Xcalibur

Contrarianism: the thread. Yes, St. Anger is comically bad, it was trashbags 20 years ago, and still is now. It sounds flat out amateurish, and putting a bunch of prison doods in the music video doesn't make up for that. Speaking of myspace, I'd unironically rather listen to the Millionaires, lol. Keep in mind, a fair number of comments come from bots & shills. Not saying those ones are in particular, but it happens.

Not sure if anyone here is into lostwave, but there was a major discovery recently. Everyone Knows That/Ulterior Motives was found, and from an 80s porno soundtrack no less! Now we're just waiting on a cleaner, hi-def version without the cooming in the background. There are also remixes out there already.

Water levels can be done well or poorly, like anything else in games. I think alot of the complaining comes from ppl who don't like changes in the control schemes, coupled with a few bad experiences. Personally, I like when games switch up the controls, it adds variety & challenge, as long as it's introduced fairly and executed properly. Off the top of my head, good water levels: World 3 in SMB3, especially with the Frog suit, which made swimming awesome 2nd level in Ironsword W&WII, it gives you a moon jump underwater instead of a swimming mechanic, which is cool. Terra Tubes in Battletoads, great mix of wet & dry here, and controls well. Yes, that game is infamously hard, but quite good if you practice at it (alternatively, you can play the Japanese version of the game which is essentially easy mode). Underwater areas in Turok: Rage Wars, those were fun for multiplayer combat back in the day. Bubble Man's level in Mega Man 2, although that boss should've been immune to metal blades to make his fight interesting instead of nerfed. Water Temple in Ocarina of Time, despite everyone complaining about the puzzle, I had fun with it. What I said above also applies to ice levels, which were done well in SMB3 (world 6) and in Link to the Past (Ice Palace in Dark World), to name a couple.

lol point taken. Even I'll admit, they can be tedious. If it were up to me, I'd retain their core design, but reduce their invincibility window by half, thereabouts.

It would be helpful to understand base number systems aka radices, so you intuitively get how binary scales to hex, and how these relate to decimal.

I thought I'd provide examples to the above, but I ended up typing up a storm. So if it's ok, I'd like to break this into a second post to emphasize what I said above: Hexen has rpg elements and really gets story/atmosphere/music down, the hub system lets you explore & solve in an open-ended sort of way, and once they're fully solved, you feel like you've spent enough time there and you're ready to advance (pacing/progression). The combat system and interface work well (consistent mechanics). Although, I'll admit enemy/weapon variety is somewhat lacking, but it's not terrible. There are also points where it's easy to get stuck, but I was always able to unstick myself, so I think the difficulty is fair enough. Battletoads has tight controls, crazy variety with different mechanics/physics in levels, intuitive/fair gameplay, great aesthetics/music/sfx, a warp system to let you skip ahead, and so on. Its main sin is being relentlessly, punishingly difficult, which is only partially offset by the ability to stack 1ups in level 2. The Japanese version nerfs the difficulty, which I'd recommend to anyone who got flummoxed by this infamous yet excellent game. Super Mario Bros 3 has all this, intuitive/effective controls, easy to get into, a difficulty curve that gradually goes from easy to hard, consistent pacing/progression through levels and worlds, all sorts of secrets to discover, cool powerups, charming aesthetics/artstyle, and plenty of variety with different gimmicks for each world. The only sin I can think of is not being able to save your progress (especially score/items/etc), but the warp whistles offset this. Super Mario Bros 2 has much of the above: proper difficulty curve, great aesthetics, secrets & exploration, intuitive mechanics, different gimmicks & challenges in the various worlds, warp system, and so on. You can also play as different characters with different pros/cons to their controls, which provides lots of replayability & variety. It's short enough so that not being able to save isn't a problem, and you don't lose unique items like in smb3. I can't think of any sins, but maybe that's because it's my personal favorite (and the source of my avatar). Well, maybe the backgrounds could've had detail instead of being blank, but it's an NES game so that's understandable. Genghis Khan, a grand strategy game by KOEI and one of my lesser-known favorites, has excellent art & music, surprisingly deep mechanics that also make logical sense, menus are easy to navigate & use, the battle system works well and has some interesting gimmicks, and so on. You can pursue different strategies and play as different factions for replayability, you can adjust difficulty, and there's two different campaigns, with the first being shorter and ideal for noobs. The main drawback is that its learning curve is a bit steep -- if you don't know what you're doing, it's easy to make fatal mistakes and quickly game over; it's not unfair exactly, but the competency floor is high compared to other games. I could keep going, but this post is already long. Point is, the best games I've played tend to exemplify those principles I listed above. When it comes to trash games, they tend to be lacking in these things -- wonky hitboxes, inconsistent difficulty or pacing, clunky controls, sending you all the way back to the beginning, sameness & tedium, being forced to do things one way and not having options, and so forth.

