Jump to content
rllmuk

Gorf King

Members
  • Content Count

    15,970
  • Joined

1 Follower

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Interests
    Growing fingernails. Eating eggs. Keeping accounts straight. That sort of thing.

Recent Profile Visitors

11,351 profile views
  1. Gorf King

    Ad Astra

    The end fell flat for me too (or a lot flatter than it should have), for the reasons I've already given. But Edit: semi-snap.
  2. Gorf King

    Ad Astra

    I liked it well enough. I enjoyed it. But it's way, way short of being a masterpiece imo.
  3. Gorf King

    Ad Astra

    I wish I'd felt that was the case, and I think that would have made for a better (and, as you say, more depressing) ending. But I didn't get that from it - I thought he was saying/playing it for real. It's just y'know - Brad Pitt. I like him, but he's not the most nuanced actor.
  4. Gorf King

    Ad Astra

    This didn’t quite work for me. It’s a good film in some ways, with some great moments, and a strong central concept. But the execution lets it down quite a bit. Lots of spoilers.
  5. I don't know about the rest of the game - or even, perhaps, about games in general - but this seems entirely realistic. Come to think of it, logic seeming to fall apart the longer the experience goes on, and there being too much travelling and an awful lot of padding... well, you can see where I'm going with this, I'm sure.
  6. Yeah, the combat in neither game is exemplary, and could certainly be improved. I'd say it's perfunctory for the most part in both titles, but also enjoyable for the most part. Bosses are the exception in both titles, and feel cheap/cheesy. Yet I enjoyed the gameplay in both of them. I think the key thing for me is that I enjoyed unlocking the lore and story in both, yet overall I probably enjoyed doing that in QB more than I did in Control. I consider them both to be essentially story, plot and character driven games, and I think QB is the better one because its story and characters are ultimately better. It's not as obviously out there or as obviously atmospheric, but I think its tone and setting are more suited to the writing. That makes it sound as if I think nether game has decent gameplay mechanics, but I don't think that. They're perfectly fine, just patchy in parts and not Bungie-godlike. But the narrative experience and the engagement with characters and the storytelling worked better in QB imo: it felt far more mature and deep in what it was saying and how it said it. Control has the (big) edge when it comes to obvious atmosphere and off-the-wallness. I prefer the former. But I'm not at all convinced that the moment to moment gameplay in Control is any better. In most fights I felt that QB was a bit more challenging and satisfying. But perhaps that's due to my difficulty settings, I dunno.
  7. It's a very different story/vibe, but apart from that, when you play it you realise it's obviously from the same developers, and comes with all the negatives and positives that this entails. It's placed in a far more conservative setting (which is obviously more easily filmable), but I don't think that detracts from it at all. You could say it's more mundane, or more grounded because of that. Personally I enjoyed the fact that it felt more grounded, and I liked some of the characters and their character development a lot more than the static templates in Control as a result. It's less outright bizarre and more character-driven. Gameplay-wise, I don't see a million miles between either title. Bosses are pretty crap in each, but I marginally preferred the abilities in QB. Both were decent enough and the fights could be fun in both if you ignore some boss shit. I was most surprised by how much I enjoyed the Scyfy TV show stuff. The fact that you can change what actual actors do in an actual b-series TV show because of your explicit in-game actions had an unexpected impact on my enjoyment of those episodes. Although not directly comparable by any means, it gave me a slight flashback to my first playthrough of ME1. Illusion or not, my agency did feel significant, and that's definitely a plus for QB over Control. They're both very good, if flawed, games anyway.
  8. I actually found that quite refreshing though. It felt quite grounded as a result. Maybe the sets were on par with the story and writing, which is unusual for a videogame. It somehow felt more coherent and consistent than most, perhaps due to that. It definitely didn't have much sophistication in the use of abilities, in the way that, say, Mass Effect sometimes did. Where you could do combos, or otherwise increase effectiveness depending on how you stacked their effects. But I found the same true of Control, so I wasn't let down there. Overall, in the reality of combat, I found the to-and-fro of the combat in Quantum Break more satisfying than that in Control. I'm aware that this isn't actually a thread about QB or Control, so apols for that.
  9. I don't think you can possibly argue that there should be only a binary model - either pay £40-50 for a game and get all future and optional content free, or get the game for nothing and have MTX. No in between. Because that's just far too rigid - you'd never get some of the great DLC and (yes) optional additions that we've had in many games if by paying for the game you obliged the publisher to 'support it with free post-launch content' and nothing else, nothing paid-for. Often you simply wouldn't get free post-launch content at all, at least none of any real worth. And, conversely, just because a game is free to play doesn't mean the MTX system is always fair, or that it works, or that the game is any good without it. The game may often be dross and cynically (or, if you prefer, craftily) made so that you can't help but spend cash on shortcuts to make it tolerable. Then there's what the MTX actually gets you. Is it a set item, or a loot box with a random one, i.e. gambling? Are you paying for optional DLC, and what can you still play if you don't buy that? Is it cosmetic stuff or buying power, or additional content or a short-cut through an existing grind that is otherwise punishingly hard? I think there's all sorts of nuance in the pricing models of games that some arguments completely fail to capture. It's definitely not a binary situation - because ultimately you're talking about capitalism here, and the aim of that is ultimately profit, whichever way you slice it. And some commentators who try to reduce it to the EVIL/GOOD model are not only being unrealistic deliberately for views - because hyperbole sells too, funnily enough - they're not actually providing a very useful analysis of the situation.
