We feel the game through our eyes and ears.

Just like music can be good or bad so can visuals.
Graphics isn't everything, but do admit that a stable framerate and a good sharp image helps you get immersed.

It can, but that doesn't necessarily make it objectively better.

Wolfenstein 3D

Spoiler

Note the quality of the textures

Now take a look at something done in the same engine

Spoiler

Note how this would be considered 'bad graphics'. Can you see why it would be the case?

Yes. I can also see how someone might prefer the bottom picture.

i've never died on the first day before, so i guess it just had to be now

when's the next one

You know, I could really just show you one thing to completely sum up my thoughts on Alien: Resurrection. Enjoy.

Well, guys, we have come to Alien: Resurrection, which was directed by the man who later made Amélie. Who the hell knows what happened with this movie? Probably a lot of studio interference, and a lot of people who were just really not capable of making a film, I guess, and they decided to do whatever the hell they wanted, and this is what we got.

I hate this movie. I hate Alien: Resurrection. This is an abomination. This film has barely a single redeeming quality in it. Theres isn't a—there really is nothing. There's—there's nothing, really, to talk about. You could talk about the Xenomorph. uh, "creatures," I guess?

In Alien: Resurrection, they decide to create a clone of Ripley. This isn't really the real Ripley, because if you haven't seen Alien 3 (spoilers), she dies. So we have a clone of Ripley, because I guess they want to use her as a host to create more alien creatures, because, of course, man really wants Xenomorphs, because, you know, why not?

Why do they want to clone Ripley anyway? Why is she the host? Why do they have to have this warrant officer, who was magically a lieutenant in Alien 3, despite having her license revoked in Aliens? Somehow she got to be, like, a lieutenant during the cryo-sleep period between Aliens and Alien 3, I guess, and now she's a clone.

This movie was written by Joss Whedon, by the way. I don't know what happened with this film.

And Whedon himself has expressed extreme dissatisfaction in the film. He stated his script was more fun and lighthearted, but the director made everyone be more serious, and these two tones don't match up. And that's, you know, I guess that's an okay excuse, but to me, an Alien film shouldn't be fun or lighthearted. It should be suspenseful and terrifying. And so the director had the right idea in trying to make it more serious, but the script wasn't supposed to be that serious, and so the two just never mesh as a whole. It's really two people doing everything wrong for what this film should be. Even the film's score is just so over-the-top and incredibly loud and just overbearing.

Everything about the way the film is constructed just doesn't work. The dialogue that's being spoken, if it was more of a Firefly/Serenity/Buffy the Vampire Slayer/Avengers-type Whedon-esque experience, that could work, but the film itself just doesn't understand how to accomplish that tone, and the script still has quite a bit of problems. Namely, never really explaining why Ripley has to be cloned, beyond just a franchise that's being milked until it dies by a studio, which is the real answer.

Another massive mistake this movie makes is having the aliens caged from the opening scene. They're pets. They're being experimented on. How terrifying. This perfect organism that was so scary in Alien and Aliens is now just behind some glass, and they have a button that can shoot ice mist at it, and, you know, how fucking horrible is that? It takes the fear completely out of the movie.

They also show the creatures far too much. I love the look of Xenomorphs. They're my favorite alien design of all time. But the idea of showing it constantly, constantly, over and over again, is the same reason Jaws: The Revenge (among many reasons) sucked. They just showed the shark all the time. Like, you have to keep that shit hidden. You can't just always show it on frame. Ridley Scott and James Cameron understood that.

Let's talk about Sigourney Weaver in this movie, who is an actress that I really love. I think she's fantastic in just about all the Alien movies, even Alien 3. In this film, she's like this really over-sexualized person that just goes around touching everybody and staring in each other's eyes, looking like she wants to fuck literally every character in this film, including the Xenomorphs.

"So, who do I have to fuck to get off this boat?"

But really, everyone's on this level. Ron Perlman, who I usually adore—one of my favorite character actors of all time—is insanely over-the-top in this movie. Winona Ryder is awful. There's also a character in this movie named Christie, who has a hilarious scene where he bounces bullets off of a ceiling. That's where we're at here, people.

