imfdb.org

imfdb.org (http://forum.imfdb.org/index.php)
-   Off Topic (http://forum.imfdb.org/forumdisplay.php?f=3)
-   -   New Video Games/ Movies (http://forum.imfdb.org/showthread.php?t=1091)

k9870 04-10-2013 05:01 AM

started playing the new gears of war, its fun, but since its a "flashback" style game, you know your whole squad survives so theres no tension in game.

Excalibur 04-10-2013 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by k9870 (Post 38649)
started playing the new gears of war, its fun, but since its a "flashback" style game, you know your whole squad survives so theres no tension in game.

It's not just that, but they who flashback with an alternate take is nothing more than horde mode built into the campaign. The story isn't different, just harder if you pick the COG marks

k9870 04-10-2013 05:43 PM

im only like an hour in been busy with work but its still fun.

funkychinaman 04-11-2013 02:50 PM

Wasn't Point Break already remade as The Fast and the Furious?

http://www.deadline.com/2013/04/alco...-break-remake/

Swordfish941 04-11-2013 06:35 PM

I just bought a Bleach DVD box set that deals with Ichigo's training with the Visoreds.

Also, here is something that has been nagging me for quite a bit: is Soi Fon gay for Yoruichi or something?

Excalibur 04-11-2013 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swordfish941 (Post 38671)
I just bought a Bleach DVD box set that deals with Ichigo's training with the Visoreds.

Also, here is something that has been nagging me for quite a bit: is Soi Fon gay for Yoruichi or something?

It's actually more implied that Soi Fon had treated Yoruichi like some kind of goddess on a pedestal and admires her to the point of being obsessive and almost childish.

Who can say, it's Anime. You should be used to that kind of stuff by now

funkychinaman 04-12-2013 03:16 AM

The Raid: Redemption was excellent, I absolutely recommend it. It's definitely one of the better films I've watched for the site. It felt a bit like District B13 meets Ong-Bak. Points off for going all airsoft though. I don't know if Indonesia has crazy restrictive gun laws like Japan, but if you're going to go through the hassle of sending all of your actors to train with a real military unit, you might as well go all out.

Spartan198 04-14-2013 03:14 AM

Finally saw the new Red Dawn. Not as bad as I expected, but still pretty bad. I did lol at the part where one of Tanner's Marines just waltzes casually across the NK command center in full view of the enemy troops inside and no one even bats an eyelid, though. :D

I'm in fear of the sequel that's almost surely coming, though.

Excalibur 04-14-2013 05:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spartan198 (Post 38694)
Finally saw the new Red Dawn. Not as bad as I expected, but still pretty bad. I did lol at the part where one of Tanner's Marines just waltzes casually across the NK command center in full view of the enemy troops inside and no one even bats an eyelid, though. :D

I'm in fear of the sequel that's almost surely coming, though.

I think if you change a couple things, this could be a "better movie". Like the long ass intro about how North Korea is a threat in the beginning of the movie. Make North Korea invading be as vague as possible. Let it be in the perspective of the civilians. Let them be confused and try to find out information on their own.

They really needed to emphasis how "Thor" is a Marine more often in the movie than just mention it once and not even have the guy mention it to his fellow Marines.

The Asian Marine is obviously supposed to be a Korean. Why didn't they have obvious tension between the guy and other characters or his opinions about the racial backlash against Korean Americans?

Have Jed die in the remake similar to the way he died in the original and with a stand off with the Korean Captain and have him stand down because he has some semblance of humanity instead of being classic "bad guy". The man needs some depth.

funkychinaman 04-14-2013 05:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spartan198 (Post 38694)
Finally saw the new Red Dawn. Not as bad as I expected, but still pretty bad. I did lol at the part where one of Tanner's Marines just waltzes casually across the NK command center in full view of the enemy troops inside and no one even bats an eyelid, though. :D

I'm in fear of the sequel that's almost surely coming, though.

The movie languished in the can for two years before it got released, and it died a quick death at the box office. I don't think we have to worry about a sequel.

Spartan198 04-14-2013 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Excalibur (Post 38696)
I think if you change a couple things, this could be a "better movie". Like the long ass intro about how North Korea is a threat in the beginning of the movie. Make North Korea invading be as vague as possible. Let it be in the perspective of the civilians. Let them be confused and try to find out information on their own.

