Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Jingers)
    Lincoln update for y'all:

    http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118036467

    Speilberg, Daniel Day Lewis, Joseph Gordon Levitt, Tommy Lee Jones, James Spader, John Hawkes and Hal Holbrook.
    Daniel Day-Lewis joined by Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Tommy Lee Jones? This just gets more and more immense. :excited:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I passed my biochem exam :woo:

    Celebrating by going to a musical tonight and seeing Thor on Sunday! :jive:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by Stray_talk)
    :lolwut:
    Do you have any links to the story, sounds oddly intriguing?!
    Yeah, the condition is what Phalanges has linked to. I don't have a link to the story that I read a few years ago. But I have found him (well, I think it's him) here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6936226.ece

    His name was Rom.

    (Original post by NikNakWakAtak)
    I saw a bit of Amelie in school once. In a French lesson. :rolleyes:

    Black Swan looks like Natalie Portman doing weird faces. At least, that's all I can remember from the trailer. Isn't Scarface loud, OTT and in-your-face. Like a Transformers version of Once Upon a Time in America or Road to Perdition?

    But I'll definitely watch Annie Hall, just to get what all the fuss about Woody Allen is. I've only seen Cassandra's Dream and that was awful. I'll check out Leon and Downfall as well.

    I saw your list; the only film you need to watch is Bicycle Thieves. Also, there's an obscure French film called Human Resources that's not on the list but is really good. It's £3 on Amazon or you can watch it on Youtube (without subtitles)
    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Human-Resour...pr_product_top

    Trailer doesn't have subtitles but it's basically about a blue collar family, where the father works in the factory and the son gets an internship with the head office. It explores class, family and employer-employee relations. The politics is a little heavy-handed but it's still very good.
    Amelie's awesome. Well, the narrator is. I've added Bicycle Thieves to my watch list, might also watch Human Resources. Talking of 'obscure' French films, you should check out Timecrimes. Brilliant concept, well, it's a dark time travel film. It's good.

    (Original post by Stray_talk)
    I really can't see The Hangover 2 being any good. Someone prove me wrong!
    The first one was one of those films which wasn't particularly funny at all. Actually, they seemed to have split most people - some found it hilarious and others didn't laugh once. Hangover 2 has the same formula, judging by what we've seen through the trailer but it will no doubt be on of these films worth a watch when there is nothing else on and you're in the mood for mindless entertainment.

    (Original post by Phalanges)
    Hanna is the best acton thriller film I've seen since Bourne. Saoirse Ronan is a phenomenal actress; she will have an Oscar before she's 25, I guarantee it.

    After seeing such mediocre crap as Sucker Punch, Arthur, Scream 4, it feels so refreshing to see such a great film. Seriously, go and see it.
    That sounds promising. Was just listening to the interview with the director on Kermode last night. Looking forward to seeing this when exams are over.

    And you've changed your avatar. :sad:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by lukejoshjedi)
    and Phalanges, Scream 4 mediocre? :eek: well sadly I kinda agree with you, I really wanted it to be better but it was decidedly average imo, the end was slightly far out to say the least and I thought they could have used a lot of the characters more / developed them more
    He wrote on a review on it on his blog too. It explains the shortcomings a lot. And having watched the film, I completely agree with what he wrote.

    If they are even thinking of another one (which they will be contemplating), they need to step back and evaluate the franchise and how the genre has progressed. And if they do that, the wise decision would be to move onto a new franchise with a fresh take on the genre. It would certainly be more interesting than another Scream film.

    (Original post by MizzCupcakes)
    I passed my biochem exam :woo:

    Celebrating by going to a musical tonight and seeing Thor on Sunday! :jive:
    Well done, and have fun. :cute:
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ape Gone Insane)
    That sounds promising. Was just listening to the interview with the director on Kermode last night. Looking forward to seeing this when exams are over.

