ThunderPeel2001

t7Z8w_unTU4 Also linky: http://universesandbox.com/

Here's how I see things: Everybody, whether they like or dislike something, should be able to understand why someone else likes or dislikes something. So if I love Star Wars, I should be able to appreciate that some of the dialogue is corny. And if I hate Star Wars, I should be able to appreciate what others see in it. Why? Because there are worthy things about that film (e.g. John Williams's score, the special effects, etc.), and if I refused to see them I'd be just another YouTube commenter spouting mindless hate into the universe. I generally find that the only reason why people dislike things is because the flaws (and everything has flaws) outweigh the good things for them. Likewise, if someone thinks something is good, they are usually very aware of a thing's flaws, but they don't care, because the positive attributes more than make up for them. (For example: Even the most ardent Star Wars fan would hopefully acknowledge its clunky dialogue; they're just not bothered by it.) You may agree with that, but you may wonder why should anyone would go further, and attempt to like something that they struggle so much to enjoy? I'll answer that with a question: If I don't like Citizen Kane, does that mean it's a bad movie? The answer is, I hope you agree, "of course not". So (if what I said before is true) if I can't enjoy Citizen Kane, it's either because: a) I fully appreciate its strengths, but its flaws are too much for my personal tastes, or I don't fully appreciate its strengths, so its flaws overwhelm my experience. If the case is , then I have failed. My palate is not sophisticated enough to be able to appreciate its positive attributes, so I should try harder to find them -- because they definitely exist. It's my own personal failing if I can't see them. If it seems like the case is a), then I'd like to know that I fully understand where its strengths are, and its flaws are, so I know it's not . With this in mind, I'm still trying to understand where Half-Life's strengths and flaws are. It's not often that I encounter something as universally revered as Half-Life (and, man, is it revered -- it's practically the Citizen Kane of games, at least in terms of critical response) and be completely unable to appreciate it. It's something that's bugged and irritated me since it was first released -- not least because I want to have the same awesome experience that everyone else is enjoying (dammit)! This time around has been a massive progression for me, thankfully though. For the first time I can see some of its positive attributes. I did pick up on the "survival horror" tone, and I definitely (for the first time ever) appreciated the "all in one level"/"real-time" game design, too. But I've apparently still to hit upon the flaws that we all can agree on.

This time with 100% less "Director's Cut"... http://www.dotemu.com/en/download-game/753/broken-sword-2-the-smoking-mirror-remastered I'd like to play, oh yes!

Yes, I meant for other platforms. I'm waiting for the PC version myself, but I imagine the iPad version is just around the corner. Only in a world where time moves backwards.

Sah-weet! Looking forward to watching this, thanks for sharing

This caused me harm (It became an episode of the A-Team towards the end, I note.)

Damn, that was excellent.

Hurrah for Donald Trump! Excellent comedy fodder. Even better when he doesn't laugh.

Well, I tried giving Half-Life another go. I can appreciate how immersive it tries to be, and how that separates it from a more traditional shooter (it really does, in hindsight, feel very unique). I got as far as the giant blue monster that you have to kill with the electricity generator (right before the tram bit, and after the blast pit with the "hearing monsters"). But I still didn't enjoy it, and I can't even be totally sure why. I think I just don't enjoy the world of Half-Life. I don't enjoy the "puzzles" it presents to me. I don't get any satisfaction from killing baddies. I don't get any satisfaction from spending 20 mins taking the "long way round" to get to the other side of a door I can't open. I don't enjoy having to make annoying jumps, or pushing crates, or breaking crates. I don't even enjoy the "tone" of the world. It's not funny (to me) and the world itself has little or no personality (I get so sick of corridors). I find that there's no real sense of progression, either. I feel like there's no sense of getting closer or further away from a perceived goal. (I never got a sense of excitement when I finally made it outside, or one of disappointment when I was forced back underground.) Even the "set-pieces", which sound good in theory, are very boring to me as I play them. And taking out each new "wave" of bad guys makes me feel little or no satisfaction, either. Especially if I get hosed and reload until I do well enough to continue. I appreciate that it has plenty to praise. Plenty of things which set it apart from the average shooter, even now. The idea of one "giant" level is pretty amazing, plus the idea that everything is unfolding in "real-time", as you try to escape, is compelling and unique, but I can't get away from the fact that I don't get any sense of enjoyment or satisfaction from playing Half-Life. I wish I could figure out exactly what it is that I don't like about it (as it seems I'm pretty much in a minority of 1, and I'm not even sure that fans of the game appreciate my dislikes -- even if they think the pros outweigh them). Any ideas?