They really needed to emphasis how "Thor" is a Marine more often in the movie than just mention it once and not even have the guy mention it to his fellow Marines.

The Asian Marine is obviously supposed to be a Korean. Why didn't they have obvious tension between the guy and other characters or his opinions about the racial backlash against Korean Americans?

Have Jed die in the remake similar to the way he died in the original and with a stand off with the Korean Captain and have him stand down because he has some semblance of humanity instead of being classic "bad guy". The man needs some depth.

That would have definitely made it better.

Quote:

Originally Posted by funkychinaman (Post 38697)
The movie languished in the can for two years before it got released, and it died a quick death at the box office. I don't think we have to worry about a sequel.

We'll have to see how it does in DVD sales. These numbers have often been the deciding factor in if a movie gets a sequel. The Planet of the Apes re-imagining by Tim Burton garnered enough DVD sales to warrant a sequel, but they decided to reboot the whole franchise instead.

SPEMack618 04-15-2013 12:21 AM

I'm sorry, but maybe it's my deep red state upbrining, or my favorable recollections of the original, but I really enjoyed the new Red Dawn.

In my humble opinion, only thing that could have made it better was a panty shot of blonde girl.

I sorta like how Hemsworth underplayed the fact that he was a Marine, especially around the guys with SGM Tanner.

That echoes of stuff I've seen in various bars and VFW halls.

As older veterans age, some of them get more bombastic. Us newer guys, not so much, especially around older guys.

Excalibur 04-15-2013 02:42 AM

That doesn't make any sense that Hemsworth didn't identify to his fellow Marines that...he's an active duty Marine.

You haven't been around the Marines I know. Some of them are really hardcore about being in the corp. I watched the new Red Dawn with one of them and he was cheering when the Marines showed up and kept wondering why didn't Hemsworth step up and give name and rank to Tanner.

Chitoryu12 04-15-2013 05:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Excalibur (Post 38706)
That doesn't make any sense that Hemsworth didn't identify to his fellow Marines that...he's an active duty Marine.

You haven't been around the Marines I know. Some of them are really hardcore about being in the corp. I watched the new Red Dawn with one of them and he was cheering when the Marines showed up and kept wondering why didn't Hemsworth step up and give name and rank to Tanner.

I haven't seen the movie, but a good explanation would be a bad time in the service. Not all Marines are all "OO-RAH MARINE CORPS FOR LIFE ONCE YOU'RE IN YOU'RE NEVER OUT". If he had a bad experience in the Middle East, it may have soured his perception on the military and his part in it and led to him trying to downplay his role.

Excalibur 04-15-2013 12:10 PM

Sure, I'd believe that...if the movie TOLD us about it. When people thought he was Air Force and he quickly corrected he was Marine, it means he wasn't ashamed of it. There were no indications that he was dishonorable discharged or anything. In fact, the movie just forgot he was a Marine after a point. I don't think a real Marine would downplay that he's a Marine. The writer just forgot.

SPEMack618 04-15-2013 04:28 PM

I sorta got the vibe, mainly from the scene where he rolls his eyes as the Alpha Company guys go all moto, that while he was proud of his service, he wasn't all "Semper Fi. Do or Die. Oorah." about it.

A common enough thing, especially if we suppose the guys with Tanner were retreads whose combat service as PFCs and LCpls was in Gul War I and then by the time of Gulf War II they were SNCOs, it is entirely possible they never had to fight insurgents at the street level like Matt did. Thus, giving them an entirely different view of war and thier Marine service.

funkychinaman 04-15-2013 09:13 PM

http://kotaku.com/is-the-decision-to...a-mo-472813326

Interesting argument.

I've always found the idea of developers paying gun companies for the right to promote their products to the 18-35 demographic FOR THEM a bit stupid. Logically, it should be the other way around. For publishers who are looking to squeeze every nickel of profit out of a game, cutting this expense, and potentially making money off of it, is the way to go.

SPEMack618 04-15-2013 11:15 PM

So more AR-33s and KF7s again?