    And you've changed your avatar. :sad:
    I'll put up a review of it soon but yeah, it was amazing. It's the first film that I've wanted to go back to the cinema and watch again immediately after it ended since The Bourne Ultimatum, it just felt so exciting and like a real breath of fresh air. It's in the top three films I've seen this year, along with Inside Job and 127 Hours. There hasn't really been anything else I've seen which comes even close to the quality of those yet.

    I fancied a change, and given I've had more comments on my sig than any previous iteration by miles I thought it would be a bit cheap to change that so decided to go with the avatar. It's only going to be temporary as I don't like the animation as much; it's a bit too fast, although I still think it looks kind of cool. You not a fan?

    (Original post by lukejoshjedi)
    oh right, looks cool,you're gonna going to that?

    and Phalanges, Scream 4 mediocre? :eek: well sadly I kinda agree with you, I really wanted it to be better but it was decidedly average imo, the end was slightly far out to say the least and I thought they could have used a lot of the characters more / developed them more
    You're shocked and yet you agree? Scream 4 is pretty much the definition of forgettable. Looking back on it all I can really remember is how bad every single actor and actress was compared to Hayden Panettiere, and she's not particularly world class herself.

    (Original post by Ape Gone Insane)
    If they are even thinking of another one (which they will be contemplating), they need to step back and evaluate the franchise and how the genre has progressed. And if they do that, the wise decision would be to move onto a new franchise with a fresh take on the genre. It would certainly be more interesting than another Scream film.
    I think that the fourth instalment was originally planned as the start of a new trilogy. Given that information, the whole story they went with seems really bizarre - I could perhaps see the purpose behind having a new survivor and core cast, but killing all of the kids so you're just left with the old three is just such a cheap move. I guess it's because of the backlash they got after the second film, but really doesn't actually care about the main cast anymore? Not to mention that getting Cox and Arquette in the same film together, and playing a married couple, is going to be impossible in the future.

    If they were intent with doing the storyline they did, I think that
    Spoiler:
    Show
    having the film end with the girl successfully killing Sidney and convincing everyone that she was the survivor
    would have been a pretty interesting way to end it.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ape Gone Insane)
    Talking of 'obscure' French films, you should check out Timecrimes. Brilliant concept, well, it's a dark time travel film. It's good.
    But it's Spanish!
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mimimimi)
    But it's Spanish!
    Oh SNAP, did Ape get out-Aped? :mmm:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by Phalanges)
    I'll put up a review of it soon but yeah, it was amazing. It's the first film that I've wanted to go back to the cinema and watch again immediately after it ended since The Bourne Ultimatum, it just felt so exciting and like a real breath of fresh air. It's in the top three films I've seen this year, along with Inside Job and 127 Hours. There hasn't really been anything else I've seen which comes even close to the quality of those yet.
    Not even Black Swan and True Grit? High praise indeed. :holmes:

    I fancied a change, and given I've had more comments on my sig than any previous iteration by miles I thought it would be a bit cheap to change that so decided to go with the avatar. It's only going to be temporary as I don't like the animation as much; it's a bit too fast, although I still think it looks kind of cool. You not a fan?
    Nah, I love Portal (2). It's just when you're used to seeing a user with a particular avatar, if it changes it's strange. Like Cambo ditching his Pikachu avatar.

    If you change your mind and want a slower animation (normal, 0.15 and 0.2):



    EDIT: A shame each frame does not have a clear picture of the robot.

    I think that the fourth instalment was originally planned as the start of a new trilogy. Given that information, the whole story they went with seems really bizarre - I could perhaps see the purpose behind having a new survivor and core cast, but killing all of the kids so you're just left with the old three is just such a cheap move. I guess it's because of the backlash they got after the second film, but really doesn't actually care about the main cast anymore? Not to mention that getting Cox and Arquette in the same film together, and playing a married couple, is going to be impossible in the future.

    If they were intent with doing the storyline they did, I think that
    Spoiler:
    Show
    having the film end with the girl successfully killing Sidney and convincing everyone that she was the survivor
    would have been a pretty interesting way to end it.
    Spoiler:
    Show
    It would have been an interesting way to end, but I think they just wanted to establish that 'closure' that things have been dealt with and followed in the predictable path laid out by its predecessors.