I'm sure a remastered version of BASS is coming... at least, I hope it is. What did you make of the achievements? I read somewhere that BS2: RM has achievements, is that true? Also: I don't think prequel means what you think it means

It's just a really great book. True, the sequels stank, but that's a separate issue. "Reality" has never been that important when it comes to sci-fi, or even fiction. I guess it's great escapism. Plus some of the philosophy is relatable.

I was working as a tester at Sony. A very strange day.

Yeah, they did the same with Hitler.

Cool. Thanks for that guys. Good to get an understanding of where it sits in the sci-fi spectrum. All I can think is that Firefly is next. But I think that for everyone. Lol.

The Extraordinary Adventures of Adele Blanc-Sanc Highly enjoyable, child-like romp. Luc Besson's best film since Leon (or The Fifth Element, if you thought that was good). Also, a question: My mum has just (to my amazement) become a huge Star Trek Voyager fan. She's never enjoyed a sci-fi show in her life. So weird, but I was wondering if someone could give me the skinny. Is it any good? Does it start off good and get worse? Is it one of the better Star Trek shows? What other shows might she now like? Thanks! I'm totally ignorant of ST.

A ballsy thread, Ben. I approve It'd be great if someone could off a real world example of AV.

I'd be up for playing through it again, but it'd probably be crappy to go through it with someone who's played it before.

I'll get the pitchforks.

Winning!

Ooh! I knew it would come in handy.

Aye, well I didn't say it was the only thing it had going for it, but I doubt I'd have recommended it to anyone if it hadn't had Downey's performance.

Yeah, I just edited my message while you were writing your reply. It's not a totally fair criticism, that's true, but my point was that Iron Man didn't have that much going for it aside from a funny performance from Downey. And if you're feeling a little Downey fatigued, as I am, it's not all that much fun. That's what I was trying to say.

No, I meant the actor, not the character. Downey Jr was essentially playing himself in Iron Man, and he definitely lifted the film. Like Johnny Depp in Pirates. If Tony Stark had been played by someone else (e.g. Matt Damon or Bradley Cooper), I don't think the rest of the film would have much left. With Thor the film still would have been good, as long as someone suitable played the lead. The Big Lebowski also had plenty going for it aside from Jeff Bridges's performance (although Bridges was perfect!). Limitless had nothing to say on a deeper level (and that was my primary issue with it). If it did and I missed it, I'd like to know, though. Source Code wasn't that profound, but it was marginally profound. It offered ways to deal with the challenges of life by making you see the world around you in a different way. The protagonist in Limitless just took a magic pill. It never bothered to answer the question, "But what if you're heartbroken, broke and blocked, and you DON'T have access to a magic pill. How do you find contentment then?" Limitless was slick and fun escapism, but no more than that. Source Code was fun sci-fi with a sliver of depth. That said, I think it did the sci-fi better, too. And I definitely identified with the main character more, so maybe it just matched my tastes better. (I also loved Moon.) Source Code would be in my favourite films of the year so far, and I saw it twice at the cinema, too (not just because I missed the first 10 mins ). I REALLY liked it.e

Yep, I thought that, too. It's such a cliché. (Sorry, Subbes.)

Again, I agree with your criticisms of the movie, but they don't detract from the parts that worked well. I could criticize Iron Man to hell and back (take out Smug Downey Jr., and you don't really have much left), but it wouldn't change the bits that did work. I can see this, Limitless was "fun", but Source Code was just so much better in so many ways. Better story, better characters, better dialogue. But the main reason it was better was because I felt more emotionally engaged by main character's story. And the film actually had something to say about the human condition, too. Limitless was fun, but that's all it was.