I think it is intellectually dishonest on behalf of both the NRA, and gamers, to state that one or the other is the cause for mass shootings and should be banned.

An assault on one is the same as the assualt on the other, Constitutionally speaking.

Evil Tim 04-15-2013 11:16 PM

On the other hand, though, people want to use cool guns with the right names (or at least what they think are the right names), which means the manufacturers have something the game designers want. Since a lot of the weapons aren't anything you'd market to civilians (especially if you're HK and too busy hating them), the money arrow ends up going in the other direction.

Edit: also he's confusing detail with realism. Game depictions of firearms are usually not realistic, just detailled. Educating yourself to operate a firearm in CoD is fine and good until you go out with an empty magazine and the safety on.

SPEMack618 04-16-2013 02:14 AM

You know, I always sorta agreed with you Evil Tim, until talking to a buddy of mine who works at a gun store and how he said he couldn't keep SCAR-Hs on the shelves.

I guess there is a segment of the Modern Warfare 2 crowd that is highly devoted, well financed, and now well armed. :D

Excalibur 04-16-2013 04:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SPEMack618 (Post 38714)
I sorta got the vibe, mainly from the scene where he rolls his eyes as the Alpha Company guys go all moto, that while he was proud of his service, he wasn't all "Semper Fi. Do or Die. Oorah." about it.

A common enough thing, especially if we suppose the guys with Tanner were retreads whose combat service as PFCs and LCpls was in Gul War I and then by the time of Gulf War II they were SNCOs, it is entirely possible they never had to fight insurgents at the street level like Matt did. Thus, giving them an entirely different view of war and thier Marine service.

And like I said, I disagree because the Marines I've come across are mostly young. One I've known since high school. Yeah when they are back in the civilian world, they act pretty tame for the most part but when they are among other Marines, they get really loud and proud about being in the corp. Tanner is the old Marine in the group, but the other 2 aren't that old, especially the Asian guy so there's no way all 3 of them are Gulf War vets. Tanner only confirmed himself as retired.

funkychinaman 04-16-2013 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evil Tim (Post 38719)
On the other hand, though, people want to use cool guns with the right names (or at least what they think are the right names), which means the manufacturers have something the game designers want. Since a lot of the weapons aren't anything you'd market to civilians (especially if you're HK and too busy hating them), the money arrow ends up going in the other direction.

Edit: also he's confusing detail with realism. Game depictions of firearms are usually not realistic, just detailled. Educating yourself to operate a firearm in CoD is fine and good until you go out with an empty magazine and the safety on.

It's certainly not required though. For years, shooter games were fine with phony names (I loved the RC-P90), and even Black Ops 2 gone back to making stuff up (PDW-57, B23R), and I don't think sales have suffered.

LeBron James and Tiger Woods don't pay Nike to wear Nike gear, it's the other way around, and you can argue the same should apply to CoD and Battlefield.

Excalibur 04-16-2013 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by funkychinaman (Post 38722)
It's certainly not required though. For years, shooter games were fine with phony names (I loved the RC-P90), and even Black Ops 2 gone back to making stuff up (PDW-57, B23R), and I don't think sales have suffered.

LeBron James and Tiger Woods don't pay Nike to wear Nike gear, it's the other way around, and you can argue the same should apply to CoD and Battlefield.

The fact that game developers do pay a fee to gun companies for using the real names and logos on the guns in the game. But if you want to compare LeBron and Tiger to something, it's ISPC guys and gals like Jessie Abbate who do exactly the same thing as sports players, go around advertising products of companies when they compete and are most likely sponsored by said companies.

You don't compare a living person advertising an industry to a game. You compare say a sports game like Madden and the money they spend to get the images of real life players in their game and the same can apply to shooter games like Call of Duty and Battlefield. The vast majority of games don't use the names of the guns. Just using the image of the gun and making up a phony name is alright.

Whether or not shooter games can be used as a training tool on how to use a game is debatable. There might be a couple of games that would explain the intricacies of a gun but most are point and shoot. They don't explain to the play what the bolt release does, why you need to rack the slide to chamber a round or how to load magazines or even what kind of ammo is used somethings and of course mixing clip and mag. In Black Ops 2, they have one perk be double mags and another perk called extended clip.