    That ending you've put forward reminds me somewhat of The Hole (2001).
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by mimimimi)
    But it's Spanish!
    Oh crap. I fail.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ape Gone Insane)
    Not even Black Swan and True Grit? High praise indeed. :holmes:
    I found True Grit a little underwhelming to be honest. I knew I was forgetting some film, and while I can recognise that Black Swan was made with a lot of quality it didn't appeal to me as much as the other three, so I'd stand by my previous decision.

    However, as an addendum I'd say that if I saw The Way Back four days later (I think it was December 28th that I saw it), I'd have a very difficult job trying to choose between them.

    Nah, I love Portal (2). It's just when you're used to seeing a user with a particular avatar, if it changes it's strange. Like Cambo ditching his Pikachu avatar.

    If you change your mind and want a slower animation (normal, 0.15 and 0.2):



    EDIT: A shame each frame does not have a clear picture of the robot.
    Oh no, I think it needs to be that fast to have the same effect it's just that it's a bit distracting when I'm scrolling down the page, and I imagine it must be like that for other people as well. Thanks for the effort though.

    Spoiler:
    Show
    It would have been an interesting way to end, but I think they just wanted to establish that 'closure' that things have been dealt with and followed in the predictable path laid out by its predecessors.

    That ending you've put forward reminds me somewhat of The Hole (2001).
    Never seen The Hole, I don't think. Is it any good?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    I wish they didn't report or talk about every little aspect of the Dark Knight Rises. It's a bit too much, and too early. Everyone is analysing every insignificant detail, more so than you would for even Harry Potter.

    Also Dark Tower seems to be having some trouble over its budget. Not sure if that is good or bad news. :awesome:

    I like how, and several website have also picked this up, this seems to be At the Mountains of Madness all over again. A film which should have been made. Tom Cruise, Del Toro and James Cameron with an excellent R-rated horror. But they didn't take the risk. I have the feeling that this worry in potential film projects has stemmed from the box office failure of Scott Pilgrim vs. the World. Brilliant film, but performed poorly commercially for various reasons posted in the last thread. Universal a bit reluctant now.

    (Original post by Phalanges)
    I found True Grit a little underwhelming to be honest. I knew I was forgetting some film, and while I can recognise that Black Swan was made with a lot of quality it didn't appeal to me as much as the other three, so I'd stand by my previous decision.
    I think part of my appreciation for True Grit (acting and film quality aside) stems from the lack of Western films. Were you underwhelmed by the film itself (perhaps because of the hype), or the story (adapted from the book)?

    Never seen The Hole, I don't think. Is it any good?
    It's a fairly mediocre psychological thriller. One that should be watched when you have nothing else to watch really. Four teenagers getting trapped in an old bomb shelter and you watch their true colours emerge and how they begin to behave. Nothing I'd recommend as a must watch.

    On a slight tangent, I hope Portal 2 is on your games to play list for whenever you're free from exams and work. It's excellent.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    The Hole (2001) is the kind of film I watched when I was about 12 and thought "OH MY GOD THIS IS THE BEST FILM EVER." It then gets taken to and watched at every sleepover and every other 12 year old girl concurs.

    Then you watch it about 8 years later and you're like .
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ape Gone Insane)
    I wish they didn't report or talk about every little aspect of the Dark Knight Rises. It's a bit too much, and too early. Everyone is analysing every insignificant detail, more so than you would for even Harry Potter.
    There was a good talk on the /filmcast a little while back about the state of film blogging, where everyone is fighting for traffic and by posting some dumb crap about Batman you're guaranteed hits so by the time the tiniest inconsequential bit of information comes out it's been reported to death. I generally try and avoid all information of future films beyond what a film is, who is making it and why. I'd rather speculate blindly and then actually experience the finished article afresh.

