Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Starver

Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 ... 844
196
General Discussion / Re: Twitter is Dead, Long Live X!
« on: December 06, 2023, 05:55:25 am »
It's tricky to accomplish, but I believe you don't have to attack police in (at least) GTA 1 and 2. Maybe 3, but perhaps a mission requires it. Vice City I'm half remembering that you may have to actively annoy them to progress. San Andreas at the very least has a military-annoying mission where you'd attract too much attention to do a Terminator 2 and escape without killing. (Beyond that, I don't know how flexible they left it.)

It doesn't mean that police/military won't shoot at you, of course, but choosing your fights was always originally part of the risk/reward system (before the 'storyline' approach might have tied your hands). And there were joys to be had in evading the Harrier-like plane's missiles by flying the full-winged Dodo (with the advantage of being too slow to be intercepted, ironically, given that this is one of the real Harrier's tricks) until you can ditch from it and clean your record, after only provoking the forces of law an order by trespass to get the chase started. (Like forcing the train you hijack, and run backwards for a long run-up, 'through' the track-barrier that you're not yet supposed to pass, over into the other 'forbidden' territories, close enough to the military range that you can pinch the Harrier too, if you're quick enough. I think.)


But it's been a while. Thanks for the nostalgia, though.

197
General Discussion / Re: General Doctor Who Thread: JESUS CHRIST 50TH ANNIVERSARY HOLD ONTO YOUR HATS
« on: December 04, 2023, 06:24:25 am »
I think the second special approaches the level of Midnight, episode-wise. The key difference in enumerating it by that standard being that that was a Donna-light episode and (no spoilers!) this one wasn't.

A typical viewer could probably find quite a few "hey, this is like Midnight only with... <X> instead of <Y>" points, too, if they wanted to play that game. (Simultaneously, I could see arguments for this being Turn Left-inspired, too, in little (independent) ways, the actual counterpart 'Doctor-light' episode which... even so... actually wasn't too shabby for a Donna-heavy 45-minutes-or-so. IMO, and all caveats.)

I'm torn between whether I should have admiration for the actual "hey, how can we do both Midnight and Turn Left, somehow?", because that's actually what they did, or general praise for coming up with something comparable without such a deliberate/conscious effort... (I can think of some hot inspirations from further afield, but it's always going to be the case that there are coincidences, etc, once you start looking at the whole corpus of storytelling in hindsight...)


...if you haven't gathered, by now, I'd heap (qualified) praise on this episode, just from first viewing. Not perfect, and the cold-open 'scene' seemed a bit shoehorned in (if there are no further consequences, for which it pre-orders the lampshade)

198
General Discussion / Re: Israel-Gaza/Palestine war thread
« on: December 03, 2023, 02:23:50 pm »
(Posts occured since the point at which I was replying... Consider this point perhaps overtaken...)

I think I've already said, elsewhere, that I think Hamas's plan had gone "horribly right". A pyrrhic victory, of an operation, except that they might yet be utterly happy with the way the world is divided (tacit supoort for Israel is comparatively down, in the West, even if it's still there are various levels; everyone who was already pro-Palestine is likely even more anti-Israel, and... despite or even with the retaliatory losses, it justifies their cause at least as much as before, and far better than if their incursions had failed).

Much of the same may be true for Israel, albeit differently. Knowing/suspecting something was going to happen, those in charge may indeed have been willing to see the operation go ahead. Either to be smashed, or to justify (at least to those most in line with their thinking) the (counter-)incursion that was politically not quite in their grasp of possibilities beforehand. Yes, hostages were taken some (many?) were lost, as well as the other deaths... loss of some soldiers who were in the way of the steamroller that they might (or might not) have had an inkling of... but it adds to the message of "Palestinians can't be trusted!" and "There can be no peace with those people!". Pyrrhic defeat, as it were. (and then they go on the offensive and it gets messy).

But, to the true believer of either extremist end of the confrontational philosophy, "it's all good", You can't make an omlette (...etc), right?


It's everyone else that gets caught up in it. Or finds themselves at the other end of a complately different fuse that a spark from this conflagaration drifts off and lights the end of, seemingly unrelated. (The victims of the Parisian attack, we just had, although whether the same person would have popped up later or not (having history with the idea of doing something like this) at the next opportune time (if it had not been one just now) is a question that's hard to answer. Though we can be sure that the "Strong Pillar" training was going to lead to something, and may yet have those awaiting their turn to have their own go, in their own way.)

