Oomoog the Ecstatic

I shouldn't be making memes. Here's one for the Star Wars fans,

Just got around to watching 2 series, and what a contrast in quality.. The Boys - Superheroes I guess is an important subject with people for some reason. The show has a slightly interesting twist on a concept that is unfortunately loaded with shallow direction, predictable story with not much connective world-building, and some utterly bad character-development. It feels like the plot's driving the characters, not the other way around. I have seen much better writing and direction in films that the public would dub "mediocre." I think one critic spoke succinctly when he said the title The Boys is in reference to its target audience. If people weren't so captivated by superheroes I think they would find the show to be hot air. Mr. Robot - This show, by comparison, has brilliant direction and enticing character-development, much more intelligible world-building, and its most notable quality is only showing and saying what needs to inspire its story. The kind of show I feel invested in the interwoven fabric of its psychology which paints its narrative conflicts in a fluid suspense, the way each reflects on their circumstance in order to drive the plot, instead of the plot driving them, illustrating the ideal transformation into its new self, and I don't quite want to let them go when the show ends. It's a well-made show.

I don't have much issue with the series. Only good things.

When I was child, I thought the candy that's pill-shaped might be healthy 4 me.

Window ghost b creepin. She might even b peepin but she definitely creepin.

I'm not overly obsessed with Zelda music. But, I haven't heard this in years and I started lying down on my bed... and these voices came from nowhere in my head! 1:10

Sounds like the beginning of Alien.

No politics, Mr. Big.

I know! Hollywood's "soft heart" endings That little shit should've been tortured and killed by Lenny and Marv. Finally someone seeing it my way.

He's okay. There's much better out there musically. So to contribute to this thread, I'm going to appreciate the guy's face and accent: Hans, your face is not too bad, and I could fall asleep to your voice bro! Keep up the ace work!

Macaulay Culkin's middle name is also Macaulay Culkin. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnet.com/google-amp/news/macaulay-culkin-has-a-new-middle-name-picked-by-the-internet/

I always say 3:11 is Williams's best melody of the 21st century, but this particular moment I find catchiest because while dynamics and reverb are increased to epic-sounding proportions, what's comparatively striking is the playfulness of accentuated rhythm and bounciness in certain dynamics, sticking that bone right in at 3:16. BAAAAaa

I was looking back at the last page thinking, if I want real intensity, I'll have those flutes at 0:24 and 0:44

0:28 - 1:06

I agree that Interstellar lacks balls (although the interpretation of what that actually means I'm sure differs between us), however I thought the film as an original experience was terrific and refreshing, slightly overrated, but definitely a keeper for the hall of fame. Not as "stellar" as Memento or The Dark Knight, but much better than that "The Matrix wannabe" with that watanabe guy. Actually, turns out I made this post just to segue into The Matrix. Great film. Has anyone seen it? Oooh, what if Guy Pearce starred as Neo? Just... entertaining that thought. A thought experiment. Guy Pearce makes everything better.

Blade Runner 2049 is insane and one of my favorite movies to this day, but I actually fell asleep during Arrival both times I watched it. I think the best films often take their time to tell a story, even a more moderate example like the introduction of Star Wars IV, but the depth:slowness ratio of Arrival wasn't up to my Lynch standards. I think I got the majority of the film though, decent experience.

Sounds like a lot of my old compositions but much much worse. I love MIDI soundfonts, the compositions are very intelligible and crisp.

Okesutora

Love how romantically irritated the oboe sounds at 2:34. Like straight out of a Disney movie; beautiful.

You cannot fight it. Give in.

Don't know about you guys, but "The Ring Goes South" had the perfect amount of tension for the Sarlacc Pit fight. I love Bernstein and all his works.

Not sure you have an extent of what I'm talking about, so you might be right. Not worth it. I wouldn't consider myself a gamer either, at least not anymore. Currently there are much more interesting things to do in life than be part of an industry so cyclical and predictable, but there will always be games I shan't forget.