    I'd hate to be working as an online film journalist. And the recent gutting of Cinematical by AOL shows that opinions and creativity aren't exactly valued any more. Film journalism online seems to be devolving into the very poor level of games journalism, which is very worrying.

    Also Dark Tower seems to be having some trouble over its budget. Not sure if that is good or bad news. :awesome:

    I like how, and several website have also picked this up, this seems to be At the Mountains of Madness all over again. A film which should have been made. Tom Cruise, Del Toro and James Cameron with an excellent R-rated horror. But they didn't take the risk. I have the feeling that this worry in potential film projects has stemmed from the box office failure of Scott Pilgrim vs. the World. Brilliant film, but performed poorly commercially for various reasons posted in the last thread. Universal a bit reluctant now.
    I wouldn't particularly ascribe it to Scott Pilgrim. After all there have been far bigger flops before (SP made back 75% of it's costs, which isn't a total disaster when you consider it will probably go on to make a fair whack of money on home release). I actually really respect Universal's approach when marketing that film - there were a thousand slyer ways they could have sold it to try and get more people in and yet they stayed true to the film and accepted it's niche audience in a way that other studios probably wouldn't have.

    I think part of my appreciation for True Grit (acting and film quality aside) stems from the lack of Western films. Were you underwhelmed by the film itself (perhaps because of the hype), or the story (adapted from the book)?
    It just felt pretty flat and uninspiring to me, probably due to the hype. Compared to other modern westerns like No Country For Old Men, There Will Be Blood and Assassination of Jesse James I didn't think it was as impressive, at least on first viewing.

    On a slight tangent, I hope Portal 2 is on your games to play list for whenever you're free from exams and work. It's excellent.
    I don't have access to games when I'm at Uni, but when I'm back I want to check it out, as it will probably be a bit cheaper and PSN might be alive again.

    It pissed me off actually - I was playing a bit of Fallout 3 just before I went back and exploring the DLC as I'd never played it before. Was going through the Mothership Zeta content and got stuck on a bug which would have been a bit time consuming to fix so I didn't get to see the resolution of that storyline.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aja89)
    The Hole (2001) is the kind of film I watched when I was about 12 and thought "OH MY GOD THIS IS THE BEST FILM EVER." It then gets taken to and watched at every sleepover and every other 12 year old girl concurs.

    Then you watch it about 8 years later and you're like .
    This is true... I really liked The Hole the first time I saw it, but then I saw it again when I was older and was like... Meh. Nothing special.

    Just to add to all the Portal talk, I'm knitting an awesome weighted companion cube as a surprise for my friend :cube: :u:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I saw SCRE4M earlier tonight - I thought it was really good! I'm not into slashers generally but I do have a soft spot for the Scream series :love:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by Phalanges)
    There was a good talk on the /filmcast a little while back about the state of film blogging, where everyone is fighting for traffic and by posting some dumb crap about Batman you're guaranteed hits so by the time the tiniest inconsequential bit of information comes out it's been reported to death. I generally try and avoid all information of future films beyond what a film is, who is making it and why. I'd rather speculate blindly and then actually experience the finished article afresh.
    You've got me interested in this discussion. I'm going to browse through their podcast release history and pick up a few interesting ones to listen to. Already spotted an entire episode dedicated to the soundtracks of 2010. :gah:

    Sometimes, with podcasts, you get to the point where you're tuning in more for the people speaking than for the actual content being discussed. I'm not sure if that's good or bad.

    I can relate to that (avoiding information), but it must be extremely hard to avoid information of future films. Going on a few prominent film websites and you have images and headlines plastered everywhere. Picking up the Empire or other film related magazine will always give you an in-depth look or preview into an upcoming film.