199
General Discussion / Re: Space Thread
« on: December 03, 2023, 01:35:06 pm »
We are not. That's a scurrilous lie!

We're behind the...  never you mind.

200
General Discussion / Re: The Movie Discussion Thread!
« on: December 03, 2023, 03:36:47 am »
Maybe they got burnt by the expensive alien ghosts..?  8)

(I remember seeing that, and was impressed. Clearly my patronage didn't quite scrape its income high enough to keep it out of the red, though. Haven't ever seen it on TV, or had any more recent opportunity to reappraise by more modern standards, so maybe it's... scratchy? Uncanny-valley? Something. And different from Monsters, Inc., with the perhaps more reliably forgiving "cartoon computer imagery", yet still famously having all that CGI fur! And Shrek. Which is... Well... Shrek. The original.  ...and these three all date to 2001, hence referencing them all against each other.)


Things do have their time, but pure-CGI tends to be use for a certain style of fictional worlds: The Incredibles. Cars. Bugs Life/Antz/Bee-Movie. Beowulf. Big Hero Six. Polar Express. Wall-E. Finding Nemo(/etc). The whole Toy Story thang, just to add to that list the lineage that probably inspired many of the rest of them... All 'photo unrealistic' (compared with even Luxo Jr., the two-minute short that made Pixar's name). And then there was that Tintin movie (deserved a sequel/series, IMO).

And then further played about with by increased and averted realism in the Spderman/Multiverse type of thing. Clearly far more accurate 3D modelling, but rendered/post-textured with 'cartoon/comic skin', dithered-halftoning effects and snap-cut exchange of filters as a 'practical effect' rather than a careless mouse-click on a toolbar. (I bet it's an expensive and time-consuming business to create a "does not look at all real" film like that, compared to something... 'softer' on the eye. Maybe even trying to go hyper-realistic isn't these days as complicated as aiming for this kind of 'hypo-realistic', it just depends upon the libraries of procedures you've inherited from the last big project, and whether Andy Serkis has some time free in his calendar.)





201
General Discussion / Re: Terrible Jokes
« on: December 02, 2023, 12:19:37 pm »
The hotel I'm in provides "fully complimentary internet".

Which must mean that they block all social media.

202
Forum Games and Roleplaying / Re: Bay12 Skyscraper
« on: December 02, 2023, 03:22:58 am »
Floor 2345

An artisan shop for the discerning customer that sells 'craft' bottles of djinn.

203
General Discussion / Re: The Movie Discussion Thread!
« on: December 01, 2023, 02:17:16 pm »
Noting, in passing, the jarringly similar theme music for LOTR and Start Trek IV. (Same composer, I believe, without looking it up right now, so maybe a bit of self-reuse.)

If anything, it ruins The Voyage Home's ending far more than LOTR's...

204
General Discussion / Re: Post whatever you want
« on: December 01, 2023, 12:27:48 pm »
FSW!

205
General Discussion / Re: The Movie Discussion Thread!
« on: December 01, 2023, 08:47:25 am »
Well, it was intended to be Part One of Two (or Three, at the beginning, but the plot-split needed didn't support "a proper middle film"), only quite late dropping any dangled promise of the sequel/conclusion by the title.

The cuts (one of which is the perrenial "Tom Bombadil problem"; or "...solution", depending upon the reader's attitude!) are notable but the retention of dialogue characterisation is perhaps superior to Jackson's treatment.

But ask any three Tolkein fans and might end up with four opinions on it!.

Visually, as a pure rotascope project, I think it's probably stylistically superior to CGI-enhanced modern movies (I saw a large swathe of a Transformers movie again, the other day, definitely a case of"just because you can, doesn't mean you should"...), but a different time and doubtless they'd use "artification" algorithms these days, when any fool can redraw themselves as a cartoon dog in realtime.

My opinion, I don't think it spoils the books (or, because it is only partial, spoilering them). Maybe a niche 'historic' treatment for post-Jackson audiences (and non-readers, in particular), but for me (probaby didn't see it in the late '70s, but would have by the mid '80s, at a similar time to Tron from '82) it works well.

Yes, the Jackson trilogies are a visual tour-de-force (plot-rewriting aspects aside, and the resulting "green tide of ghosts" that... well, I admit I enjoyed the friendy rivalry of "that only counts as one!", at least, as I did the shield-surfing and barrel-hopping elsewhere, even if off-canon). But if you're determined to read (or reaquaint yourself with) the novels then Bakshi's work will definitely interfere less with that process. IMO, naturally.

