@izraal: I could care less to adherence to plot. That isn't what makes Miikes films better or worse. He's just a better filmmaker. Like A Dragon is still a better film just for it's character development. But this also forgets Ace Attorney, which is better than anything Andersen has ever done. Resident Evil is an enjoyable B movie, but good is not a word I would use for it, in the same way I wouldn't call Mortal Kombat a good movie.
Miike is absolutely a better filmmaker. But no, Like a Dragon did not develop its "core characters" at all. It gave no context for why Kiryu was in prison, why he is traveling around with a little girl, what his relationship to her mother was, or his childhood friend, or any of that. It choose to develop non-canon side characters who have tragic endings.
It's a better movie, but certainly not because of the character development. I'd argue it's better because it's a deconstruction of the video game film. It's a movie about the setting that characters wreak havoc in, telling the stories of "NPCs" essentially. It's actually very clever and subversive in that respect, but it's terrible at characterization as its traditionally viewed, ie character development of the protagonist and central antagonist.
Sounds more generous than I've heard. And you've been more generous to Andersen than he deserves. He's had a couple good movies, but most of his career has been taking video game properties and making terrible adaptations. Takashi Mike has had a better career adapting games and any of the ones worthy of praise made in Hollywood were made by other people, like Detective Pikachu and Sonic The Hedgehog, and those are both better than anything Andersen has made.
Let's be fair, though. I love Takashi Miike films. They aren't always in line with expectations for his adaptations any more than Anderson's are. Take his adaptation of the original Yakuza game as an example. I love the film (Like a Dragon). It's also nonsense, more so than any Resident Evil film. The actual core plot of the game - why the protagonist went to prison for his childhood friend, the friend's ambition turning him into a different person, their ultimate confrontation - it's just NOT IN THE FILM. Two men meet each other with no in-film explanation, tear of their shirts, and start fighting.
The entire plot is almost entirely glossed over, or just "not there." Miike instead adds side characters, builds the "characters" of the city, and produces a series of darkly ironic twists which make the ending so much more tragic than the original. The mother did not need to die to slay the corrupt politician in the film - a hitman had killed him before his plane landed. The young woman didn't need to engage in armed robberies to afford her abortion - money literally rained from the sky around her as she was dying of a gunshot wound.
These were great storytelling bits, but had nothing to do with the source material, and the actuals source material - which I really like - just wasn't there. From most standpoints Miike's adaptation of Yakuza was far "worse" than Anderson's Resident Evil films, which at least explain what's happening and why. Miike is a filmmaker whose work I enjoy more, just know he doesn't do "better adaptations," broadly speaking. He does "worse adaptations" than happen to be better movies.
Good. I am sure there are a lot of other offensive terms and slurs that should be policed in this manner. I don't watch Twitch personally or see the appeal of watching someone else play a video game, but it's good it's not the wild west out there.
I am really hopeful this will be at least well paced and "so bad it's good." Films like the Bob Hoskins Super Mari Bros movie still are a blast to watch, and it's not because they're great movies.
That is a good observation, and exactly my point regarding those attempting to distract from this issue with red herrings. This is about curtailing hate speech in multiplayer gaming. That's a good thing. Several attempted to shift the focus to business practices and away from the actual purpose of this initiative. Their principles are self serving and concern themselves only with what they perceive as having an impact on them as individuals.
I don't engage in multiplayer gaming often, so this doesn't impact me. Pricing patterns in the market do. I can still acknowledge that this is an important initiative as a great many people do enjoy online gaming, and should be able to do it free of hate speech.
This is a different issue, regarding how people treat each other in multiplayer game interactions, not business practices. It's a worthwhile initiative. Attempting to conflate the issues either misunderstands the function of this or it isn't being intellectually honest.
@noodles227: I think it is also due to the power of anonymity, lack of supervision (i.e. rebellion), emotional projection and hangups, and an "echo chamber" effect (what I deem as similarities spreading from person to person; people end up aping each other and groupthink takes over). All of it combined. The web is wild west where people raised themselves surrounded by hostility and lack of clarity and structure, and they think that's ok because the world and their mindsets are reflections of each other. No dissonance.
This is absolutely the case, the same anonymity that led to toxic and hateful speech in chatrooms and forums extends to gaming, now. Whether these statements reflect a person's authentic inner world and views is debatable, but it's inarguable that people are more likely to shout or type things on the internet, or during an online game, that they would never, ever say to someone's face.
This step by the current "big 3" in gaming is long overdue, and I hope they stand by it and apply it judiciously. For those attempting to deflect and state that this should be about predatory pricing patterns, microtransactions, etc., they are likely being intellectually dishonest. Apples and oranges. Those are industry level practices that are anti-consumer. The issue here is personal attack speech which is inhumane.
@baraz: Opinions are subjective. What she wrote may ring true to you, but isn't for others. To me, her review rings hollow. All of her complains are nitpicks except the bugs. I wouldn't call her names over it though, she's entitled to her opinion, but coming off a (once) big gaming website reviewing the game of the decade, this is bound to create dialog among gamers.
Presupposing the game to be the "game of the decade" is your own value judgment. I am excited to play Cyberpunk at some point. I am a big fan of the genre. I am expecting a 7/10 experience. It is a 7/10 experience in a genre I happen to enjoy, certainly, so still worth playing. A 7/10 isn't damning.
If the game has a decent main quest that's relatively brief, side-quests that conflict with the urgency of the main quest, a relatively undeveloped protagonist due to it being player created, and a somewhat difficult to swallow setting (as it's based on Cyberpunk imaginings of the future that are decades old, now), that's entirely what I expect. That also sounds like a good 7/10 game to me.
Thank you for your kind words as well. I see your position, and it's understandable. Nice to have some actual discourse instead of talking past each other, as is often the case in such things here, and elsewhere.
Izraal's comments