    I'd hate to be working as an online film journalist. And the recent gutting of Cinematical by AOL shows that opinions and creativity aren't exactly valued any more. Film journalism online seems to be devolving into the very poor level of games journalism, which is very worrying.
    I wouldn't agree with that. Well, I don't know the situation with Cinematical but as a whole I wouldn't say that opinions and creativity are valued any more. If a certain site has went down that path, as many publications do, then that doesn't mean that opinion and creativity in itself isn't valued any more. If you can't find it with your favourite critics, prominent film websites then you'll find it in the blogs. Enthusiastic reviewers offering an unbiased opinion, the film journalists of tomorrow. There's a famous quote someone at Microsoft said about looking at the individuals who are the most critical and creative and running independent blogs. Something along those lines. And that can be applied to journalism. Smaller websites prevail in terms of creativity, opinion and overall quality. These websites tend to have a very core and active audience who do value what they put forward and contribute. Maybe it's just the mainstream that doesn't value opinion, and would rather have some regurgitated opinion put on a silver platter, all dumbed down.

    But then, I'm not as familiar with the state of film journalism as you, so what I've said could just be a highly favourable outlook on things.

    Game journalism has always been shoddy, in the majority of cases. Can you even say that there are any legitimate journalists in the gaming industry? Information is so controlled that all you see is multiple stories on some press release or statement, over-reporting on the rumour mill or an in-depth analysis (done to death) of some event they've been to. We've asked Sony to comment on this issue is plastered on nearly every insignificant false rumour. And the response "We do not comment on rumours or speculation". But they still continue to churn out these rumours for the sake of gaining hits. Journalists are supposed to be separate, in practice, from the people and the stories they cover. In game journalism, you have them as best friends or advertising partners. A lot of websites are asked not to publish a review unless it is given a favourable review.

    I want to see more of this. There have a lot of embarrassments, I remember the controversy with Jeff Gerstmann where GameSpot fired him for a negative review (it was clear from the editors who left later) because of the pressure put on by the advertisers, who just happened to be the publishers of said game . There are some game journalists who I respect and whose opinion I value. But the majority of gaming websites are poor. You have to remember though, the gaming industry (compared to the film industry) is still in its relative infancy.

    If you're ever free (doubtful given exams), I'd recommend giving these articles a read and seeing what you think of them (agree or disagree). Coincidentally, I've had them bookmarked for a while:

    The Soapbox: Game "journalism" is not journalism (yet)
    The State of Game Journalism

    My other main problem is with game reviews, the ratings and significance of numbers. This isn't so much a problem with films as it is with games. Fanboys are transfixed by the number rating that a reviewer will hand out. They skip past the entire written review (be it 2 or 3 pages) just to read out the number. This is reflected to some extent with Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic in films, but it seems worse when it comes to gaming. You shouldn't be attaching a number to a review. If people want to read a review, they should read the words. Not jump to the (arbitrary) number. The true value of the game or film is reflected in the words. That's my main gripes with gaming reviews. But a number rating is implemented anyway, so people can go and compare one game to another game which is totally different, but operates on the same rating scale. I don't have a problem with websites that take all the ratings, or derive a rating from the content of the review, and compile them together. But just this fixation that so many people have (including myself at some time in the past) with the number rating a single game will get.

    Note: I think that's an incoherent ramble and I've taken the subject on a complete tangent. It's late and I'm tired. You can just ignore all that.

    I wouldn't particularly ascribe it to Scott Pilgrim. After all there have been far bigger flops before (SP made back 75% of it's costs, which isn't a total disaster when you consider it will probably go on to make a fair whack of money on home release). I actually really respect Universal's approach when marketing that film - there were a thousand slyer ways they could have sold it to try and get more people in and yet they stayed true to the film and accepted it's niche audience in a way that other studios probably wouldn't have.
    Hm, but I wish they would have taken the risk with At the Mountains of Madness. You have two strong people on board (Del Toro and James Cameron) and Tom Cruise. I'm not sure how well R-rated horrors perform, since they've sectioned off a large chunk of the audience, I'll hazard a guess at 'poorly'. But Del Toro seemed intent on making it R-rated or not at all. Now he's making some other substitute film.

    I don't have access to games when I'm at Uni, but when I'm back I want to check it out, as it will probably be a bit cheaper and PSN might be alive again.