(Caveat: I haven't seen the Bakshi for maybe 20 years. I think I last substantially read either Hobbit or LOTR perhaps around ten years ago. I've seen the Jackson sets (idly, in passing) at various times more recent than that, as well as upon release. So I may be differently rose-tinted, or otherwise. Not yet seen the Netflix/whoever ME-based mini-series at all.)

206
DF General Discussion / Re: Steam Official Announcement Thread (50.11 Edition!)
« on: November 30, 2023, 05:10:31 pm »
Regarding the grappling/wrestling...

...always rather complex.

As with elsewhere... ;)

207
General Discussion / Re: Twitter is Dead, Long Live X!
« on: November 30, 2023, 06:35:45 am »
Quote from: You know who...
What this advertising boycott is going to do is it's going to kill the company,

The whole world will know those advertisers killed the company, and we will document it in great detail.

Displacement! I think some people are surprised it hasn't been killed off before this episode (of him reposting antisemetic memes, then having to backpedal furiously). If it doesn't survive, it may yet be a death of a thousand cuts, but he's ultimately provided most of the blades... Next year/month/week it might be a different 'block' to rant at, as the external force to blame for everything. As it was other things before now (everyone from Twitter staff themseves, on up...).

208
Forum Games and Roleplaying / Re: Bay12 Skyscraper
« on: November 29, 2023, 06:46:22 am »
Floor 2343

A rag-tag bunch of opportunists have gathered here, with some sort of vague and undefined plan to infiltrate the floor below to their own advantage. (There are some handy flashbacks sitting on a shelf, ready to explain everything once it's all successfully concluded.)

209
General Discussion / Re: General Doctor Who Thread: JESUS CHRIST 50TH ANNIVERSARY HOLD ONTO YOUR HATS
« on: November 27, 2023, 06:55:21 pm »
Well, if you had seen what RTD did with Davros in the 'skit' for Children In Need charity night. He made him...

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

And l'm open to a bit of that pandering. The problems with the episode weren't anything to do with that. Whatever the hammy elements, these particular fists are relatively ham-free, IMO.

(If you want to see something that might annoy some Whovians looking for a good new story see this.)

Spoiler: On TD1's spoiler (click to show/hide)




210
General Discussion / Re: General Doctor Who Thread: BEN KENOBI! 60TH ANNIVERSARY HOLD ONTO YOUR HATS
« on: November 27, 2023, 02:36:29 pm »
Quote from: The text at the top of this Post Reply page
Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
...well, given it's the 60th Anniversary episode(s), obviously I couldn't pass up the nigh on a decade of Necro when I tried to find the thread I knew was here and found this[1] (Ok, slightly less than nine years, due to a degree of thread longevity.)

Anyway, I'm doing it.

No outright spoilers for Star Beast (first of the '14th(ish[2]) Doctor Specials). But the following turned out to be extensive, so I'm spoilering my various points just for length reasons:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
...so, a few complaints, perhaps. But it is nice to see the Whoniverse continuing (House Of Mouse elements notwithstanding). And they could definitely have done worse than use Ten for this interlude, even not yet knowing the full arc-plot reasons that are yet to be revealed as to why. (I think it is still an outstanding issue about why Twelve[5] looks like two prior characters (in Pompei and via Torchwood), something that RTD and Moffat had apparently agreed a plausible backstory for. And of course Four may yet be canonically linked to the elderly Curator...)

I don't think it'll matter much, in the long run. The upcoming tenure of Fifteen is of course the one we're going to hang our future (if timey-wimey) hopes on. Whether the 60th episodes go classic or go flat.

But that's just my thoughts.



[1] Do you know what happens when you search the board for "Doctor Who"? Loads of medical references and general nominative/interogative pronoun appearances.

[2] By canonical count/description, that is.

[3] The 'those', I mean. I enjoyed the diversity, though could have survived without also.

[4] In generally checking out "what things people had been in", I suspect that if I'd actually watched a certain Netflix series (raved about by some forumites) then I'd have been in on it from the start.

[5] You know, it shocked me to realise that nine years ago we we were discussing Twelve's early tenure. We didn't really have so many series/seasons/runs of him, plus Thirteen's ones, in my mind. Even considering "the only episodes this year being Chrstmas/New Year episodes" level of infrequency of 'new stuff' from the rather sporadic Whovian conveyorbelt. Jodie's six(?) years of tenure were far too sparse, IMO.

Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 ... 844