FormallyMegadrive
Member
HolyCheck said:
Nothing wrong with either of those songs.
So basically, a band should stay exactly the same as when they were kids and never ever evolve?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
AusGAF 2.0 - Twice the price, a year late but still moving forward
- Thread starter VOOK
- Start date
- Status
Nothing wrong with either of those songs.
So basically, a band should stay exactly the same as when they were kids and never ever evolve?
Megadrive said:
A band should evolve, just not to cater to what is giving them the most success purely because it is giving them the most success but perhaps a touch of that + growing the hell up
on bands not evolving let's lol at this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUTGr5t3MoY
I'm not even going to look for their later stuff, as it hurts.
Ok, Read Dead Redemption- Went for a trek through the woods to find some hummingbird sage. Encountered wolf pack #342 and dispensed with them in the same manner I did wolf packs #1 through #341, go to return to my horse and OH FUCK BEARS MY FACE NOW I'M DEAD!
I concede that such moments entertain - once. I'm personally completely done with all the ancillary tasks available to John Marston, will burn through the core missions to see how this humdrum story wraps up, and call it a day.
I concede that such moments entertain - once. I'm personally completely done with all the ancillary tasks available to John Marston, will burn through the core missions to see how this humdrum story wraps up, and call it a day.
D
Deleted member 30609
Unconfirmed Member
I never did any of the side-mission content in Red Dead. I don't know what that says about me as a player.
Well, it probably speaks to the way I interpret the worlds Rockstar, specifically, give me than it does any larger trend throughout what I play, I guess.
Well, it probably speaks to the way I interpret the worlds Rockstar, specifically, give me than it does any larger trend throughout what I play, I guess.
AdventureRacing
Member
evlcookie said:
The most recent album from kings of leon is by far the best they have ever produced.
POWERSPHERE
Member
Megadrive said:
*spews in slurpee*
I know the dudes, they decided to take the money road and wrote for that. They never sold out, as this was always their plan. It's just that they wrote a good song once with Sweater, but that was just them pretending to be Weezer anyway, which was commerically viable at the time.
FormallyMegadrive
Member
VOOK said:
You gonna buy some hentai pillows?
Just to be really clear, I am VERY pro selling out. I've sold out tons of times during my career and don't regret any of it.
if you get a chance to sell out and help secure your future, do your research, get a good deal and go for it. Your work has value and there's nothing wrong with cashing in.
Modern Eskimo Joe sucks though.
Except selling out to GameSpot for way too little money but meh I was young and stupid
Modern Eskimo Joe sucks though.
D
Deleted member 30609
Unconfirmed Member
I don't think writing songs with the intent of filling a stadium one day is an artistically improper goal.
HolyCheck said:
I remember reading an article in the local paper concerning Eskimo Joe. The title was "On the Brink of the Big Time". I scoffed at the idea that Eskimo Joe could ever grow beyond being moderately popular within Australia.
And here they are, several years later, more or less in the same position they were in when the article was written.
Also, the biggest offenders of "selling out" when popularity hits are Silverchair.
Govt bans Indonesian official: WikiLeaks
Why be secret about it? If the bugger organised it, publicly tell him to fuck right off.
Why be secret about it? If the bugger organised it, publicly tell him to fuck right off.
Gazunta said:
Of course you are. Selling out =/= selling artistic goods.
In my mind, when you start compromising your artistic vision with the goal to sell more copies of whatever it is you're making, is when you become a sell out. I'm not even saying there's something inherently wrong with that, I just think that when that becomes the primary goal, it's disingenuous to call it art.
Video games are an interesting thing to look at, because making something accessible is very often part of the artistry in the first place.
D
Deleted member 30609
Unconfirmed Member
I think creating music with the sole intent of winning over fans and making money in order to boost your ego has been one of the primary motivators of clever musical innovation over time anyway, nowadays is no different.
Bach wrote his best work because he was commissioned to do so in order to please the hoity toity upper-class, because that's where the money was. It doesn't make the 48 Preludes and Fugues any less interesting a study.