I understand your desires to "move around" everywhere, but I think you veered way off here. I personally have tiny inkling of where your response is coming from, at least based on what I wrote. Your quick summary of Adventure games, insisting I prefer to point and click at things, is not only incorrect, but has very little to do with the vastness of what these games actually achieve and are focused on: Of course we'd like full control of our character, everyone likes bigger games. But that's a very limited concept of what games accomplish as a holistic experience and great world-building. It's terrible I have to explain this to someone who's so enriched in the culture of video games. Movement isn't a gameplay design, it's a mechanic that allows you to achieve the intended design, the way mechanics let you capture your thinking capacity for story and let you solve a world of interconnections. You actually have to have good gameplay first before you provide extra movement, or else you're left with the above game, a repetitive combat with very little mental or imaginative value. The average Joe doesn't understand game design theory. Let me ask, why don't I have the player freedom to talk to enemies in most games and convince them we should do something else? Why don't I have intricate mental scenarios with NPCs by always exploring around figuring really cool story puzzles out? Isn't that just as much a limitation to your "immersion" as running around like an idiot slashing things? Don't mind my oversimplification, I'll tell you the answer: Superficial limitations like area, movement, or extra character dialogues, etc. (I can list many limitations) are the best way to first create a meaningful gameplay structure; you first form the 1s and the 0s of your design, focus in on your intended purpose for a game only (which is what combat games do, and exactly what Cage did,) then, if you have the funding you now expand the game with more player movement or things to do, not just for having traditional mechanical movement for the sake of traditional mechanical movement. You need the quality gameplay first before you provide movement into dead space. This idea has no bearing on whether open world games down-the-line should be focused on trite combat and killing (moving a character around with much less purpose or intelligence behind its gameplay), or if open world games should be focused in on deep story puzzles, world-building, story-solving and detective-ing, while providing full movement. Here, I'm not sure you comprehended the sheer importance and breadth of my comments, but you can reread this sentence I wrote in the last post: Your stark defense of "moving around" being equal with "immersion" doesn't really impress or do much for me, but it's your opinion. Cage could have easily created an open world game with the same story-puzzle mechanics that manifest when you go into areas, if (a) he had the funding for that and (b) that was actually necessary. To me, your association of full-movement with immersion is a cop-out in understanding the essentials of good game design. If your ideal passion for real immersion tends toward "fighting monsters or shooting bad guys, running around or driving vehicles" then more power to you lol. Honestly, that's a decent means point to have in some parts of a good game. But when it comes to spending all developer time on a game that tries to achieve something deeper and more mentally engaging in the industry, it starts becoming much harder and more worthy to design such a game, and much more noble of an effort. So yes, I give Tim Schafer, as well as the original founders of adventure games, all the credit to what the industry is today--because the rest mostly just rely on abuse of technological advancement we already had, and filler, and the money they're given, as far as I'm concerned. With this technological advancement of bigger games with more mechanical capacity, the funding should be put in the hands of much better game designers who can use it, but that's not the way the world works. The common Joe buying games doesn't understand how game design actually works, that you need a great gameplay idea first before you publish just a simulator of cutscenes and polished mechanics. The latter has nothing to do with real immersion. Luckily for you, gaming is just a hobby, so you can afford down-the-road to get bored of the utter crap you meaningfully think right now is "immersive." I have no problems criticizing the game industry as a whole because it's not my thing. If I want, I can play some VR or real adventure games, stuff that actually does something in one's life and teaches lessons. Here's my impression of the average gamer right now.

A lot of the gameplay/things you need to do in Detroit were a lot more superficial compared to Heavy Rain. Heavy's actions/explorations unfolded really well into a meaningful story progression every moment I thought, where as the former was more like filler background exploration. Imo the directing of Heavy was much better. I myself don't really see the voice-acting complaint, similar to fps, it's more of a superficial technological facet. Subjectively however, I highly prefer the atmosphere, and characters, of Heavy, the gripping mystery of all the suspenseful areas and moments, portraying the world in a new 'detective spiritualism' lens and bringing a lot to immersion; it was very immersive. Compared to most games where what you need to do is just predictable: go here, kill these things, equip weapon, watch cutscene--that's not my definition of immersion in any sense. But it's to have something you're actually engaging your mind and imagination in, solving/exploring something real. I think there are much better games, various point and clicks, but for an experimental noir/murder adventure there's not too many flaws to harp on because most games have way more flaws: As I pointed out, do mundane repetitive stuff like kill and run around, the biggest most-overlooked flaw there is, because when a game finally does something different for a change, its flaws automatically contrast with the industry flaw we accept, and we're quick to attack the new stuff. However it's the repetitive gaming today that's creating all these lesser problems for inventive games that are actually trying to test, evolve and progress the niche into something more workable. Unfortunately right now, it seems with the better off-genres there are just as many backsteps as there have been forward steps, and it's all due to the way govt and capitalism are set up.