Ill just say again, it's not the FIRST hour. This is a section of gameplay that was chosen as it has a few of the mechanics they wanted to show off (quantum travel, player NPC interaction, FPS combat etc). It's not the start of your Single player experience.

It's not really the first hour though, it's "an hour".

Now knowing James Franco remained in character the WHOLE time, I just want to see the cast holding it in. Imagine, James Franco as Wiseau acting director, directing himself directing a movie wherein he acts like Wiseau in his acting role.

The rumors stated that not one new cast member cold keep it straight for their first hour or more on set dealing with "whoever the fuck he is...is he serious?"

...This is a terrible explanation, You're comparing two guys with movable carts to buildings, which are.. slightly harder to move.

It explains why the two vendors would eventually be close together, yes, but if you're in a city where you have one spot where you can set up shop forever, then your choice becomes a little more complex.

One of the easier solutions to the question, and the one that I personally find more viable (especially as I work in a restaurant that's close to 3 others) is that people don't like to wait.

If you have your restaurant out in the middle of town, and you get a full dining room within the first hour of dinner service, you may go on an hour long wait. The thing is though, how many people will say "Well, it's going to be an hour, lets sit outside." vs "Well, it's going to be an hour, lets go try somewhere else." Because I'm relatively sure the latter happens more often, especially if there's another place 5-10 minutes up the road.

If, however, you have 3 restaurants all located near each other, the likelyhood of all 3 filling up at exactly the same time is small. Here's the thing though, once you fill up that first restaurant (we'll call it A) restaurant B and C will start to get overflow.

Now it seems like i've defeated my own point, but now, you have 2 more options that are less than a minute away. People will either A) try to go to either B or C, or B) Sit and wait, because they can see the parking lot for those two restaurants are also pretty full.

B) retains more business, and if they choose A) The wheel continues to spin for whichever restaurant fills up first. A fills, B and C get overflow. C fills, B and A get it.

It's a system that actually benefits everyone involved because you'll also likely increase the amount of people you'd have coming to your business just because people know that's where a cluster of restaurants is.

In the long run, it's just a mutually beneficial set up.

*dead again
Here's another copy of the first hour of this epic, never-ending work ☛☞☛☞☛☞
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KB1_YUXgivE

Si Senior..., you want to buy my sister...?
She is a virgin...
Or, at least, she one was one...

Kudos to him for pulling that off, I couldn't have pulled it off after the first hour without confessing

1. Basing any game on an hours play is stupid.



So, what, I'm going to play every game out there for 6 hours? What if it only gets good in hour 12? Maybe I should put a few years into every religion too, just to make sure? Of course not. There's plenty of games I like, and I can't think of any of them that weren't fun in hour 1. If you're regularly putting more than an hour into a game you don't like, I think you're crazy. Most games put their best foot forward.

2. You talk about how you loved GW1s story, yet you ignored the story in GW2 which said wait for the NPC



Sorry, when I said I liked the campaign in the first one I didn't mean the story per se - it was generic tripe. But playing through that narrative (skipping whatever dialog might have popped up) worked really well and was pretty fun. You could explore it at your leisure, by yourself, and (as before) it made a nice tutorial for the game.

The GW1 system was powerful, but impossible to balance.



It was fine. And other game designers somehow manage to balance games with more real skills and far, far, far, far (far) more variety and power to those skills (again, thinking of DotA here, where characters actually do different, powerful things). I think they could have made it work again.

All this information was in the manuel linked right from the launcher.



Somehow I manage to play every other game I've bought in the last 10 years without ever consulting Manuel (I assume he's Spanish?) - including purposefully crazy games like Dark Souls. Oh, and Guild Wars I. Seriously, though, do you really read the manuals for games?

Anyways, it's a credit to their ingenuity that they found a place to hide this from me.

Of course, they also almost killed me in the tutorial because I couldn't figure out how to do a basic attack. Turns out I was holding something that I accidentally picked up while trying to talk to the quest person (who looked just like the 900 dudes wandering around the tutorial zone) and holding something apparently disables auto-attacks. When I checked the "hints" to see why I wasn't attacking, it helpfully told me about the "downed status".

You dont grind equipment and levels


Again, you're forgetting that I actually did play the game. I pulled Zombies out the ground and killed them until a meter filled up telling me I'd killed 10 (or 20 or whatever). Then I poisoned some bugs or crap. Those things happened. Or was I playing a different game? Maybe you're playing a different game? Are you going to tell me that killing 10 zombies is not generic RPG grind (ie. exactly what I don't want, and exactly what you're saying you don't do)?