Music made for one's self is only half the picture, in my mind. You need an audience. I won't look down on anyone who makes sacrifices to their vision in order to appeal to wider one, it's just how the industry works. Some people just want to get up on stage and be a super-hero, and good for them for dropping the pretense and just feeding their ego. If they have the looks, talent and charisma to pull it off then good for them, most people could never get away with it. I know I'd do it if I could get away with it.
What I can't stand, in basically every creative medium, is everyone trying to be the Freddy Mercury of their field without earning it creatively, artistically OR commercially. Freddy Mercury or Thom Yorke isn't a starting point, they're the goal. You need to leave yourself room to grow into something that grand.
tl;dr: it's organised noise. music as an accessory is ugly.
/music student rant
Bach wrote his best work because he was commissioned to do so in order to please the hoity toity upper-class, because that's where the money was. It doesn't make the 48 Preludes and Fugues any less interesting a study.
Music made for one's self is only half the picture, in my mind. You need an audience. I won't look down on anyone who makes sacrifices to their vision in order to appeal to wider one, it's just how the industry works. Some people just want to get up on stage and be a super-hero, and good for them for dropping the pretense and just feeding their ego. If they have the looks, talent and charisma to pull it off then good for them, most people could never get away with it. I know I'd do it if I could get away with it.
What I can't stand, in basically every creative medium, is everyone trying to be the Freddy Mercury of their field without earning it creatively, artistically OR commercially. Freddy Mercury or Thom Yorke isn't a starting point, they're the goal. You need to leave yourself room to grow into something that grand.
tl;dr: it's organised noise. music as an accessory is ugly.
/music student rant
codswallop
Member
I heard that Eskimo Joe refused to play Sweater nowadays. That is selling out.
AdventureRacing
Member
That was a good post rez, i agree with all of it.
This right here is my problem with this type of conversation. What type of music you like is purely subjective.
Cohsae said:
This right here is my problem with this type of conversation. What type of music you like is purely subjective.
endlessflood
Member
As jambo pointed out that was MP footage from the BFBC2 Vietnam expansion. It's MP only, there is no AI.giri said:
I personally think that the vehicles in BFBC2 are pretty much as good as they come and can't think of a single MP game with better vehicles, but maybe I'm missing some obvious examples. Which ones would you hold up as being the benchmark?giri said:
FormallyMegadrive
Member
Just a few things. Never have i ever can get you super drunk super quickly, and is amazing when played with at least 8 people. Less is fine but way less loud and hilarious.
Second, day-after-drinking poops are amazing. Especially after you were drinking beer the night before.
Second, day-after-drinking poops are amazing. Especially after you were drinking beer the night before.
Finished Red Dead Redemption.
I'm glad I played it. There's enough to enjoy, even if those moments don't arise because of any particular gameplay system. Parts like the first ride into Mexico as Jose Gonzales plays are brilliantly executed yet those moments aren't enough to really carry the whole experience. Very little skill is required - just pump enough time into any aspect of the game and you'll be successful.
There were two events in the game that arose as a result of the procedural systems present in the game that were great:
1) In the first of the many random encounters with a 'damsel in distress' on the highway that is actually an ambush, I disposed of all the bandits and went to chase down the woman as she was running away. I was about the lasso her as she was pleading for forgiveness, claiming that she'd been unwillingly coerced into the dupe by the bandits. Just as she was pleading for her life, a cougar jumped out of a nearby bush and mauled her to death. Fucking hilarious.
2) In the 'escapee running from two lawmen' random encounter, I shot the escapee as he ran towards me. The two lawmen mosey up to the dead body to thank me for my assistance and just as they arrive at the scene, a wolf charges in from nowhere and I shoot it in Deadeye mode, inches away from the sherrif. The lawmen thanked me for my last minute save and I felt like the fucking champ!
Those two moments, lasting about 5 minutes in total, were the most fun I had in the >20 hour chunk of time I put into Red Dead.
