I’ve been a member of this forum for 10 years, and even though I’m not as active as I once was, I’ll miss this little community dearly.
Thank you to the staff (both current and former) for making this site what it was. A great place to not only discuss a great game, but to be a part of a great community.
-
- LuckNorris
- Registered User
-
Member for 14 years, 10 months, and 18 days
Last active Sat, Sep, 11 2021 22:24:34
- 8 Followers
- 3,739 Total Posts
- 66 Thanks
To provide more information, I’d say I’m leaning more towards the side of aggro, or combo. Control isn’t really my jam, personally.
As far as colour pie goes, all options will be considered! I wouldn’t mind playing any colour, although some colours are more complementary to the play style I’d enjoy of course!
I'm looking for a deck that has a distinct theme, something where the Commander really dictates the kind of deck you will build. Something like Edgar Markov, (vampires) Sliver Queen (slivers). I know the examples I've given are strictly tribal, but it doesn't necessarily need to be a tribal deck either.
Another one that has intrigued me is King Macar, The Gold Cursed, just to give you an example of a kind of general I might be interested in playing. Basically, I want something 1. fun 2. decently competitive 3. with a theme or engine!
Any help is appreciated
Thanks!
Hopefully we can work something out!
Regarding the plot:
In addition, I really enjoyed the character of Sam Drake. Sam for me represents what Drake could be, or the extremes of Drake's flaws. While Drake is flawed to an extent, Sam takes these same flaws and exemplifies them. Drake knows when to back out when the danger outweighs the reward, but Sam does not. I think Naughty Dog did a good job of managing a problematic character. It could have been very easy for players to hate Sam. He's a MAJOR character that only appears within the fourth game of an extremely popular series, and he's a problematic character at that. Naughty Dog managed to make Sam flawed, yet likeable. He's certainly an enigma of a character. I feel like a should hate him, but he's definitely endearing.
As for the villains, I believe that they were the strongest in the series. Rafe and Nadine were such a dynamic villain duo, and the way they played off of each other was fantastic. The villains in the first two games (Roman and Lasaravich) were fairly one dimensional, Rafe is so much more interesting in comparison. He's a affluent rich young man who has earned nothing in his life, a fact that has a potent effect on his overall character and disposition. He's psychotic and truly off the rails, and was even more threatening than Lasaravich was in Uncharted 2.
The pacing of the plot in general is much more satisfying in this game. While the pacing in Uncharted 2 was near-perfect, the pacing in this game is as close to a film as I believe video games can possibly be. The beginning of the game is so well done, and sets up perfectly for the rest of the plot, and the motivations behind the protagonists. Careful measures were made to not bloat the plot (the exclusion of Chloe and Cutter are emblematic of this), and to keep the pace brisk yet enticing enough to keep things exciting. In addition, the ending of the game does the entire series justice. It didn't go for simple shock value, instead implemented an ending that completes the major characters, while also introducing a new one! I enjoyed it thoroughly.
One minor gripe I have about the plot is the lack of supernatural elements that have been a part of the series up until this point. While it certainly doesn't detract from the overall plot of the game as a whole, I felt like it could have been implemented in to the plot. As it sits now, three games out of four contain supernatural elements. It just doesn't make sense why this game doesn't.
What did you guys think of the game? Let's discuss!
In comparison to DC's most recent outings however, Marvel films look like Palme d'Or winners. Never have I seen a film so poorly paced as BvS.
To stay on topic, Suicide Squad looks like it's going to sit somewhere in between. I don't think it's going to be as bad as BvS, but I don't think it'll be as good as something like the first Iron Man for example. The reshoots do seem alarming, and should be taken as an indicator of the quality of this film. It'll probably be mediocre, which is a shame.
In terms of the trailer, it looks like standard block buster action fare. That being said, it still looks promising enough. Looking forward to see if any of the classic Star Wars characters will make cameo appearances, or perhaps have substantial roles within the narrative.
For some genuinely emotional and touching films, I would recommend these:
Record of a Tenement Gentleman. Very touching Japanese film that contains a decent amount of humour, while still remaining very human and poignant. It's pacing is slow compared to a lot of modern Hollywood cinema, but it's worth a viewing in the end simply based on it's sheer emotional depth.
The Bicycle Thieves. Portrays poverty and Post-War Italy better than any films I've ever seen. Very subtle film that manages to impress me on every viewing. It's definitely not a feel good film by any means, but it has that emotional punch that a movie based on working class struggles should have. Highly recommended.
The Searchers. While not as thought provoking, The Searches is probably the most intellectual and emotionally deep Western I've ever seen. The character development and sheer scope of this movie are very impressive. This film is beautifully shot, with a very engaging plot to boot.
The Mirror. If you want a film that is extremely visceral and requires a lot of critical thinking to process, this is the one. Beautiful experimental Russian film with extremely deep symbolism and unorthodox narrative. Recommended, but only if you have an interest in art cinema or experimental cinema. If you are more interested in traditional Hollywood cinema, you might want to avoid this one.
My last name is Luck, and it just stuck.
You've just proven that you know absolutely nothing about storytelling, dialogue, or even narrative for that matter.
"Nothing made sense" in an of itself doesn't make any sense. You weren't watching an experimental non-narrative film. That criticism is absolutely baseless. If you aren't a troll I feel really bad for you.
I mean, I was a little young to truly mourn the passing of Michael Jackson. I enjoyed his music, but his loss didn't dawn on me until later.