    It pissed me off actually - I was playing a bit of Fallout 3 just before I went back and exploring the DLC as I'd never played it before. Was going through the Mothership Zeta content and got stuck on a bug which would have been a bit time consuming to fix so I didn't get to see the resolution of that storyline.
    Watch it on Youtube perhaps? A poor substitution, but a resolution nonetheless.

    And there's always New Vegas (if you haven't tried it yet), improves upon Fallout 3 in nearly every way.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by mimimimi)
    Just to add to all the Portal talk, I'm knitting an awesome weighted companion cube as a surprise for my friend :cube: :u:
    It goes without saying, your friend is lucky. I want a weighted companion cube. :sad:

    Spoiler:
    Show
    Still carry the guilt
    Spoiler:
    Show
    of killing mine :cry2:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ape Gone Insane)
    It goes without saying, your friend is lucky. I want a weighted companion cube. :sad:

    Spoiler:
    Show
    Still carry the guilt
    Spoiler:
    Show
    of killing mine :cry2:
    :rip:

    If my friend likes it, I might go nuts and make loads of them...
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ape Gone Insane)
    You've got me interested in this discussion. I'm going to browse through their podcast release history and pick up a few interesting ones to listen to. Already spotted an entire episode dedicated to the soundtracks of 2010. :gah:

    Sometimes, with podcasts, you get to the point where you're tuning in more for the people speaking than for the actual content being discussed. I'm not sure if that's good or bad.
    It was After Dark Episode 143, I believe. I usually listen all the way through based on the movie they chose and if it's something I'm not interested in I'll just listen to half of it (if I've got time of course).

    I can relate to that (avoiding information), but it must be extremely hard to avoid information of future films. Going on a few prominent film websites and you have images and headlines plastered everywhere. Picking up the Empire or other film related magazine will always give you an in-depth look or preview into an upcoming film.
    It's a little different with Empire. I don't mind reading their previews as they almost never spoil details of the plot etc. Speaking of Empire, have you heard of their next issue as I know you're a Harry Potter fan? It's going to be dedicated to the Potter saga, with interviews from everyone involved.

    I wouldn't agree with that. Well, I don't know the situation with Cinematical but as a whole I wouldn't say that opinions and creativity are valued any more. If a certain site has went down that path, as many publications do, then that doesn't mean that opinion and creativity in itself isn't valued any more. If you can't find it with your favourite critics, prominent film websites then you'll find it in the blogs. Enthusiastic reviewers offering an unbiased opinion, the film journalists of tomorrow. There's a famous quote someone at Microsoft said about looking at the individuals who are the most critical and creative and running independent blogs. Something along those lines. And that can be applied to journalism. Smaller websites prevail in terms of creativity, opinion and overall quality. These websites tend to have a very core and active audience who do value what they put forward and contribute. Maybe it's just the mainstream that doesn't value opinion, and would rather have some regurgitated opinion put on a silver platter, all dumbed down.
    Yes, there are independent blogs that put out good content - Mendelson's Memos is a particularly fine example. The problem is that the longer you do something for free, the harder it will be to find someone to pay you for it. Whereas sites which get the highest traffic will be those pandering to these vacuous crumbs of "news", which is so derivative. There are some exceptions where the sites feature a lot of freelance work, like /film and like cinematical used to.

    Game journalism has always been shoddy, in the majority of cases. Can you even say that there are any legitimate journalists in the gaming industry? Information is so controlled that all you see is multiple stories on some press release or statement, over-reporting on the rumour mill or an in-depth analysis (done to death) of some event they've been to. We've asked Sony to comment on this issue is plastered on nearly every insignificant false rumour. And the response "We do not comment on rumours or speculation". But they still continue to churn out these rumours for the sake of gaining hits. Journalists are supposed to be separate, in practice, from the people and the stories they cover. In game journalism, you have them as best friends or advertising partners. A lot of websites are asked not to publish a review unless it is given a favourable review.

