When people forget every other buggy game they ever played including Witcher 3 on console. The eyes in the game are customizable (did he skip character creation options?).

Yes it was buggy AF at launch. Most games are, especially massive complex games, 1.03 fixed a lot of bugs, so did 1.04. Even massive big budget releases like RDR2 had game breaking bugs, scripting fails, AI fails, etc.

Doesn't help that they had to try and make it run on console hardware that is well below minimum PC specs.

blackbear - hot girl bummer [big budget music video]

Seems like there is a little too much impossible camera work going on. I suppose you could argue that's an artistic choice, and maybe the nature of trailers exaggerates it, but I definitely agree with the impression that it's got that video-gamy, early 2000's CGI vibe to it.

And bug eyes is definitely just creepy. The anime thing doesn't work on this side of the uncanny valley.

All the same... big-budget action, sci-fi kung-fu fighting future-cyborgs... meh, I'll see it more or less by default.

I'm glad they went this route.

There's a certain attitude that says that only cute, indie games about children with big heads lost in a scary world can be art (shamelessly stole that from Zero Punctuation), but big-budget action games are disposable nonsense.

And there certainly ARE plenty of good, clever, indie games and insanely dumb, tone-deaf, "press f to pay respects" AAA games.

But you can have violence be a part of your story and still be a good story. Hell, your story can be about violence and what it does to you. Spec Ops: The Line is a great example of this.

It's disingenuous to say that video games are nothing but sadistic murder simulators, but it would be equally disingenuous to pretend they're all sweetness and light.

The first God of War is as brutal and sadistic as they come and it's a great game. "Hatred" sets out to be the most brutal and sadistic game ever but it's terrible.

I've seen most of the GitS material incl. the comics & anime. I actually found the Hollywood adaptation watchable.... because I placed it in its own little isolated corner and the lowest of expectations -- Hollywood, blockbuster, skin-deep sci-fi... and I came out much relieved it wasn't as bad as the critics said. At least I had a nostalgia blast from the visuals. My blockbuster movies watching has evolved into a state of "don't care to be angry/don't pay to watch at the theatre/ just wait them out to be on Netflix/clearance DVD BluRay)

Seriously... how can anyone expect anything of above average depth from a Hollywood blockbuster anymore? Don't be silly and set yourself up for disappointment.

I can totally understand their reasons for risk-aversion. From their perspective, they got burned too many times financially (not saying it's not their own doing) to make films that demand thoughtfulness from the audience. I just don't believe in Hollywood will give us anything deep anymore for these big budget films...

Hollywood big-budget productions have lost all sense of artistry (with few exceptions). The directors all seem to think that audiences are inherently impatient twitch machines and if they hold on a shot for more than two seconds or give us a chance to breathe we'll get up and walk out.

Maybe that's true for some audience members, but you can't create art for the lowest common denominator and expect to produce anything great, or even good.

They wonder why Rotten Tomatoes and audiences are forsaking them? They need to break out of the corporate group-think and embrace artistry again. Yes it means you stink sometimes, but they produce big-budget stinkers anyhow (emoji movie anyone?). At least it would give filmmakers a chance to be great.

Has Hollywood just entirely lost its shit?

I have no idea whether that movie is good or bad from the trailer. It's a cobbled together mess of action and dialogue that makes no sense in the context provided here.

I am so frustrated with big budget movies. There's so much garbage coming out of the studios these days and trailer editing like this doesn't help me as a consumer, it just turns me off the whole process. Like that Cloak and Dagger trailer that's also floating around. I want to like it, but I have no idea what it is based on the trailer. Considering how important trailers are to commercial success, you'd think they could hire a half-way competent editor to put them together.

Argh!

/rant

I agree with ChaosEngine here, you don't have to be a chef to recognize puke on a plate.

And, on an entirely different bent, if you needed to be able to create something to critique it, nobody would ever be able to critique a big-budget movie, because nobody can make one of them, it takes a huge team.

Finally http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3943342/

So there. He has written, directed, edited, and even done sound work. (though to be honest, I have a bigger profile on IMDB than him, and I'm not exactly well-known)

Yet another movie ruined by bad direction.

Is it really so hard to get help from action directors/choreographers who actually know what they're doing? This has been going on for 20 years in Hollywood. Some movies figure it out and manage clean, comprehensible action (ie The Matrix) while others do this garbage close-up after close-up fast-cutting fight scenes which look like absolute shit on screen because they're too lazy to do the action the right way.