Maybe the first hour of the game is completely opposite to the rest of the experience. Maybe at minute 61 they pull back the curtain and say "Hey, that's the last of the stupid filler crap in the game". Maybe there's a code in the manual that you can enter to play something entirely different that doesn't suck balls.

I'll never know, as I spent minute 61 uninstalling.

I wake up and walk myself through the 12 steps to control my sift addiction. (Which I kept under control for years until just now). I just finished another college degree and I'm looking for a new career. In the mean time I do freelance design work (mostly Autocad 3ds max) for various clients. I walk about 15 steps to my in-laws basement every morning. The first hour of work I spend wishing I could find a permanent enough job to get out of this place (even though it's been a week). Then I work my butt off applying for jobs or finishing client projects. Eventually I become distracted and play those internet flash games for a while until I realize some profound truth (i.e. The Dave Mathews Band really does suck, or how much I really would like to see Brent Spiner take a leading role in a non-Star Trek movie.) I prefer to spend the evenings with my beautiful wife and 2.5 children.

>> ^L0cky:

>> ^spoco2:
It's that whole 'getting into the zone' thing with coding (yes, I'm a coder by trade).Same. I also try to get my procrastinating done in the first hour of the day; then it's on with the headphones. Unfortunately I'm a nicotine and caffeine addict which gets me when I'm between tasks.

Do you have a KARLSTAD two-seater leather sofa as well?


No leather sofa... and sadly no Aeron chair like in the heady dot com days... oh how I miss that chair!

>> ^spoco2:

It's that whole 'getting into the zone' thing with coding (yes, I'm a coder by trade).Same. I also try to get my procrastinating done in the first hour of the day; then it's on with the headphones. Unfortunately I'm a nicotine and caffeine addict which gets me when I'm between tasks.



Do you have a KARLSTAD two-seater leather sofa as well?

I know full well my procrastination habits, and my main method of getting rid of them? Don't... sort of... I write off the first hour or so of a working day to checking email, checking facebook, checking videosift, checking engadget etc. etc. And once that's done the new things to see and read etc. are pretty much all gone (and being on Austalian time, and most of the stuff coming out while I'm asleep, it doesn't drip feed that fast during the day) then I can really get stuck into work... plus I have sufficiently slacked that my mind is into a really good 'right, I'm relaxed and feel I need to be productive' mode.

It's that whole 'getting into the zone' thing with coding (yes, I'm a coder by trade).

So... yeah.

But I completely agree with his tips as once you're IN the zone you don't want to be out of it... and I find that headphones and music help a lot there. I have some albums that I have listened to literally THOUSANDS of times now (The first Enigma album is one)... because I can put them on, they get me into the right mindset and I stay there.

And I found his style charming, he's got a talent there

SPOILER ALERT

Seriously, do not read further if you don't want the movie spoiled. You've been warned.

Here are my thoughts to kick this off. Today I'm a different audience goer than I was when I was first introduced to Malick's films. I remember seeing Thin Red Line in the theaters and thinking, yeah it's good but I like Saving Private Ryan more. Mainly because TRL didn't have much of a traditional 3 Act plot. Back then I also hated pretentious movies. Today I still dislike them, but not as much. I do dislike them when I feel the filmmaker is trying to outsmart me, or worse purposely trying to confuse me hoping I'll think the film is smart if I don't understand it.

This isn't the case with Malick. His films always seem genuine. As for Tree of Life, the critiques have been incredibly harsh and the one word used to describe it over and over is pretentious. In Cannes, where he won the Palme d'Or, the film was apparently met with both boos and cheers. Some have even eviscerated it for being preachy and overtly Christian. The title itself is a reference to the tree in the Garden of Eden found in both Genesis and Revelations.

I think we've become too cynical towards Christianity and religion in general. It's easy to politicize it and dismiss a very important mythology that can stand opposite of science. His reference to the tree of life, in my opinion, is a reference to creation and destruction. To beginning and ending. It's a metaphor for individual life as it is blinked into existence and then blinked right back out again. A transcendental metaphor that's smartly weaved in Malick's film. And it's not meant to preach the gospel of the bible, but to educate us on the mythology surrounding life and death.

He starts with a quote from Job that's essentially the part after god has tested Job and taken everything from him, and he speaks to Job directly after Job questions him, and god says (paraphrasing here) where were you when I created everything. In other words, Job asks "why me" or more specifically to the film "why didn't you intervene", and Job tried his entire life to make his existence what he wanted it to be, which for him was that of a pious one devoted to god. Then god smites him for no good reason outside of a game he plays with satan. When Job asks why, god answers by rhetorically questioning why Job didn't intervene when he was building the universe. It's not that he's asking why Job didn't help, but the futility of asking why things happen, as if there's no reason to it. As if life exists with loss and gains, and you have to affirm it as such. There is no why.

