Jump to content

CarloOos

Members
  • Posts

    8,880
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by CarloOos

  1. Haven’t played this one but the previous ones were clearly designed to be played in co-op and suffered in single player as a result. With two players you’ll only end up playing half the chapters each (whilst also sharing some), but on your own you play each individual scenario successively and they become repetitive as a result. 
     

    These games must be a logistical nightmare to design, with so many variables I’m not surprised the pacing sometimes suffers. 

  2. The original launched for £400, and now every single CEX in the country has around three of them in the window for £65. Oh, and none of the games you might have previously bought will work either.

     

    This thing is dead on arrival. VR is a niche hobbyist pursuit for people with lots of disposable income & spare room, which is an increasingly small demographic these days.

  3. 17 minutes ago, dataDave said:

     

    There are what, two full levels on the first game? The motorway and the Space Harrier levels. The Space Harrier one isn't even that bad if you like that kind of thing, although naturally it's not one of my most-played levels. On this it's every other verse! 

     

    I always quick-skip the cutscenes with R+Back, although there are sections on this which can't be skipped no matter what, including cutscenes which are semi-interactable.

     

    ^^ MadWorld, too. That was my gateway into this genre. I've not played Astral Chain yet, so I might trade this in for that.


    Think I just prefer my action games more like Ninja Gaiden or to an extent DmC, just 100% focused on the combat with minimal faff. I particularly like NG’s emphasis on just surviving encounters, as opposed to showboating. I think the closest Platinum have ever come to making something like this is Revengeance, but unfortunately I just found that quite mechanically annoying with one of the worst cameras of the 360 era.

     

    Vanquish is a can of worms for me, there’s so much to love but again I found it mechanically annoying. The weapon upgrade system is nonsense and the necessity to repeatedly spam the slide button for i-frames just seems stupid. At the time I preferred Binary Domain.

     

    (Never played Astral Chain, W101, Bayo 2 or the licensed games).

  4. 4 hours ago, Goemon said:


    The more I see from Platinum, the more I think they fluked the original Bayonetta. They seem to have no idea what made the first one great and seem more focused on making goofy over the top novelty sections over flushing out fighting mechanics.


    Haven’t played the second or third games, but the original definitely had its fair share of shitty novelty sections and never-ending cutscenes. I’ve always thought Platinum are mad overrated tbh, everything I’ve played has always had some insanely annoying mechanic or indulgent nonsense. 

  5. I don’t think Die Another Day is actually a good film, but I do think it’s secretly Brosnan’s second best. It’s a super camp modern day Moonraker which at least has some naff kitsch value as a relic of the early naughties, unlike Tomorrow Never Dies and The World Is Not Enough which are just turgid. 
     

    TND in particular I always want to like more than I actually do, but next to Goldeneye it’s painful. How do you put Michelle Yeoh in a film with zero decent action?

  6. @Rubber_JohnnyThis thread is conflating remasters and remakes and everything inbetween. A proper Resident Evil-style remake is a completely new game (in the sense that all those Disney remakes are completely different films), and not really what most people are discussing here. 


    Of course Steam, PC gaming in general and more recently the Xbox platform are all doing an admiral job of forward compatibility. It’s not really relevant if someone wants to play something like Viewtiful Joe though is it? It either gets re-released or forgotten about. 
     

    Even the actual Resident Evil remake was limited to the GameCube until a few years ago, when it was remastered for modern hardware. It’s 20 years old and the GameCube wasn’t a huge seller. Plenty of Resident Evil fans, old and new, never played it the first time, now you can play it on almost anything. This is apparently bad for some reason. 

  7. 31 minutes ago, thesnwmn said:

    I also think it's often not good archiving or preservation imo. It might preserve some ideas but unless it's 1:1 I think it's often creating a different beast.


    You could (and many people do) make the same argument about every single time a film is released on a new format, as there’s always some degree is artistic interpretation/compromise involved in updating something to a technology that hadn’t even been comprehended at the time.
     

    There’s good and bad examples of remastering in both gaming and films. But I don’t see anyone seriously suggesting that we shouldn’t attempt to re-release older films, whereas I do semi-regularly see people suggesting that in earnest about games. And in almost all cases I’d still take a less than perfect remaster over nothing at all, should I decide to revisit something. 
     