I honestly can't remember the last time I saw a big-budget Hollywood film that I truly enjoyed. All the execs and their hand wringing, "Oh why don't we see the returns we used to?"

Because you make shit movies, that's why.

Sigh... Don't care. I know its true. Here's a story about it a year before the russian government propaganda channel decided to "Report it"

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/07/14/pentagons-big-budget-f-35-fighter-cant-turn-cant-climb-cant-run/

My point was that RT could have proof that the US government was responsible for every murder and death the world over since 1776 and I still would not care . Simply because of who is saying it.

Have to disagree with Star Wars.

Without the massive appeal the series built, this movie wouldn't get many good reviews at all. The plot is an insane jumble of random events and plotholes that should have been embarrassing. To enumerate a few:

1) Randomly Melennium Falcon happens to be at the right place, right time (I can buy this, barely, because it's fun)

2) Before they can even have a full conversation (something the filmmakers seemed determined to avoid, even though, as this list shows, dialogue can make riveting cinema) HS and Chewie burst in. I could buy into this, if not for the rapid-fire pace of these events, as it is it just seems random and things are starting to get silly.

3) Before THEY can even have a full conversation not one, but two gangs HAPPEN upon the group, for no reason, except some executive was apparently worried about giving the audience a moment to reflect and MAYBE develop some connection with the characters.

4) Kylo Ren kicks ass. He's the only Force master EVER to stop a blaster bolt mid progress. He's got some serious juice!

5) Kylo Ren can't fight his way out of a paper bag (a bag named Finn) narrowly winning the fight and merely wounding the otherwise fairly useless ex-stormtrooper.

6) Kylo Ren is BEATEN by some chick with no training whatsoever! (Don't get me wrong, I like Rey, but the good guys are SUPPOSED to be weaker than the bad guys, and what's the point in Jedi training if she already kicks Evil's ass? )

7) WTF is up with this whiny Emo? He is, bar-none, the worst villain of the entire SW series thus far. It's not surprising that they defeat him, he's so useless, what's surprising is it takes them so damn long to beat his whining Emo shitty-at-lightsaber-duelling ass.

IMO the whole film was a hot mess that reeked of far too much studio interference which turns artistic vision into "more explosions!"

In summary, and this is totally true, my ten-year-old son, who loved the first 3 SWs (I won't let him watch the prequels) when asked what he thought of it replied, "Too many explosions." This is the mediocrity paradigm of big-budget Hollywood films at it's pinnacle.

Acknowledging that you may be wrong does not mean you were not being incredibly condescending.

Will this be the next Citizen Kane? No. And no one is asking it to be. It has the potential to be a well crafted summer blockbuster. And no, a big budget blockbuster is not inherently inferior to a small indie movie like Moon. Duncan Jones did not base himself to make a movie for the masses. It's that kind of elitist attitude that is condescending.

And no, you cannot comment on the quality of the movie based on a 15 second teaser, so far before release. All it shows is that Duncan Jones respects the source material, at least visually.

And as for Warcraft not being known for its story? Well, they made a good movie out of a Disney theme park ride, so anything can happen.

This whole kerfuffle is so pointless. Big budgets games are mostly bought by males so developers target them to males. Somer are androgynous (e.g. Bioware), some bland, alpha male and a-feminine (Call of Duty) and a few arguably stereotypically caricaturing of women (GTA).

If you publish a strong opinion on the internet and it garners attention, you will attract trolls. Surprise! The internet is full of assholes and bigots of all kinds not just mysoginists.

As far as casual or mobiles games, women already outnumber men. As games become culturally accepted entertainment for women, mobile games gravitate to bigger screens with faster chips, a more significant market for big budget games targeted at women will develop. There, end of story.

Problem is, most big budget films in America are made as products. Production crew makes storyboards, scripts etc. which get approved by executives. If the director doesn't have the clout and starts to make changes from what's on the boards, he often gets told to 'fix' it. Directors who toe the line get brought on for future projects. Those who don't, often don't get work again. Obviously there are exceptions, superstar directors who can dictate what's in their films, but they are not the norm.

In most other places, films are seen as art and the directors get more freedom to create. Also, budgets are generally lower, so it's not seen as quite the same sort of risk.

I always think of it as the "Bruce Willis" effect. Get in tight with the camera during action so no one can see your big budget star has no athletic ability.
I just assume that it carried over from film to game cut-scenes because it symbolized "action" now.