That's a great way to look at the film. The first hour or so takes us through a familial setup where we see a young boy's family in the 60s and his modern family today, both of which are experiencing suffering and loss, and both are questioning why, and then we see from god's perspective the size and wonder of the chaotic universe (and presumedly its creation) juxtaposed with the individual suffering of this one family. A dangerous universe. We see how all life has suffered through history (specifically focusing on the dinosaurs in the film at one point). It's all incidental. It's all without reason. It just happens, and we must affirm life this way.

Later in the film it focuses more on the 1960s family, and specifically from the perspective of one of the sons. His mother (Jessica Chastain) coddles him and his brothers while his father (Brad Pitt) is a phlegmatic and hard-nosed authoritarian that keeps his emotional distance - both the embodiment of being affected by passion and fear and emotion. At one point one of the sons dies. The boy we experience the movie through is always questioning why. He asks his mom why she couldn't save his brother. After a life of living under his father's violent authority, he asks why his father doesn't just kill him or kick him out. He suffers and then he questions why he's suffering, and then there's moments where he questions his own choices why he doesn't do things to ease that suffering - for instance at one point he considers dropping the car on his father who is working underneath it (effectively wiping out of existence one source of his suffering).

At one point in the film I felt as if Malick gave us a sneak peak at his intention for the film's message. At one point someone says something to effect of, "We should be good to everyone we come into contact with." This is the salient point. We can't control the suffering. We can't control the despair. Life comes with loss and bad things happen. We have to affirm it as such and make our moments as happy as possible, and also make the moments of other people's (and creatures') lives as happy as possible because they're experiencing the same kinds of suffering that you and me are experiencing. They, too, are incidental.

Malick truly demonstrates this point, I think, when he shows the boys strapping a frog to a rocket and sending it up into the sky. They added to the suffering of that creature even though they themselves are suffering. They didn't touch that creatures life in a way that enriched it, they only added to its suffering - and there was no justice, no penance. Their actions were considered incidental. At most they could be punished by their parents, but nothing intervened to stop them. Their actions were allowed to happen. In the end, I think that's the point of the movie. That we should remind ourselves that we have precious few moments on this earth, and instead of questioning why and giving into bad emotional cues (fear and anger) and acting out on those bad impulses, we should enjoy those few moments and ensure that we make them for those around us (animal and human alike) good as well. It's the classic path to enlightenment that surrounds the story of the Fall (Garden of Eden) where in order to get back into the Garden we must all transcend fear and desire. We must affirm life with suffering.

Anyhow, that's my two cents. Use it to buy a stick of gum.

I just saw this movie for the first time a few months ago, and the pacing of it was so odd to me. I've played in the pit orchestra for this show 3 or 4 times, so that is the setup I was used to. When I watched the movie, there was hardly any music in the first hour, and then all the music was in succession at the end. Movie pacing in the 30s always catches me off guard.

>> ^A10anis:
I truly apologise to those who find this "sport" entertaining. I have tried - honest - but it seems to me that with a line to the target to follow, a target the size of a small car and some "helpers" with brushes to speed up/slow down the projectile, anybody, even drunk, could become proficient at it in about an hour. A similar game is played on cruise ships for the elderly to partake of "strain free exercise". Seriously, why is this an olympic event? We might aswell have dwarf throwing or spitting the furthest, or how fast can you go down an ice track, flat on your back, on a plank of wood - oops, sorry, think we have that one already.


Just a couple things. You don't know what you're talking about, and therefore you SHOULD have said such.

Curling is not shuffleboard. This statement alone proves your complete lack of understanding.

I bet, even sober, you would spend the first hour playing mostly flat on your ass. Even skating does not prepare you for what you need to do in curling.

Ever play pool? Imagine making a two bumper bank shot from 40ft away. (adjusted for size difference of cueball vs. rock)

The sweeps are there to stop the rock from curling until the shooter calls it. The sweeps are an extension of him/her. It is teamwork in it's purest form.

...and yes, you are insulting people who love the SPORT by belittling the skill of the players.



ps. about the luge comment "flat on your back, on wood, etc etc" I have never heard of a spitting contest where someone could be killed because of a split-second lapse in judgment.

I like the first hour, but the after that was a bit slow.