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…
When asked what he believed to be significant for younger people, Baginski replied: “Just emotions. Just pure emotions. A bare emotional mix. Those people grew up on TikTok and YouTube, they jump from video to video.”
So basically It’s Gen Z that he couldn’t create an interesting plot from the source material
I seem to have a differing opinion here but I love long games if it is actually full of good content.
I don't play games with micro transactions and find a lot of open world games to be full of time wasters. If that's all it is then sure cut that out.
But with games costing $70 I would feel like I wasted my money for only a 10+ hour experience like some comments are wanting. That can be done in a single day. Assassin Creed games really aren't meant to be replayed either.
Games with lots of replayabilty are such good value and keep me entertained for hundreds or even thousands of hours. Games like Civilization, Persona 5, Zelda, Elder Scrolls, GTA, Metal Gear, old school Final Fantasy, Roller Coaster Tycoon, Xcom, Command and Conquer, Colonization, etc.
Maybe it's more a sign of modern games being full of stuff that isn't fun? Boring extremely limited NPC's, lots of wandering with nothing to do but collect some useless thing. In that case I agree with all the other comments but instead of wishing for a shorter game I would wish for a better game that is fun to play for long periods of time.
I paid full price for Jedi Survivor, and minus a couple (somewhat big) bugs, I feel like I got my money’s worth after I finished the story. I think it took me around 60-ish hours to get to 99%
I'm currently on my second playthrough of the original Fallen Order and while I got the game for free I'd say it's worth full 60$. It's a great intriduction to the souls-like games for someone new to the genre
The brand suffers because people care about it. If no one cared, the brand would just wither and die, forgotten, like so many others have. This seems obvious enough that I really have to wonder, did you ask this question because you're actually surprised, or because you want to portray some weird image of being above all this?
eurogamer.net
Ważne