* Balanced, with a reasonable difficulty curve, nothing OP/broken * Fairness, no cheap shots or excessive penalties * Agency, with plenty of options, stuff to explore, and a sense of control over events * Consistent rules/mechanics of gameplay, which are intuitive yet complex (easy-to-learn/hard-to-master) * Tight, responsive controls and an easy-to-use interface * Story/atmosphere/music * Replayability/variety * Sense of progression, proper pacing, and being able to pick up where you left off (via password/save/warps/etc) I think that covers it. Of course, the specifics of what makes games work depends on genre -- platformers, FPS, puzzle-solving, RPG, grand strategy, beat-em-ups, metroidvanias, etc all have very different qualities, and thus a different emphasis on what works. However, I believe the principles I've outlined above capture much of the magic of good games. If you review the best games, you'll find that most of these rules are applied consistently.

pretty much. I definitely object to the Specialized changes. Even the ones I don't object to in theory (big animals in Mos Eisley, ring on the Death Star explosion), still have the effect of adding 90s sfx to a film from the late 70's, which clashes and ruins the aesthetic unity. Then there's changes I object to completely, like the added scene with Jabba in ANH, on multiple counts: 1. It tells us nothing we didn't already learn from Greedo 2. It gums up the otherwise flawless pacing of the film (since it already takes a breather from action aboard the Millennium Falcon) 3. It makes literally no sense to blurt out Jabba so early, it's much better to let him be a mystery until RotJ 4. Nor does it make sense for Jabba to be slithering around town without a palanquin & armed guards 5. Han Solo treads on his sfx tail and it looks dumb. As you can gather, this topic winds me up lol. Anyway, for the true OT experience, I'd recommend Harmy's Despecialized, a fan project that restores the films to a state as close as possible to the original cut with great fidelity. There's also the 4K project, but it's unfinished last I checked.

haven't watched Andor, so I can't comment. I've heard good things, but I don't think any SW media can surpass the Original Trilogy! Even though I'm a bit of a "Disney hater", even I'll admit that the Mandalorian tv show was downright decent.

hey, sry for vanishing on you. I definitely see your point, but my ire towards Disney is because they're just reboots, rehashing the OT without advancing the story or expanding the universe. Many EU works at least added to the lore (the Thrawn trilogy was quite good), and the prequels, for all their obvious flaws, filled in blanks that were only hinted at before (the fall of the Republic). The only Disney Wars movie I have any regard for is Rogue One.

Star Wars: Plagiarism is debatable, especially since Disney took over the IP, so legally it isn't, but spiritually is another matter. My concern is that the sequel trilogy did nothing to advance the story, so that they're not really sequels at all -- they're reboots, and their lack of respect for the source material is something I object to. Z movies: You're more familiar with this topic than myself, so I'll take your word on it. My knowledge of the genre is mainly from MST3k.

I guess we'll agree to disagree on the Revenge of the Sith, which imo nearly redeemed the prequels, which were otherwise lacking in execution as you said. As for TLJ, it had good special effects, but that's all I can say. Much of it is plagiarized from Episode V and some of VI, alongside an episode of Battlestar Galactica and some sci-fi film from 2009, et al. To call it 90% plagiarized is not unreasonable. That, and its disregard for storytelling and disrespect for the lore, is why I hate on it and consider it one of the worst films ever made; at least Z films usually had a sincere, original effort behind them. However, I'd rather not delve further into that controversy from 2017, so I'll leave it at that.

The prequels were flawed, but they weren't that bad. At least they made an effort to contribute to the universe & story, and Episode 3 was easily the best of them. I consider Disney Wars to be worse because they're just rehashes and not sequels, on top of their other issues. Obviously the Original Trilogy is absolutely classic cinema, a modern epic. Empire Strikes Back is best, but the story is such that it had to be a sequel, and A New Hope had to be first. I can understand preferring ANH, it really is an amazing film, and not just for nerds. This is especially true of the original cut, which is superior to the specialized version. There are fan edits which restore the original style, I'd recommend Harmy's Despecialized. But yea, it has tight pacing, a narrative thread tying it together, the dramatis personae are introduced and utilized properly, and it builds up to an orgasmic climax. Lol @ the Star Wars Holiday Special. It's rather fascinating in its badness, the way it drags on, the trippy cartoon in the middle, the bizarre gimmicks, and going insane at the end. As I said, Ed Wood's work wasn't hilariously bad (which the Holiday Special veers into), it was just cheesy & flat.

On the latter: you're conflating things a bit, but I'll avoid that rabbit-hole, since I'd rather stay on topic. The former: yes, Rian Johnson is worse. For all of Ed Wood's faults, he did not lack sincerity & integrity. He made an honest effort, but had the tragic flaw of not being able to pull it off. The Last Jedi, on the other hand, was a plagiarized hackjob that actively insults the viewer's intelligence, mocking you with its lazy moronicity. At least Plan 9 doesn't do that, and it's original. Point taken. Can't speak on that, but The Last Boy Scout is one of my favorite action flicks. I don't think it was hated on, but it got an iffy reception, only to rightfully become a cult classic later on.

Hudson Hawk: This was excoriated as unfunny, lame, stilted, etc... but it's not bad at all. I could see where you might be put off by the slapstick comedy if you're expecting more serious action, but if you get used to the lighthearted tone, it delivers. The "swingin on a star" segment really stands out with its charm imo. Wild Wild West: Another crucifixion victim that's not bad either. Granted, it's a mindless summer popcorn kinda film, but if you accept that premise, it's fine for what it is. Will Smith puts in a charismatic performance, plenty of cool stuff goin down, and downright decent comedy segments (eg the back & forth of black/cripple jokes). Ed Wood's predicament is that he wasn't able to pull it together to make his films fun to watch, he lacked that special something that makes the whole greater than the sum of its parts. His work, from what I've seen, is competent enough, it's just kinda cheesy and flat, which is a far worse sin than being hilariously bad (eg The Room, Birdemic, Troll 2, et al). Maybe he needed someone to instruct him, or maybe he was born into the wrong generation -- after all, he's better than Rian Johnson, and the cross-dressing is far more accepted nowadays.