investigation (in lieu of maybe some of those slo-mo CGI scraps) really interesting.
  6. I guess I'm the target audience for CGI superhero smash up stuff, because I will watch all those films and probably have a lovely time with them. As Dudley suggests above though, these final act bits all sort of all meld together into white noise. But not all final-act CGI schmoz's are created equal: the worst I can recall was Justice League, probably because I forgot who everyone was and what was going on and I didn't care (same with Age of Ultron. And Iron Man 2, christ.). They can be done (relatively) effectively if some character drama has been threaded in: I don't mind the end of Black Panther because they're trading words at the same time as their silly claw suit train scrap. IW has this great structure where all the tension is about Thanos turning up and interacting with the lads; the big silly battle before that is all noise/window dressing. Maybe it's a false finish issue. These big battles are always built up to be the climax, but they never are, and they rarely resolve anything. Usually the scale/focus needs to close in on characters; couldn't we just cut out the battle bit altogether?
  7. Any bloody excuse to post this when watchmen comes up: https://acephalous.typepad.com/acephalous/2013/06/the-dark-knight-returns-and-the-zak-snyder-school-of-literal-filmmaking.html Watchmen the movie is sort of.. like Trump's personal fortune for me. No matter how much it fucks up, and fuck up it does, it's still going to be in credit at the end of the day because of how much it started with. Turning incredible source material into a perfectly cromulent popcorn-muncher can hardly be considered a glorious success though. Ender's Game: now that's an example of how to turn great source material into.. nothing. What a waste that was.
  8. Absolutely ridiculous that the rubbish version of Golden Axe on the C64 had this incredible Jeroen Tel version of the theme:
  9. I need to watch that video you posted, but I was really impressed by this recent talk about Ghost Recon Wildlands: Ubisoft seem to have one of the most comprehensive approaches to UX. They do standard stuff - and I think have a full playtesting lab in the UK - but also do more innovative work like this, where they're bringing metrics together with other types of research. I love the bit about seeing players playing in a way that was unexpected from the data, then exploring who they were and why they were doing it, then creating content especially for those players.
  10. Absolutely. I look at some of these crowd-funded projects that claim to be entirely led by community decision-making and feature requests, and think.. nah. You're either very smartly corralling that feedback and the questions you're asking, or you're going to end up with a right old mess. Hopefully, having one person (with knowledge of the end-to-end research process) managing the whole research programme should solve this, because they know the right types of methods to use at the right time. ..he says, knowing full well that sometimes they just get someone with a full time QA or marketing programme to manage to also do this on the side.
  11. Holy cow. I was going to say say that there are rationales they could have used to come up with that number - some more robust than others - but that's just bonkers. And not even testing out the impact of that decision on players (could easily do some limited comparison studies with the new/old versions)!
  12. Some really interesting inside experiences in this thread - thanks for posting them. From working as a user researcher in games, there are some familiar-sounding stories: reluctance to put the game in front of players early, difficulties with synthesising feedback from various sources, using internal dev staff as a substitute for actual player voices, and mixing up QA, market research and user research. I absolutely understand why all these things happen (usually budgetary reasons, or sometimes actual hostility to user research) but still, I wish they didn't. A few studios in the UK are catching on and recruiting user research teams, or - at the very least - someone to try and collate and interpret data and feedback. Slow going though.
  13. I get excited about switch re-releases because it's a portable console with actual buttons that plays full fat games. It's the only thing that I am able to find time to play at the moment, and that's probably going to be how it is for the foreseeable future. I've wanted that for years: arguably you had things like the Shield and android portables, but they always came with compromises. It's a huge bonus for me that there are amazing exclusives on it as well, and that it's a unique multiplayer machine: but Nintendo getting this thing out at a reasonable price, with a lovely little form factor and providing a solid(ish) infrastructure for indies and niche remasters/rereleases is more than enough reason for them to take my money.
  14. If it's anything like the Wii scene: buggy Mp3 player, utility to turn the console off, utility to make the console emit a high pitched whine, rudimentary port of space invaders, and about a million utilities to help you manage your pirated games.
