@spartanx169x: that's kind of what happened to me. I was still planning to see it in theaters, despite not liking BvS, but when talking to people that saw it my interest dwindled. Time passed, better/more anticipated movies released, and I never went to see it in theaters. It's still surprising to me that a Justice League movie came out and I was in absolutely no rush to see it (would have never believed it of you told me this years ago).
I finally watched the movie last week and thought it was average. Not terrible but not great either. Not even sure I'd say it was good. It's just so disappointing that we finally have an attempt at a legitimate DC movie universe and a majority of the movies are underwhelming.
I hope this will cause WB to slow down and reassess things. They've been struggling critical and now it's starting to hurt them commercially as well. They shouldn't be in a rush to make any movies except for a Wonder Woman sequel, which seems to be in good hands.
Take sometime, think about film makers they can bring in to right the ship, and figure out a plan from there. Interest in these movies is dwindling as it is they really can't afford to release anymore lackluster movies.
@WingChopMasta: it makes sense that a storm trooper would eventually turn on the First Order but they could have done more with it. It would have been better if his decision started a rift and bit of an uprising amongst the Stormtroopers leading to a conflict in TLJ (would have been a lot better than what Finn ended up doing).
But you can also think of it like various miltant groups around the world that kidnap children to be soliders. These kids really have no other choice but to comply. If they don't they'll either be killed or tortured to the point where "betrayal" is not an option. That's the impression I got from the First Order. They go to planets to kill and "recruit" Storm Troopers.
@freeryu: no but those modes were never a big appeal to me when it came to Gears.
However I should have acknowledged that in my original post. I know those are the two main modes for a majority of fans so the gameplay being a return to form was probably a huge improvement and selling point to many fans.
@desertninja420: well a few years ago we nearly saw Sting crippled on ppv. Paige's career is apparently over because of a botched move at a house show but that could have easily happened during a live event. Years ago, during the attitude era, Droz was paralyzed because of a botched move. I don't see the company telling 52 year old Undertaker he can't wrestle because of health risks. WWE doesn't seem to worried about Shane potentially getting cripple when he's flying off 20ft cages.
So to answer your question, do I want to see a wrestler crippled on ppv, no. But wrestling can be unpredictable and even fully healthy people can have their careers ended and lives altered at any moment. That's the risk they all take. If Bryan is willing to take that risk I say let him wrestle. He doesn't need to be in a match every night or every ppv. Maybe a couple times a year. Maybe just one last Mania match, hell even Bret Hart had a match way late in his career post-stroke.
And it's not like he has to go out there and go all out, though I'm sure he would want too. Simply having Bryan billed in a match is going get fans excited and interested but he should be able to work a match that limits the risk of injury, especially if it's a tag match which seems to be the main option.
I don't understand why Bryan wouldn't be able to just sign some type of waiver so that, if he gets injured, the wwe is not liable. Anyone that enters the ring has a potential risk of injury. We've seen celebrities and others enter the ring with little to no training. If WWE can allow them to wrestle without any concern that an injury would bite them in the ass why can't they allow a trained wrestler with an injury history make the decision for himself?
@Pyrosa: I mean, yeah but what would be the point of releasing a new GoW with better graphics and mostly the same gameplay? I feel like it would be a forgettable game that would come and go with no lasting impression. It wouldnt be a bad game but it wouldnt stand out either, which, to me, is what happened to Gears 4. Good game, great graphics, but it was mostly the same and, as a result, not that memorable.
It's the gaming paradox that I'll never quite understand. For years I've heard and read people complain about games like Assassin's Creed, CoD, Far Cry, etc because they are more or less the same games over and over. New story, new locations but mostly a reskin of the same gameplay. Yet, ironically, when developers/publishers do decide to make changes to a franchise people still complain and resist the change.
What do you want people? Do you want to play the same game over and over with slight tweaks and changes or would do you want to see franchises evolve and grow over time?
Personally I think I'd rather see a series just die off than rehash the same formula over and over again. By GoW Acension I was bored. Been there done that. Same thing happened with Gears of War. When Judgement released I was kind of over Gears so I didn't play. Then 4 came out and I thought "cool a new, better looking Gears." Played and beat the campaign and was underwhelmed. Good game with great visuals but it was, mostly, more of the same. It just didn't strike me as a "must play game" like the series once was.
@kadaverhagga: " I'm not against changing the formula of games if it still is good."
I'm with you, though I'm also in the camp that the series and formula needed to be changed. More of the same wouldn't have been that exciting. But the way I see it, if the gameplay turns out to be disappointing, we can always go back and enjoy the old games. Or we can hope that the new Darksiders game scratches the class GoW itch.
scottyp360's comments