  10. He may well have bought all the stuff himself. But he equally well may have been gifted it by other players, principally because he's a YouTuber. When SkillUp was playing through WF before his reviews, if you watch any of his streams you'll see him spending a lot of time each broadcast unpacking all his latest gifts from well wishers hoping to enhance his experience. That's part of what forms one's opinion of the game - a real friendly community with no over-the-top need to grind - and indeed, if one allows it, ultimately one's review. Of course, that's not the usual experience of the everyday player*. * Before I am beset by WF vets protesting this, I have to add that I did come across some very generous players while playing Warframe myself, and it is generally a community very supportive of new people to the fold. But, again, that's really beside the point when trying to assess the impact of MTX on a game, how 'optional' they are, and what the experience of the game is like without buying MTX, how they are sold and marketed, etc.
  11. Either I haven't made the point very clearly or you didn't read it very carefully. His position on something being 'optional' is incoherent. Merely restating it doesn't make it coherent, and if that isn't his point, why restate it constantly in an irritating voice? On another matter, his view on what the game I referred to is actually like for people who don't splash out a lot on MTX is somewhat undercut by what he'd obviously bought/been gifted with whilst playing it, because I can assure you that definitely impacts the experience, especially when it comes to grinding. It's quite easy to say something is 'optional' when you've literally never done without it. And equally easy to evaluate something as being 'the right way to do it' when you've never not had all this optional stuff to enhance your enjoyment of the game. I can break that down for you in terms of his WF review, but I'm fairly sure it'll bore everyone.
  12. Is it still 1-1? I may be the one then. I only started playing Quantum Break at the weekend after having finished and largely enjoyed the flawed Control. I never really fancied QB in the first place - never liked the look of it for some reason - and the lukewarm-at-best reception it got meant I never even gave it a sniff. And now it's free on a £1 for a month GamePass deal, so I only really tried it out of curiosity having liked Control. So it may be partly down to low expectations, but I've enjoyed it immensely - maybe more than Control. Apart from the boss at the end, which I'm on now. That's shit, but then a lot of the bosses in Control were a bit shit too. I don't think Remedy do bosses very well. But the combat was more enjoyable than the combat in Control for me. I liked the powers. I liked the environments well enough (though obv they don't have the super spooky Control vibe, which was great). But the story in QB, although perhaps obvious, was well told, I thought. It dealt with time travel in an interesting and largely consistent way - better than many books and films do. I liked the tone of it too. And I thought most of the characters and the voice acting were great. I even liked the super cheesy B-series TV show. I thought the whole thing really worked, and that added element of the choices you make determining how some of the story plays out, and even which characters you play with, and what content will appear in the TV show - that's great too. Really works well, and obviously that sort of agency in player decisions is missing from Control. It does add something to the game, and it's interesting to see how it plays out in those TV shows. I think it's at least on par with Control, and has some elements I wouldn't mind seeing in other games. It's a real shame Remedy games never seem to sell well enough to get a sequel. I'd be equally happy if either QB or Control got one (though given the story, there's not as much narrative scope for QB to usefully have its story extended or supplemented). But QB's been a surprise hit for me.
  13. Yes it is. Just like buying video games, having a YouTube channel, and making posts on a forum. Does that exempt any of them from criticism? You appear to think not, as does Jim, and as do I.
  14. Why is he such a cunt though? Why do you feel physically sick at his asinine, irritating shtick within a minute of that video starting? Why does it take him 22 more minutes of OVER-proNUNciATION to make a simple (and misguidedly aimed at MS) point? Why do his assertions that 'the overwhelming majority of third party publishers are SCUM, WANTON UNCHECKED FILTH WHO HAVE BECOME A BLIGHT ON THE GAME INDUSTRY' somehow make me want to turn a Jim Sterling video off? Again. I think that in any thread entitled 'I don't care if you hate Jim Sterling. You should watch the Jimquisition', those are some of the key issues that would need to be addressed. Because it seems to me that if you can't stand Jim Sterling, you may well have good reason to feel that way, even if the obvious points he makes would be obvious even without his pantomime exaggeration-tending-to-distortion. Or perhaps precisely because of that. When listening to his highly amusing high pitched comedy villain TRIPLE A voice mocking TRIPLE A publishers for making microtransactions OPTIONAL because it's obvious they're not really OPTIONAAAAAL because the alternative is a massive grind so it's not true to say IT'S OPTIONAAAAAL I'm reminded of various other opportunistic pieces of bullshit he's come out with such as praising the Warframe devs for making all their microtransactions purely OPTIONAAAAL and this is how such games should be done because all the microtransactions in that game are purely OPTIONAAAAL despite the fact that, if you watch his videos on said game, he quite clearly didn't do any of the insane grind required for any of the shit he was using to play the game to the point he did before doing his meaningless review because, hey, why not, it's all purely OPTIONAAAALLLL. He got it all given to him and/or bought it via microtransactions. But you could say the same of any of his stuff, not just via a comparison of M$ ARE TEH EVIL and DIGITAL EXTREMES ARE TEH GOOD - that's just one example of how full of hypocritical shit he is, notwithstanding his so fucking deeply irritating delivery of his bullshit message that plays on ignorance and prejudice, which tries to pull in both directions at once. He's the Jeremy Clarkson of video game critique. Apart from the fact that Clarkson is probably above average at driving cars. Still, he's similar in that he's a lazy loudmouthed rabble-rouser who preys on his audience's sense of entitlement. And that's why I don't watch The Jimquisition.
×
×
  • 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.