The film also takes about 50 minutes before the plot fully kicks in, and you can forget about all the dumb mad scientist experimentation bullshit, and the characters are finally running through the corridors and the aliens are, you know, taking them out one by one. It's 50 minutes into the movie before anything really happens that's worth a damn. Everything before that is very awkward sexual tension scenes between Winona Ryder and Sigourney Weaver, a hilarious basketball scene that has no purpose in the movie other than to go, "Look, Sigourney Weaver made the shot backwards!"

This entire film, like, I'm telling you, every decision they made was wrong. Every single one.

Just take the characters alone: They're expendable movie characters 101. Everything that you shouldn't do with a movie character here. It's just everyone's a quirk. It's like, oh, there's a guy in a wheelchair, he can't walk and he talks like this, and he's a guy in a wheelchair, so that's his character.

"Who were you expecting? Santa Claus?"

Ron Perlman's a really angry guy who's angry. The one guy can bounce bullets off walls. They're all just a quirk. They have nothing interesting about them. Nothing. Literally nothing.

The movie was really bad before, but the last fifteen minutes are absolute insanity. There is nothing in the entire Alien universe that holds up to the last fifteen minutes of Alien: Resurrection. When Ripley gets sucked into this—this—whatever the fuck that was, it's just, I don't know what's happening.


That entire sequence. I actually have no words. I don't know what to say, guys.

Let's just talk about the fucking newborn. Oh my god, the design for the newborn. This thing looks like a deformed penis with eyeballs. I don't—I have no idea what they were thinking. This thing is so fucking stupid-looking, I—it's so fucking dumb. I hate it. I hate the newborn. I hate it, guys. I really do. I fucking hate it. It's so stupid.

But hey, at least it has, like, an amazing death that's really gross and over-the-top like pretty much everything in this movie. I mean, for fuck's sake, every decision—I keep saying this, but it's true—every decision in Alien: Resurrection was wrong. This movie is an abomination. I hate it. It is definitely the worst in the official Alien four films, without a doubt. Oh my god. Ugh.

But hey, at least next, I get to watch and review Alien vs. Predator. My future's looking up. Oh, fuck.

Guys, thank you so much as always for watching this review. I appreciate it. And if you like this, you can click right here, and get Stuckmannized.

Quote from: Verbatim on April 26, 2017, 11:49:20 PM

Quote from: SecondClass on April 26, 2017, 11:48:07 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on April 26, 2017, 11:42:21 PM

Quote from: SecondClass on April 26, 2017, 11:40:25 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on April 26, 2017, 11:37:30 PM

you're a smelly pirate hooker

bad insult

not having a car when youre an adult is honestly cringy

you look like a blueberry

now that's better jacob

assigning worth or value to the possession of a car makes you just as vapid as BC

Wrong!

BC sees a car as an accessory, I see it as a utility. Spending a few thousand dollars on a piece of fashion might be vapid, but investing that money into a machine that can take you places far away very fast is useful.

does he think that everybody needs to be taken far away very fast

see, my insults are usually so articulate that you'll be too busy trying to google all the words i'm using to describe you to be offended by them, so i always have to find a way to dumb it down for you, and the result isn't always as desired

am i the only one who actually does listen to other people's shit

you're a smelly pirate hooker

jesus hussein christ this thread

I know. A regular conversation. Jesus Christ.

I wouldn't say it is. You could make your game using old technology, resulting in lower quality graphics than par for the time; if users deliberately lowered that graphical quality, or were otherwise inhibited from experiencing your content at the precise quality you intended, I imagine you would not be satisfied. Or maybe you would be, to spite me.

Anyways, the whole thing seems to be reflective of your stance that games should be experienced on its default difficulty setting, as that is what the developers intended.

I could say, for the sake of argument, that the game's graphics are so shitty that they couldn't be made shittier.

The game could involve a red screen--a single red pixel fitted to your entire screen--and if you press different buttons, the colors change depending on what you pressed. There would be no music--just this. Theoretically, I could make a game out of this. It might even be a fun game. It might not. But it would be a game.

I might enjoy playing it simply by virtue of having made it myself, and having a smug satisfaction knowing that I actually had the gumption to create the stupid thing to illustrate an artistic argument. It's the game equivalent of submitting a urinal to an art exhibit--and there's nothing really wrong with that, either.

My position stems from a conviction that art shouldn't be limited (unless you want it to be), and artists shouldn't feel limited (unless they want to be). To deny artists the right to limit themselves is a limitation in itself. The obligation to create art using state-of-the-art technology is also a limitation. Thankfully no such obligation exists.