    I want to see more of this. There have a lot of embarrassments, I remember the controversy with Jeff Gerstmann where GameSpot fired him for a negative review (it was clear from the editors who left later) because of the pressure put on by the advertisers, who just happened to be the publishers of said game . There are some game journalists who I respect and whose opinion I value. But the majority of gaming websites are poor. You have to remember though, the gaming industry (compared to the film industry) is still in its relative infancy.

    If you're ever free (doubtful given exams), I'd recommend giving these articles a read and seeing what you think of them (agree or disagree). Coincidentally, I've had them bookmarked for a while:

    The Soapbox: Game "journalism" is not journalism (yet)
    The State of Game Journalism

    My other main problem is with game reviews, the ratings and significance of numbers. This isn't so much a problem with films as it is with games. Fanboys are transfixed by the number rating that a reviewer will hand out. They skip past the entire written review (be it 2 or 3 pages) just to read out the number. This is reflected to some extent with Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic in films, but it seems worse when it comes to gaming. You shouldn't be attaching a number to a review. If people want to read a review, they should read the words. Not jump to the (arbitrary) number. The true value of the game or film is reflected in the words. That's my main gripes with gaming reviews. But a number rating is implemented anyway, so people can go and compare one game to another game which is totally different, but operates on the same rating scale. I don't have a problem with websites that take all the ratings, or derive a rating from the content of the review, and compile them together. But just this fixation that so many people have (including myself at some time in the past) with the number rating a single game will get.

    Note: I think that's an incoherent ramble and I've taken the subject on a complete tangent. It's late and I'm tired. You can just ignore all that.
    I believe that you can judge a medium by it's journalism, which is why I think games have such a long way to go before they are a credible art form. I think the biggest issue with videogame reviewing isn't so much that they are numerical, but that the scale is so warped - a 7 is considered bad for god's sake. Not to mention the amount of partisan hackery that goes on, could you imagine if Roger Ebert wrote for a magazine called The Warner Bros. Viewer?

    Also the reviews (from the little I've seen) seem obsessed with objectivity, and breaking it down into areas. You cannot review something as subjective as entertainment objectively, it just doesn't work. There's little mention of the game as a whole, and little detail outside consumer advice. The best reviewers should be talking about the context and the themes of the game, how it works and doesn't work and making their reviews more.

    All that said, there's one website I think there's some games journalism. I don't know if you've heard of it, but it's called The Escapist. They publish a weekly online magazine around a certain theme and there really is some analysis and subjectivity and storytelling there, which is good to see. So yeah, check them out if you fancy it. Also there Extra Credits videos are just about the best content I've ever heard regarding games. There movie reviewer is pretty crap though.

    Hm, but I wish they would have taken the risk with At the Mountains of Madness. You have two strong people on board (Del Toro and James Cameron) and Tom Cruise. I'm not sure how well R-rated horrors perform, since they've sectioned off a large chunk of the audience, I'll hazard a guess at 'poorly'. But Del Toro seemed intent on making it R-rated or not at all. Now he's making some other substitute film.
    I dunno, Saw opened as an R and that has to be one of the most profitable horror films of all time. In this case I'm not aware with the source material though.

    Watch it on Youtube perhaps? A poor substitution, but a resolution nonetheless.

    And there's always New Vegas (if you haven't tried it yet), improves upon Fallout 3 in nearly every way.
    Meh, I'll wait until I get back (and have inevitably forgotten all of the events leading up to that point :p:). I haven't bothered with NV yet, it looked too buggy to be enjoyable.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by Phalanges)
    It was After Dark Episode 143, I believe. I usually listen all the way through based on the movie they chose and if it's something I'm not interested in I'll just listen to half of it (if I've got time of course).
    Downloading... :teeth:

    I appreciate podcasts who put work into the schedule thing of what goes on in the episode, or roughly what is discussed. Most don't bother.