Apart from that, the game relies too much on staged sequences to deliver both the atmosphere and the story. I remember walking through the woods and coming across a man crying over the body of his dead wife. He couldn't be spoken to but once Marston walks away, a gunshot is heard and upon returning to the scene his body is lying next to that of his wife. Embellishments like that are cleverly implemented but from a gameplay perspective they don't really engage the player, rather just add another layer of paint to the tapestry. That is Red Dead Redemption's central flaw - it isn't so much a game as it is a very finely crafted world with minimal interaction. Sandbox games are at their best when there is a high level of interactivity with infinite outcomes depending on the players input - games like Crackdown and Just Cause 2 are the best examples. Red Dead instead relies on puppet strings behind the scenes to deliver the key moments of the whole experience and asks little of the player.
As silly as it sounds, the gameplay-heavy parts that require a high level of player input stand in stark contrast to the dusty plodding atmosphere of the game. Yes, realism in games should rarely be a key design goal, but with a billion turret sequences and encounters when Marston takes out 20 dudes in 10 seconds, the accurately recreated western frontier quickly falls apart and it turns into a circus show.
I stand by my case that is a oft-boring game with exceptionally high production values. It did a poor job of stressing the key beats of Marston's story and I was very rarely sure of the significance of certain characters or events. The majority of the game is spent in transit, and unlike GTA, a horse-riding mechanic just doesn't provide an on-the-moment sense of enjoyment like hurtling around in a car does. I guess they make up for that by peppering the highways and game trails with random stranger quests, but once you've completed enough of each individual quest type they all get pretty stale.
The game shines when it captures the spirit of the west, even if that mythology is intrinsically slow-paced and plodding. Sunsets and sweeping vistas are nice and all but cannot themselves make for a good game.
Overall, I did sorta have fun but I won't play a sequel. Considering how low the enjoyment:time investment ratio is in these new grittier style games from Rockstar, I will be very hesitant with the inevitable GTAV.
I'm glad I played it. There's enough to enjoy, even if those moments don't arise because of any particular gameplay system. Parts like the first ride into Mexico as Jose Gonzales plays are brilliantly executed yet those moments aren't enough to really carry the whole experience. Very little skill is required - just pump enough time into any aspect of the game and you'll be successful.
There were two events in the game that arose as a result of the procedural systems present in the game that were great:
1) In the first of the many random encounters with a 'damsel in distress' on the highway that is actually an ambush, I disposed of all the bandits and went to chase down the woman as she was running away. I was about the lasso her as she was pleading for forgiveness, claiming that she'd been unwillingly coerced into the dupe by the bandits. Just as she was pleading for her life, a cougar jumped out of a nearby bush and mauled her to death. Fucking hilarious.
2) In the 'escapee running from two lawmen' random encounter, I shot the escapee as he ran towards me. The two lawmen mosey up to the dead body to thank me for my assistance and just as they arrive at the scene, a wolf charges in from nowhere and I shoot it in Deadeye mode, inches away from the sherrif. The lawmen thanked me for my last minute save and I felt like the fucking champ!
Those two moments, lasting about 5 minutes in total, were the most fun I had in the >20 hour chunk of time I put into Red Dead.
Apart from that, the game relies too much on staged sequences to deliver both the atmosphere and the story. I remember walking through the woods and coming across a man crying over the body of his dead wife. He couldn't be spoken to but once Marston walks away, a gunshot is heard and upon returning to the scene his body is lying next to that of his wife. Embellishments like that are cleverly implemented but from a gameplay perspective they don't really engage the player, rather just add another layer of paint to the tapestry. That is Red Dead Redemption's central flaw - it isn't so much a game as it is a very finely crafted world with minimal interaction. Sandbox games are at their best when there is a high level of interactivity with infinite outcomes depending on the players input - games like Crackdown and Just Cause 2 are the best examples. Red Dead instead relies on puppet strings behind the scenes to deliver the key moments of the whole experience and asks little of the player.
As silly as it sounds, the gameplay-heavy parts that require a high level of player input stand in stark contrast to the dusty plodding atmosphere of the game. Yes, realism in games should rarely be a key design goal, but with a billion turret sequences and encounters when Marston takes out 20 dudes in 10 seconds, the accurately recreated western frontier quickly falls apart and it turns into a circus show.