People will still claim that their opinions are objective anyway.

And completely missed it again. You narrowed it down to 3 things, I provided reasons for those 3 things, and you restate the same thing again in a different way.

Either way, I'm done arguing with you from this fallacy tier standpoint

I didn't narrow it down to three things. That was you. You brought up speed, fuel efficiency, and something else, and pretended as though those were the only factors when it comes to evaluating a car (not that cars are comparable to art, but whatever). My argument is that those aren't the only three things that matter.

Maybe you just like the look of older cars. There are many many people who do. Talk to my dad.

You still haven't shown how my argument is fallacious, so I'm going to continue believing that it's not. No, "appeal to authority" isn't the correct fallacy. What authority am I appealing to?

If anything, you're appealing to the authority of "technological progression."

Quote from: Verbatim on April 26, 2017, 10:25:32 PM

I would make a game with shitty graphics just to prove the point.

Then please do it already and prove us all wrong. Otherwise your argument has no footing aside from the one you're crafting.

Like I said, stuff like this has already been done countless times, and not just with games.

"Lo-fi" records are very popular these days. Music that sounds raw and rough-around-the-edges, because it was recorded with potatoes or worse. Some of my favorite records are lo-fi, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

If all you care about is fidelity, then you should only listen to Nickelback, because their songs are crystal clear. If that's what you're into I guess.

Quote from: Verbatim on April 26, 2017, 10:23:13 PM

"Better" at what?

Combat? Sure, you're absolutely correct. It's not better than a modern weapon.

That's what those types of guns are invented for.

Why does that matter?

Why is he only allowed to enjoy weapons if they're good for combat? Do you know how stupid that is?

Verb, would you disagree that developers -- the artists -- want their art to be experienced at the highest possible graphical quality?

No, I wouldn't, but your proposition is missing the word "most."

Most artists want their art to be experienced at the highest possible graphical fidelity--but not all of them.

Ask who, and I'll tell you myself. I would make a game with shitty graphics just to prove the point.

Quote from: Verbatim on April 26, 2017, 10:13:38 PM

Woah woah woah.

Who is forcing anybody to do anything here?

I'm more so speaking from a figurative standpoint. Not quite literal.

As for your first bit, I explained why it would, but you're either ignoring it or completely discounting it by restating the same thing again (you just keep saying "some may believe it, but some may not, so it doesn't matter"), so I won't go further with it.

If I wanted to make a game that pays homage to the 8-bit era, I would intentionally limit myself by working only with the NES's processors, because that's all those developers had to work with at the time. I would make that artistic decision. It would better suit my vision for what a proper and authentic homage to the NES should be.

Tell me that's wrong. Tell me that I can't do that. Tell me it would be better to use something else.

We have to disagree, because every other form of art I can think of isn't inherently rooted in technology. Video games (and movies I suppose) are the exception for that rule (as in they didn't exist until the technology allowed it. Something quite different to say, painting), because technology has stagnated creativity countless times in the past, and developers and directors have expressed that. Look at George Lucas of all people, one of the pioneers of technology in movies. Arguing if he ruined things is one story, but he's said that technology has held back things he wishes he could have done, which he later did do, both in the older movies and in the prequels. Video game developers have expressed this too, having to sacrifice things because the technology isn't there to express things.

Artists are allowed to believe that the progression of technology will help their art.

It won't help everybody's art, though.

When it's rooted in technology, creativity and progression go hand in hand. One could argue that further progression allows people to regress in looks/sounds (think Undertale) more effectively because they can do it far easier, and far more creatively, while still maintaining something of an old look and feel. The window widens and allows them to be more creative with their ambitions and creativity, not constrain them and suck it away.

Now you could argue they should think more creatively if the tech doesn't allow it, but I believe from an artistic standpoint, that forcing someone to do something they can't quite achieve, hinders that creativity at its roots.

Woah woah woah.

Who is forcing anybody to do anything here?

Is this hypothetical guy blind?

This has nothing to do with art. I'm talking about hardware and software. A gaming PC has better specs than a console, thus games look better.

They have higher specs. They don't have "better" specs.

The hypothetical guy could easily be somebody who prefers video games to look like cartoons. Maybe they like the old-school rough-around-the-edges aesthetic. It takes them back to their childhood and makes them happier than Nier's graphics do.

You can't take that away from them.