    It's a little different with Empire. I don't mind reading their previews as they almost never spoil details of the plot etc. Speaking of Empire, have you heard of their next issue as I know you're a Harry Potter fan? It's going to be dedicated to the Potter saga, with interviews from everyone involved.
    I have not, I must admit. Been out of the loop. And it's free with the next issue. But from the piece on the website, it sounds interesting. Not a huge fan of the films.

    Yes, there are independent blogs that put out good content - Mendelson's Memos is a particularly fine example. The problem is that the longer you do something for free, the harder it will be to find someone to pay you for it. Whereas sites which get the highest traffic will be those pandering to these vacuous crumbs of "news", which is so derivative. There are some exceptions where the sites feature a lot of freelance work, like /film and like cinematical used to.
    Well in this day and age, hits and views seem to be everything to the major sites. They track the views each article gets, spot a trend and put more effort into similar coverage. In some sites, they even employ freelancers permanently when a space opens up/if they're popular. There should be more of that.

    I believe that you can judge a medium by it's journalism, which is why I think games have such a long way to go before they are a credible art form. I think the biggest issue with videogame reviewing isn't so much that they are numerical, but that the scale is so warped - a 7 is considered bad for god's sake. Not to mention the amount of partisan hackery that goes on, could you imagine if Roger Ebert wrote for a magazine called The Warner Bros. Viewer?
    A 7.9 will be considered bad, but a 8.0 will be considered good. Rating psychology for you. I'd rather them ditch it. A better system, in my opinion, would be star ratings or a simple "Recommend a purchase/Worth a rent/Do not recommend" system.

    One hopes that people take reviews from those magazines with a pinch of salt. 'Official Xbox Magazine gives Gears of War a 10/10.'

    Also the reviews (from the little I've seen) seem obsessed with objectivity, and breaking it down into areas. You cannot review something as subjective as entertainment objectively, it just doesn't work. There's little mention of the game as a whole, and little detail outside consumer advice. The best reviewers should be talking about the context and the themes of the game, how it works and doesn't work and making their reviews more.
    Not all them are objective. But they do have to cover certain parts like graphics and storyline (if that's what you mean). Objectivity seems to arise a lot when talking about the number of gameplay hours. In a lot of games, points will be taken off for a game not being a certain number of hours (relative to its price) and they completely fail to evaluate the level of immersion and whether the hours are justified in the game. Quantity does not equate to quality.

    And to be fair, a lot of reviews I have read touch upon themes, context and game mechanics that have been implemented. But they touch upon it without going into any depth. So much of an average game review is focussed on regurgitating how the game works (controls and features), things we've already picked up.

    All that said, there's one website I think there's some games journalism. I don't know if you've heard of it, but it's called The Escapist. They publish a weekly online magazine around a certain theme and there really is some analysis and subjectivity and storytelling there, which is good to see. So yeah, check them out if you fancy it. Also there Extra Credits videos are just about the best content I've ever heard regarding games. There movie reviewer is pretty crap though.
    I have. I think I even mentioned it to you a while back. Well, the Zero Punctuation aspect, I don't know whether you're actually a fan of that. Whilst it doesn't go into 'themes' too much, I love ZP purely for wit and satire.

    To be honest, I think gaming 'journalism' or writing of any kind is just in (or approaching) the stage of working out the contours of 'true journalism', how to work in a quality review and provide interesting and in-depth discussion. There have been countless examples of quality gaming journalism, but they are so scattered, they don't tend to count. The major websites seem to ignore this, and have descended into what they are now. I wouldn't say they started that way. If you go back, some of the articles put up by major sites were true examples of game journalism. And at times, you'll get the odd article. But the best ones always come from some relatively low traffic blog somewhere, and the trouble with that is, you don't know they exist.

    Meh, I'll wait until I get back (and have inevitably forgotten all of the events leading up to that point :p:). I haven't bothered with NV yet, it looked too buggy to be enjoyable.
    Ah, bugs. There have probably been countless patches ironing out the problems. Still, bugs are sometimes fun. :ninja:
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

3,152

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
Will you be tempted to trade up and get out of your firm offer on results day?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.