    ‘But if some people spend all their money on 4k Dario Argento films, fewer people might go to see Black Panther: Wakanda Forever’. This statement is clearly total nonsense, and I don’t see how it’s any different for games.

  8. Why are Amazon/HMV so full of old films, when they could just be full new films instead?

     

    Whinging about remakes and remasters is exactly as stupid as the above statement. There’s also a particular brand of entitlement that seems to go  ‘I played this 20 years ago, I don’t need a remake’ and it’s like, yeah, so what? Lots of people didn’t play it 20 years ago and would otherwise have no way of doing so. It’s one form persevering/archiving experiences that would otherwise be largely forgotten about.
     

    The other daft argument is that newer games are slicker mechanically so it’s pointless playing older games, as if the creation of CGI made watching stop-motion films pointless. Plenty of remasters smooth the edges off older games, sometimes it’s for better and sometimes it’s for worse, in much the same way some films held up better on a scuzzy old VHS than they do now in HD. It’s not always an improvement but it doesn’t make the effort redundant, when the alternative is total obscurity.

     

    Not every remake is for people who played it the first time. We’re old. Ultimately though I think MS have the right approach here, by future-proofing their catalogue in a way that makes actually re-releasing a title largely redundant.  

  9. On 19/10/2022 at 12:56, Ry said:

    Uninstalled this as soon as I got to a pipe-mania type puzzle. 

     

    So lasted about 15 mins. 

     

    It's not an easy one, either. Took me about 30 minutes. What's nuts is that there's been nothing remotely as difficult since. No idea why they thought that was a good idea to open the game with, it's an incredibly obtuse area and seemingly the only one with two different resolutions.

     

    Whoever said it breaks every game design sin going was bang on the money, but there's still something quite compelling about it. I'm about three hours in and so far, despite the grotesque scenes, it's actually been a bizarrely chill experience.  I do admire the absolute commitment to zero plot.

  10. 5 hours ago, JohnC said:

    Having just watched The Sound of 007 on Prime, the Sam Smith one is still the only one that's just nothing to me. Hearing it in the documentary, I couldn't remember hearing it before. Having just finished the doc, I can't remember a thing about his song. It just goes directly into some memory hole.


    I worked on that. I thought it was very funny that they all spent so much time talking about the unused Radiohead song (and even played it over the Spectre title sequence) but none of the interviewees even mentioned the actual Sam Smith track. 

  11. You just need to calibrate the picture settings for the specific HDMI port your Switch is plugged into to your tastes. There’s nothing inherently different about the screen and the resolution won’t be affecting the colour. Brightness, Contrast and White Point will be the main three settings you want. 

  12. As far as the producers are concerned; the character makes the actor, not the other way around. It’ll never be Cavill, Hardy or Hiddleston and even if he’d been 10 years younger it would never have been Elba (not least because he’s pure cringe).

  13. Miami Vice (2006) is superb for this, it’s 100% location photography and you genuinely feel like you’ve been to each of them. The 10-20 minute sequence where Crockett rides a speed boat to Cuba for mojitos is one of my  favourite in any film, I almost resent the actual plot getting in the way of the scenery.

  14. That article is basically just loosely describing modern digital cinematography. There’s a few things which most Netflix shows have in common (almost all are Dolby Vision, often graded in a colourspace called ACES, and shot on one of three very particular cameras) but that’s true of all Apple, Disney and most Amazon shows too. 
     

    Certain looks go through trends and whatever show is hot right now quite often gets used as the reference for newer projects going into production.
     

    Also for what it’s worth I thought The Sandman looked cheap as fuck for such an expensive show, but it wasn’t as visually tacky as the risible Good Omens at least.

  15. When I played TLOU2 I was staggered by how it looked, I couldn’t comprehend how they’d make managed to squeeze those visuals out of a last-gen machine. It was the same with Uncharted 4, and previously Uncharted 2. But I’m not getting that Naughty Dog ‘wow’ vibe from the footage of this at all, despite it being their first current-gen exclusive. Considering this is a purely aesthetic undertaking from one of the most technically proficient devs in the industry, it does seem quite lacklustre. To have gone to all this effort with their golden goose, you’d think they’d have come out swinging against those Unreal 5 demos, not just bringing up to broadly the same standard as the sequel, which is now a last-gen game. 