It's no so far fetch that shooter games are supporting the gun industry not just by money directly from copy rights on logos and names of guns but a new generation of gun owners that have been brought up playing call of duty. I've talked to some of my Marine buddies about how they had to deal with the Call of Duty generation that have been enlisting.

SPEMack618 04-16-2013 04:51 PM

I once read on a gun blog somewhere that Call of Duty was directly responsible for Gun Culture 2.0, which I think is a good thing.

funkychinaman 04-16-2013 05:30 PM

You said it, CoD and Battlefield introduces these products to an entire generation of impressionable consumers. Companies pay for product placement and ads in games like Rainbow Six: Vegas 2, why should it be any different with guns? Why should Activision, and by extension, we the consumers, have to pay for the privilege of seeing the Remington script plastered on a few guns? Jeep pays for their product to be in CoD, why not Remington?

I'm curious though, if someone were to create a new FPS and wanted to use real names but didn't want to pay any licensing fees, how many guns could they get away with? A lot of patents have expired, and I don't think you have to license a government issued name (like M16 or M60).

SPEMack618 04-16-2013 05:36 PM

You could also get away with just the military designations too, I think, especially with stuff like M-4A1 or M-1911A1 and not list manufactures.

Also, I don't the AK-47 was ever patented or anything, being a product of a worker's paradise.

Further thought, since the gun designs themselves are patented and what not, you couldn't name the gun, but I think that you could use thier military designations.

M-1919, M-2, M-1918, M-1897, M-14, ad nausem.

Now the mall ninjas are gonna be out of luck when the latest super duper piston driven automated death ray isn't assigned an M- number, but, oh well.

funkychinaman 04-16-2013 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SPEMack618 (Post 38726)
You could also get away with just the military designations too, I think, especially with stuff like M-4A1 or M-1911A1 and not list manufactures.

Also, I don't the AK-47 was ever patented or anything, being a product of a worker's paradise.

Further thought, since the gun designs themselves are patented and what not, you couldn't name the gun, but I think that you could use thier military designations.

M-1919, M-2, M-1918, M-1897, M-14, ad nausem.

Now the mall ninjas are gonna be out of luck when the latest super duper piston driven automated death ray isn't assigned an M- number, but, oh well.

I'm shocked Infinity Ward got away with calling EOTechs just holographic sights for as long as they did. Does anyone else make holographic sights?

SPEMack618 04-16-2013 06:33 PM

All the folks that do just seem to rip off EOTech.

Chitoryu12 04-17-2013 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SPEMack618 (Post 38720)
You know, I always sorta agreed with you Evil Tim, until talking to a buddy of mine who works at a gun store and how he said he couldn't keep SCAR-Hs on the shelves.

I guess there is a segment of the Modern Warfare 2 crowd that is highly devoted, well financed, and now well armed. :D

Gander Mountain's actually made a big change (at least the big local store we have in Lake Mary) to trying to advertise the latest and greatest. I went in there to ask about Mosins and the clerk said that surplus rifles and AKs barely even get accepted by them at this point regardless of condition. The used racks are lined with AR variants and quality bolt and lever-action rifles and various shotguns, and for months the only two surplus rifles I saw on any of them were an M1 Carbine and an Arisaka Type 38 (chrysanthemum intact, in fact). Meanwhile, the entire center section of the back wall has all of the newest or most high-tech stuff: FS2000, Taurus Circuit Judge, SCAR-L, AR-50, PS90, etc.

k9870 04-17-2013 03:58 PM

i remeber the 08 election panic and a year later how all the people who couldnt actually afford those rifles sold them off, kittery trading post has this thing where "hunting" guns are on the floor and "tactical" guns behind the counter. Behind the counter they ran out of shelf space so ar15s were laying on the floor from the amount of people off loading them. Cant wait till it happens aain and i can get a cheap ebr lol

Spartan198 04-19-2013 08:15 AM

A little old, but...

http://screenrant.com/wwe-undertaker...d-pauly-33181/

I commented on the bottom as "Samedi" how I think this would make a great premise for a Red Dead game.