I'm at an age know where the effect of the loss really speaks to me. Bowie was one of those musicians that just produced magic. He was always genuine to himself, always willing to face adversity in the name of his art. Always willing to push buttons. I love his music, but more importantly Bowie as a person really spoke to me. He reminded me to never forget what is most important, and that's staying true to yourself and your art.
Songs like Changes, Rock 'N' Roll Suicide, Sound and Vision, Fame, all of those songs will live forever for me. I'll always enjoy them, no matter what.
Bowie was the kind of musician who could produce music in a wide variety of genres and make it work entirely. He had funk albums, he had rock albums, he had pop albums, he had punk albums, etc.
There will be great musicians for years to come. But a musician like Bowie comes once in a generation.
I'll miss him forever.
R.I.P. Starman
But I won't be called pretentious while being spoken down to. You can call me whatever you'd like, but the way you argue is downright condescending at times. Can't we all just be a little civil? Instead of asking redundant questions and intentionally ignoring other questions I pose?
I try to pose my arguments to invite other opinions. I'd like to be treated with similar courtesy.
Now, I already answered your question regarding Lucas' status as an auteur, but you seemed to miss it. Can you distinguish Lucas' approach to filmmaking from Kershner's or Marchand's? If Lucas was an auteur, you should easily be able to. That's what the auteur theory is really all about.
I'm more than willing to admit I may be wrong, but I'd like a little bit of proof to some statements you make.
I'm a film theory student, not that my opinion is law or anything like that, but I do have some educational background in this subject. Doesn't validate my opinion, but just wanted to give you a background of where I'm coming from.
As for Star Wars being the first VFX spectacle, I'd disagree. There were definitely effect driven spectacles far before Star Wars. One that immediately comes to mind is Thief of Baghdad, the 1940 version by Michael Powell. Known for it's great use of Technicolor, and one of the first big budget movies to use the green screen technique. Definitely a technological marvel during it's day, with a rather thin plot.
Star Wars wasn't the first film to use Dolby Stereo, that honor would go to Ken Russell's Lisztomania, which came out two years before Star Wars did.
You don't give Avatar nearly enough credit in the visuals department, it did almost as much as Star Wars did in the VFX department. You'll need to specify the changes in editing techniques in regards to VFX and Star Wars.
George Lucas did a good job, but a film auteur? Hell no! At least, I don't think so. If that makes me pretentious, then I'm sorry but that's how I feel.
I'd say the majority of film theorists would disagree with your assessment that George Lucas was an auteur. I mean, can you really distinguish his style of filmmaking from Kershner? Marquand? In my opinion, no.
Star Wars changed editing systems? You'll need some sort of citation for that. Watching the film, I don't see it, but that doesn't mean it's there or not there. I could have missed it.
My only problem with your line of thinking in regards to special effects and visual storytelling is that your argument can be applied to vapid pieces of film like Enter the Void and Avatar. Avatar in particular because it has a plot that's similarly too familiar (though obviously Star Wars is much better in this regard), and has special effects that you could argue advanced film.
You don't have to inform me of schools of cinema, trust me on that one. This is a field I'm pretty knowledgeable in, no need to talk down to me, Highroller. Art cinema has a much different function than narrative cinema, obviously. I didn't make that argument (regarding plot) at all. The straw man is already dead, no need to attack him some more.
I think a better argument is that Star Wars changed VFX forever. That would hold more water. In terms of the entirety of filmmaking, it doesn't make nearly as many strides (if any at all).
I'm not trying to be pretentious, I simply have knowledge and an opinion, and I'm trying to make an argument. Not trying to talk down to anyone here.
In regards to Film Noir, many examples exist of different movies that contain elements, but I'd argue no movie before Citizen Kane contributed to the genre nearly as much. Innovation at it's purest.
Take Citizen Kane, for example. Wonderful visual effects (the painted sets that are spliced with film negatives, for example), but that isn't the sole reason it's known as a defining film in cinema. Orson Welles employed multiple techniques that place it among the movies that truly pushed motion pictures forward (things like use of shadows/light, things like deep depth of field, etc.). Hell, Citizen Kane (among others) inspired a whole damn style and genre of filmmaking. (Film Noir)
How was Avatar not visually innovative? Are you trying to tell me that in 2009 you weren't wowed by the visuals? Devil's advocate at it's finest.
Star Wars, while providing wonderful visual spectacle, doesn't do many revolutionary things in terms of cinematographic techniques (things like Ozu's 360 degree system of editing, for example). It's pretty standard in that category. In terms of visuals, Star Wars was definitely impressive during it's day. But visuals do not make up the entirety of film. You need more than that to truly be revolutionary.
I'll admit my use of language wasn't entirely clear, and for that I do apologize. Star Wars did advance the medium in terms of visual effects, that's for certain. But in terms of film techniques, the meat of storytelling and filmmaking, it's pretty standard fare. Star Wars isn't a movie you walk away from and say, "Wow, George Lucas is a true auteur. Someone who changes the way we view films.". George Lucas isn't nearly on the same level as the other filmmakers I've mentioned (Ozu, Welles, Ford, Hitchcock), and there's a reason for that. What does Star Wars do that changes editing systems? Use of light and shadow? A revolution in use of sound? Any revolutionary filming technique (stuff like Soviet montage and Sergei Eisenstein)?