  15. this is why they are picking on you
  16. Oof, yes. Exactly this. Here's a video that shows my worries with the Playstation versions fairly well: a comparison with the PC DSfixed version. Those lighting 'improvements' are giving me the heebie jeebies. It'll still be great of course (and some of the effects - like fog doors - look much better) but I'm not sure I want DS2 vibes from my DS1.
  17. Aye, I mean I found it an odd thing to throw in at this point - I thought we were talking about Ragnarok being a departure from the previous Thor films. Deadpool is obv a very different beast altogether, right?
  18. I'm not sure what one joke - in either film, such as the wizard of Oz thing - says about the style of humour in each. All I can tell you is that Whedonesque humour has been incredibly influential and much-copied since his Buffy days, and the style has been fairly consistent across scores of Marvel films. Ragnarok is definitely a marked departure from that; which you've been arguing as well. I don't get the 'gentle, all inclusive' thing either - Marvel films have been the very definition of that since day one.
  19. What? No, absolutely not. Whedonish humour isn't about pop culture: it's wisecracks and having characters play off each other with fun barbs and comebacks. Waititi is much more about being awkward in surreal and over the top settings. I love, say, hunt for the wildepeople, but again, it's not humour for everyone. And throwing in an homage to the willy wonka nightmare boat sequence in a sci-fi film.
  20. I think it's almost.. a compliment that this film is more divisive than other Marvel stuff. Like, of course it is: they gave it to a director with a forte in slightly surreal, mumbly humour and let him loose with it. In order for Waititi to make a film that I absolutely loved - as in, he made a film that felt like it was aimed directly at someone who adored What We Do In The Shadows, ie. me - he had to make a film that some others would probably hate. The Whedon-esque humour of the Avengers probably has a broader appeal, but god we've had an awful lot of that now. Other people's tastes in films is subjective, sure; but other people's sense of humour can be just.. a whole different planet away.
  21. Yeah, I absolutely agree with this. The books are excellent for what they are, and the overall themes and plotlines are solid and interesting (I hoofed my way through them), but they're not particularly compelling reads. Whole chapters going by without much happening, and the interactions between the characters are comforting but a bit flat. The show does excellent things with them, partly by picking and choosing from six or seven books' worth of character development and sprinkling it in where relevant.
  22. Ta for this - that's really useful. I was looking at whether there were any options for using last-gen sticks with it, and turned up this thing: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Fyoung-Controller-Converter-Nintendo-HANDHELD/dp/B0747K52CW Which is dead cheap, and seems to come in a few variants (sometimes called a COOV N100, sometimes a.. fastsnail?). More on it here: https://www.reddit.com/r/NintendoSwitch/comments/7er1nq/super_simple_rewritten_from_scratch_coov_n100/
  23. Okay, ta for the reply - that's interesting! I guess I've always focused more on the actual mechanics, and worried that if From moved on to a totally different game structure, we'd lose out on that type of game that they're so good as. But yeah, bringing that feeling of mystery to other types of games: great, bring it on. I just wonder if it's.. actually possible. Like, is that feeling of unravelling a mystery actually more a function of the game mechanics - the combat, the progression, the shortcuts - than we realise?
  24. All subjective of course, but I don't feel that way about 2 and 3 at all: 2 is so odd that it barely feels like a Souls game going back to it now. And 3 was such a welcome building on the formula, and playing with conventions, closing off plot strands, etc. I'm not at ease with the idea that it's essential for From to deviate from the Soulsy formula to innovate. What is the formula, even? Is it just the checkpointing and lose-your-souls-on-death system? Or is it the dark atmosphere, and lore-based storytelling stuff? If they made a sci-fi game with terminals for bonfires and computer chips for souls, would that be an innovation or just the same old game again? I think what I'm getting at is that the most radical and distinctive innovation of the soulsborne games is a pretty fundamental gameplay mechanic and structure. If you're looking for something completely new and fresh to learn again, you're asking them to strike lightning twice. Edit: wait, 'strike lighting twice' doesn't make sense, but you.. know what I mean, like?
  25. What the - and then miss out on some of the greatest Souls stuff of all in 3? I'd never even hand back some of my fondest memories of 2, especially the DLCs. I can't fathom losing out on all that great shit for the benefit of keeping the first game pure.
  • 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.