Swordfish941 04-21-2013 12:01 AM

I just came back from seeing Oblivion. Excellent movie, and I did enjoy the plot twists (and this is coming from a guy who hates plot twists).

Evil Tim 04-21-2013 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by funkychinaman (Post 38725)
You said it, CoD and Battlefield introduces these products to an entire generation of impressionable consumers. Companies pay for product placement and ads in games like Rainbow Six: Vegas 2, why should it be any different with guns? Why should Activision, and by extension, we the consumers, have to pay for the privilege of seeing the Remington script plastered on a few guns? Jeep pays for their product to be in CoD, why not Remington?

Well, think of it in terms of cars, which have been doing this kind of thing for years. A game company goes to Ferrari and says "we'd like to put an Enzo in our new game." Now, who is asking who for a favour here?

1. Most of the people who buy the game are not going to be able to buy a Ferrari.
2. The game designers benefit from the Ferrari being in the game because people want to drive one.
3. Spreading brand recognition among people who cannot or will not buy their product does not actually benefit Ferrari.

Therefore, it's the game designers who stand to gain most, so Ferrari is going to ask them for money because they're not a charity and want to get something out of the deal. This goes even more for flight sims, since nobody who plays Ace Combat is going to go to Sukhoi and order an Su-37.

With gun companies, you have to remember that their potential market is:

1. People who live in jurisdictions that haven't outlawed civilian ownership of guns.
2. People who live in jurisdictions that haven't outlawed civilian ownership of that specific gun (so that's all the NFA guns gone for a start).
3. People who are in a position to buy that specific gun and would not have done so without seeing it in the game.

That, realistically speaking, isn't all that many people. In fact the real gun company would probably find it's more likely to boost sales of Airsoft replicas they don't make rather than real guns they do. For the most part, the guns the designers request are going to already be big-name "cool" weapons because otherwise the designers themselves wouldn't have heard of them, so the brand recognition argument is also pretty dubious.

Bear in mind car companies have been doing exactly what he talks about in the video for decades, and to a far greater extent than Barrett dictating that they won't let you put the M107 in your game if it sucks. I remember the first time I heard of that was back in 1993 with Jaguar XJ220 for the Amiga, where the game only showed the car stopping when it hit obstacles, because Jaguar had said that they would not allow it to be shown crashing or being damaged in any way.

The Wierd It 04-22-2013 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evil Tim (Post 38770)
In fact the real gun company would probably find it's more likely to boost sales of Airsoft replicas they don't make rather than real guns they do.

Probably explains why gun companies are starting to license their trademarks to airsoft manufacturers.

funkychinaman 04-22-2013 08:33 PM

http://www.vulture.com/2013/04/micha...rmageddon.html

Keep it coming...

Evil Tim 04-22-2013 08:39 PM

Quote:

That was not fair to the movie. I would redo the entire third act if I could.
Only the third one?

SPEMack618 04-22-2013 08:44 PM

Why is he apologizing?

I liked, liked a lot actually, that movie.

It is far fetched and silly, but it still tells a story well, builds characters, and is fun to wtach.

Evil Tim 04-22-2013 08:49 PM

I still think the funniest observation I've heard about the movie's terrible science is that the nuke they use is so puny that even if it somehow split the comet into two halves, it wouldn't overcome their gravity and so the halves would immediately slam back together. That would have been kind of hilarious to watch.

funkychinaman 04-22-2013 09:37 PM

Okay, perhaps I was a bit harsh. Armageddon was bearable, Aerosmith song notwithstanding. The wheels totally came off with Pearl Harbor, and he's been in freefall ever since.

SPEMack618 04-22-2013 09:43 PM

Agreed. (Despite the fact that I like Aerosmith:o) Pearl Harbor made me want to puke. Repeatedly.

And I think the worst thing to come of it, was that for about three months after the movie came out, every prop plane my sister saw was a Zero.

I feel like Armageddon did what it set out to do. A squad based movie about strong men armed against impossible odds. Think the Green Berets or The Dirty Dozen in space. With a giant extinction causing asteroid instead of Nazis or Commies. However, I never saw where Pearl Harbor knew what it wanted to be, and didn't do anything well, other a couple of cools shots of computer generated P-40s in pre-war markings.


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:24 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.