  16. 16 minutes ago, Alex W. said:

    There’s no cap on how frequently you can tag metadata; the file has no notion of a “shot”, after all. They’re just time stamps. Per frame is not how it’s done of course, but the point is that there is tone mapping data arbitrarily frequently in the file versus just one value for the whole thing.

     

    Tone mapping is definitely done on HDR displays. That’s literally what the metadata is for.

     

    Edit - I was replying to a post that’s gone now.

     

    Sorry, I hid that post to rewrite it but now can’t see an option to bring it back. I’m quite bad for post first/edit later.

  17. On 19/08/2022 at 11:15, strider said:

    Personally I always prefer dedicated players. Dolby Vision can also add a lot to a movie as well.


    I genuinely don’t understand what difference Dolby Vision makes for Blu-Rays. When you’re watching DV content on something like Netflix, the dynamic metadata is used for when you’re watching HDR content in SDR (as the majority of people still do).
     

    But when it comes to UHD Blu-Ray the entire format is designed around HDR, nobody is watching those in SDR. So what’s the Dolby Vision adding? If all it’s doing is reading how the file was mastered (1000nits), then those are the exact same specs almost all HDR10 files are mastered to also. 
     

    Totally agree that HDR can make a massive difference to a film, especially older ones, but generally speaking I think the whole Dolby thing is a massive placebo. 

  18. 6 hours ago, K said:

    One-shot action sequences are generally shit and mostly just a way for directors to show off. Their purpose is generally to just draw your attention to how shit-hot the director is and how brilliantly they are juggling the technical and logistical aspects of film-making. Look at me, look at how long this shot is going on for. Surely it's going to end now? Think again, sucker! This shot, like my dick, just keeps going on and on whether you're enjoying it or not. What's that? You want to be immersed in the scene and not think about how it was executed, rather than boggling at how great I, the director, am at choreographing all this very difficult stuff? But if you were immersed in the scene, then you wouldn't be aware of my mastery of the form in cinema. There would be very few, if any, youtube videos about how clever and audacious I am, which I think we can all agree is far from optimal.

     

    There are some good uses for long takes, but I always find it's rarely for action. The scenes in 1917 where they walk from HQ to the front lines worked really well because it actually took you on that journey from relative safety to chaos, and that wouldn't have been as effective with cuts. The battle scenes in the same film had so many absurd contrivances just to maintain the one shot that I thought they were less effective than they would have been if the film had been made more traditionally. And of course Hard Boiled's hospital scene is pretty amazing, but that's sort of the cinematic equivalent of Jackie Chan hanging off the back of a bus for real, and is more of a stunt than a pragmatic choice.


    The pre-title sequence from Spectre epitomises this. There’s zero reason for it to be ‘one’ shot beyond pointless showboating, which falls flat anyway because of how obvious the stitches are.
     

    I also found 1917 more contrived than immersive. Only just clocked that they’re literally the same director.

  19. Has the same problem as most Gaiman adaptations for me, particularly the ones he’s involved with, where ‘show don’t tell’ becomes ‘show and tell and tell and tell and tell, have another character ask a dumb question then tell it again’. Far too much dialogue, barely any of which is as funny or clever as they seem to think it is, constantly veering between interesting and pure cringe.
     

    That said, 24/7 was exceptional and it’s significantly better than Good Omens which I found genuinely unwatchable. 

  20. The thing with the John Wick films is that they snuck in a subtle genre shift. The original was an actual thriller with some surprisingly decent action scenes, whereas the sequels are straight up martial arts films (with guns). Pushing the limits of the choreography is now the whole purpose of those films, not the plot, which only exists to serve the set-pieces.
     

    It was the right decision imo, you’ll never re-bottle the build up and release of the original so you may as well laser-focus on what people enjoyed and see how far you can take it. I get why some people bounce off them, but for me they’re the closest thing we’ve ever got to a big-budget version of 90s Hong Kong films.

×
×
  • 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.