I stand by my case that is a oft-boring game with exceptionally high production values. It did a poor job of stressing the key beats of Marston's story and I was very rarely sure of the significance of certain characters or events. The majority of the game is spent in transit, and unlike GTA, a horse-riding mechanic just doesn't provide an on-the-moment sense of enjoyment like hurtling around in a car does. I guess they make up for that by peppering the highways and game trails with random stranger quests, but once you've completed enough of each individual quest type they all get pretty stale.
The game shines when it captures the spirit of the west, even if that mythology is intrinsically slow-paced and plodding. Sunsets and sweeping vistas are nice and all but cannot themselves make for a good game.
Overall, I did sorta have fun but I won't play a sequel. Considering how low the enjoyment:time investment ratio is in these new grittier style games from Rockstar, I will be very hesitant with the inevitable GTAV.
D
Deleted member 30609
Unconfirmed Member
if you haven't tried GTAIV: The Ballad of Gay Tony, Bern, I'd give it a try. I posted a long thread a while back about why I think it was the best thing R* North have released, but the short of it is:
- Shorter story means no plodding second act
- More focused characters
- Strong core friendship never feels strained over the weight of a twenty hour story
- Great use of the city, particularly via mission design
Very strong game. It may give you more faith in a (fingers crossed) more Pulp Fiction-esque GTAV.
- Shorter story means no plodding second act
- More focused characters
- Strong core friendship never feels strained over the weight of a twenty hour story
- Great use of the city, particularly via mission design
Very strong game. It may give you more faith in a (fingers crossed) more Pulp Fiction-esque GTAV.
Yeah, I've played all the GTAIV content. I enjoyed Lost and Damned the most out of any GTAIV story, because of the great central characters. I liked vanilla GTAIV on the first play and only really got bored of it towards the end.
I can't remember much about Gay Tony's key missions, but I remember it being very gunplay-heavy and there was a richer mix of mission types - more outlandish than what was offered in Niko's story. To be honest, I don't remember much of the cast with the exception of the two main characters - 'Ethnic Guy' and 'Gay guy' - the rest is a blur.
The core pillar of any sandbox game is the world itself. The real star of GTA is Liberty City, and my appreciation of GTAIV as a whole grew immensely about five minutes into my play of Lost and Damned. It was amazing to see all the same familiar locales through the perspective of a different player, and no other game/franchise has produced that kind of immersion.
That said, a good sandbox game should allow for a multitude of unplanned, unique situations to arise. Red Dead's wild west, whilst brilliantly crafted, felt more to me like a hubworld for a loosely-stringed collection of missions. A few rare moments in the game might arise organically, but for the most part it's a case of 'traverse to checkpoint > cutscene > traverse > gameplay > cutscene', such that the overworld is made redundant to a small degree. That's simply the intrinsic nature of seriously-toned sandbox games and Assassin's Creed II and Brotherhood both suffer from it.
I can't remember much about Gay Tony's key missions, but I remember it being very gunplay-heavy and there was a richer mix of mission types - more outlandish than what was offered in Niko's story. To be honest, I don't remember much of the cast with the exception of the two main characters - 'Ethnic Guy' and 'Gay guy' - the rest is a blur.
The core pillar of any sandbox game is the world itself. The real star of GTA is Liberty City, and my appreciation of GTAIV as a whole grew immensely about five minutes into my play of Lost and Damned. It was amazing to see all the same familiar locales through the perspective of a different player, and no other game/franchise has produced that kind of immersion.
That said, a good sandbox game should allow for a multitude of unplanned, unique situations to arise. Red Dead's wild west, whilst brilliantly crafted, felt more to me like a hubworld for a loosely-stringed collection of missions. A few rare moments in the game might arise organically, but for the most part it's a case of 'traverse to checkpoint > cutscene > traverse > gameplay > cutscene', such that the overworld is made redundant to a small degree. That's simply the intrinsic nature of seriously-toned sandbox games and Assassin's Creed II and Brotherhood both suffer from it.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked