honestly, i started the demo, and while the gameplay wasn’t bad, the characters and story didn’t grab me at all, and i lost interest almost immediately. maybe i’ll snag it in a year or two, after the GOTY, during a sale
Yeah but MG is WAY older @ 1987 vs GoW in 2005 and ES in 1994.
Metal Gear Solid was one of the best games on the original PlayStation. I haven’t been into consoles since the PS2. Metal Gear Solid was so good compared to anything else at the time, the idea it is only at 60M now, seems like a major fumble and lack of management. I guess it is like Metroid for being underdeveloped or given to idiots “with a new vision” like in the case of Metroid.
I mean technically the first was was 1987, but the first 2 games were not super big, and unless you count the weird NES port, only came out in Japan. the first actually big title didn’t come out until 1998. Also definitely do not agree on that Metroid assertion. I thought dread was outstanding. And I am pretty sure its the best selling game in the franchise
I loved Dread and Prime 2. I tried playing Super Metroid on switch, but the controls are just too poor to pull off the advanced combination moves with the slow low quality emulation. I’m disappointed that there are not a dozen Metroid titles on the switch. Everything in the Prime series should be ported.
I’m mostly referring to the long hiatus(es) before Dread, and all of the nonsense from developers other than Retro Studio. I understand they were probably in a funky position when it came to writing and coding for a new 3D engine after all of the Prime series had played out the life of the prior engine. IMO, the entire SDK for Nintendo hardware should account for key franchise titles like Metroid. These games should have story boards and plans from first light of new hardware. The plans should always include classic titles too. My biggest complaint about Nintendo is the low quality of most titles on the platform. They are too focused on recruiting developers instead of quality games. Sure there are some great games like BotW, TotK, and Dread, but I’m not going sifting through all the junk in their store to try and find anything else worth playing. I got a couple of titles that a lot of people recommended, and hated them with no recourse and they cost as much as good games. I would have paid for and played all of the Prime series if it had been ported, but Nintendo totally fails at maintaining their legacy titles effectively. It is this lack of availability now, and the stupid fumble of letting extra developers with their own forked vision into the franchise that I am calling a fumbled opportunity.
Fair enough. I definitely agree that I wish some of their franchises were treated better. Metroid Dread I am hoping is a return to regular games for that series, and Pikmin 4 which I recently finished is also amazing. Not everything is great but there is still some stellar stuff
Look at this clown! First, they came out saying they weren’t even fans of the material. You have Henry Cavil in the lead role who is a super fan of the source materials arguing with you and the writers about the show. And then you finish it off by blaming the audience for your decisions. Mind you, the audience you have ultimately attracted is largely influenced by the decisions you have made throughout the production of YOUR show. The audience didn’t make this show, YOU did
If you're the executive producer, it's your fault that your team members fucked it up. If you cannot find a competent writer to properly express nuance on the screen, it's still your fault. You hired the wrong person to adapt the books. You are the boss, the final say, the one-ass-to-kick when things go wrong. The Witcher is not some nuanced story about regional distinctions in low-visibility communities told in short form, which seems to be his only acclaimed experience, followed by several production failures.
This entire interview comes down to "those lazy zoomers don't know how to appreciate good film." From the description of his past, massive failures it appears to be a problem with his process and ability, not an audience problem.
They still haven’t? I bought the game on Mac years ago. I had the latest MBP at the time, the last intel machine before they announced the M class chips, and the game just couldn’t run. I contacted squeenix and they refused to refund me. Basically said it was wine’s fault my computer wasn’t supported despite advertising Mac on their website.
I ended up playing through the game in PlayStation, but I had assumed they would have got it working on the m class chips by now.
The community-made XIV on Mac launcher/compatibility layer has better performance than the official client, and works on Intel Macs with AMD GPUs and all Apple Silicon Macs! I play it on a recent MacBook Air and it's extremely smooth:
I just hope it doesn’t mean more of SE prioritising growing the playerbase over retaining vets. I’m pretty new myself, but the homegenisation of jobs (especially healers, dear god) is clearly not good for the long-term health of the game.
I would disagree; if the jobs weren’t homogenized, then the game would be very difficult to balance. That causes metas to spring up, which causes everyone to jump from the underpowered jobs to the overpowered jobs, and then they react very badly when a balancing patch is released, and the meta changes due to nerfs to popular jobs/buffs to unpopular jobs.
Beyond a certain point, you have to take a risk and say screw balance; otherwise you just make everything the same, and render jobs little more than cosmetic differences.
He's really blaming the execs and showrunner between the lines I think. Saying she had to "make tough decisions" means "she fucked up". It's Netflix and the showrunner who think they need to go to the lowest common denominator with scripts to appeal to Americans, especially hard fantasy/sci-fi. So he's kinda pissed at both groups really not just audiences.
It's a shame because other works like GOT 1-5 show the opposite. Go for complex, go for the source material, and audiences will be patient for it.
Then blame execs and showrunners, not the audience. American audiences are savvier than he thinks, just because he had one pitch that didn't fare well with American audiences doesn't mean that they won't embrace more complicated elements of The Witcher.
Plus it just sounds sad; blame audiences for something you, as a producer, can't effectively produce.
Simplifying is really different from what they did which is completely alter characters, unnecessarily kill off characters, introduce new plots that didn't exist, etc. The Lord of the Rings movies, and the recent Dune movie both did a lot of that but are considered fantastic adaptations. Even Game of Thrones was an excellent adaptation for the first ~5 seasons and had huge mass market appeal while still being complex.
man the dune movie was so interesting sounding and watching it was such a … idk… it was an experience. There was so much stuff that seemed so loosely strung together to the point of feeling almost baffling. I wouldn’t think LoTR or early GoT are comparable?
You might need to go back and watch it again. I had a completely different experience, and I found the plot rather cohesive. It's one of the best movies I've ever seen in my opinion.
I felt like Dune needed some prior knowledge of the books to really follow the plot. Not because the plot wasn’t cohesive, but because so much plot was condensed into a movie that was already 2 and half hours long. It’s not the fault of the movie, the book is just dense. But it does end up disorienting for the average viewer who can’t instantly adjust their understanding of the universe to fully follow the plot.
That's fair. I never read the books or even watched the original movie, but I do have fans in my circle that have given me a bit of an indirect knowledge of the Duniverse. Even still, the acting, the cinematography, the music, everything in this movie is just amazing to me.
Right… It’s the audience’s fault and not the show runners who outright refused to follow the books and games leading to the star of the show leaving. 🙄
Season 2 (“Book 1” in the US), I agree made some TERRIBLE changes, especially around Yennifer’s relationship with Ciri.
Having just finished Season 3, however, I feel like they mostly pulled back into following the book’s major plotlines. Sure, a TV show makes some concessions on content, but overall I felt it followed the books “okay”. Everything that happened in Thanedd was close, and everything after that too, in the final 3 episodes. Rience was the strangest change to me, since that doesn’t happen for several books and it’s Ciri’s doing.
Does the general public agree? Or are we still so mad about Season 2 that we refuse to see Season 3 positively?
This. I see no point in investing any more of time in this show. Netflix needs to fire everybody, pull every episode from existence, and just start over with people who actually care about the source material and are willing to invest the time, effort, and respect to do it right.
Yeah, fair, but I didn’t like the first season, either. Cavill was perfect, Joey Batey as Dandelion was… fine… and that is where the positives stopped. The show was a mess from the start and you can’t just erase those seasons if they did happen to do a little better on 3… and knowing that Cavill is out for season 4… there is just no point. I’d rather replay Witcher 3 again than ever watch another minute of that show.
oof, you just reminded me - Dandelion in season 3 was… not as good as Season 1/2. Even down to the detail that every time he came on screen, my wife demanded to know what they did with his hair. That, and the strangely unnecessary sex scenes with another male.
ok ok, season 3 wasnt perfect either. but I was “surprised” that the big events at Aretuza and the major events afterward all followed the book rather closely…
Yeah, it looks pretty bad from that list. It may not be quite as bad in practice - some of them may have their name attached because, for instance, they co-own a production company where only person is involved but all three co-owners get their names on the credits. And some of them may be involved on the technical side, some for the story side, some just for financing, etc.
But even so, that looks like far too many names to have any kind of coherent vision.
eurogamer.net
Aktywne