u/cold-vein

Silent Hill to me has always been about psychological horror mixed with nightmarish visual imagery, never about any certain time or place. The original games (I've only played the first three) were set in America, but weren't that American to me. They had a distinct japanese sensibility, and I think that sensibility is there even stronger in Silent Hill F. The plot opening up on subsquent playthroughs is a really great idea, one I would hope to see more of in story based gaming.

Only negative I guess would be the underwhelming combat, but then again these games are not about the combat and never have been. I just turned it to easy and had a great time with the game.

This post was removed by the mods in the Silent Hill subpost for some reason?

It's just so much video game for your money. No hand holding, the combat is surprisingly deep once you start experimenting, it's got the spectacle of a game like Elden Ring but without the frustrating learning curve. The visuals, man the visuals are gorgeous! It doesn't quite look like anything else, a clear continuum from Control but so much trippier. They've incorporated stuff like surrealism, M.C. Escher meets Dali and while those are the two big names, most games absolutely don't take their influence from classic art, but rather from comic books or other games.

I feel like Remedy games come from discussions like the ones I have with my friends about games: Wouldn't it be cool if you had a Metroidvania set in an impossible, brutalist office building? Wouldn't in be cool if you had a survival horror game set in Twin Peaks? Wouldn't it be cool if you had an action RPG with Tetsuo from Akira as the PC?

Remedy, Kojima and FromSoftware are the three pushing video games forward.

It all depends what you like: my favourite doom has always been Maryland stuff, and Hempispheres sounds like a forgotten Maryland doom band from the 90s. Sure there's the Sleep DNA, but this also feels like a new band. I'm sure ya'll who got into them thru amplifier worship and the mythos of the band won't like it, but for old doom heads like me this is the best thing Cisneros could have done with the band.

So yeah it was a flawed game, kinda got boring when you started to fight robots but I think it still kept the spirit of the original games. It looked great, the combat was fun and a huge step up from the originals. If someone would mod in speech and make a total conversion of like Fallout 1, 2 or a new total conversion I would give them money.

I just think the setting is very interesting, especially Deathloop with its more futuristic take on it. I would love to see a true Dishonored RPG, party based or not. I love turn based and that would be something different, so it wouldn't get compared to the originals. I hope Microsoft sells Arkane or at least the IP to someone. Let Owlcat make it?

I just think the setting is very interesting, especially Deathloop with its more futuristic take on it. I would love to see a true Dishonored RPG, party based or not. I love turn based and that would be something different, so it wouldn't get compared to the originals. I hope Microsoft sells Arkane or at least the IP to someone. Let Owlcat make it?

I'm now playing thru Dishonored and I gotta say I'm disappointed. To preface I played the OG Thief, Thief 2 and Thief 3 when they came out. I quit gaming for like 10 years around 2008 so I missed Dishonored series, coming back to gaming with a PS4 and Prey. I really liked Prey for how open ended it was and how the different skills could be used to traverse the enviroment, they nailed it IMO even if the game is really easy.

So I went into Dishonored waiting for Thief meets Prey, and it is that only so much worse than either. Maps are linear, you have "options" but usually it's two options, or three and one of them is clearly the best. There's loading screens everywhere. The powers are completely OP, I could just bypass everything with upgraded Blink from the second stage onward. There's no sense on tension when you can just teleport away. You're also a fucking ninja with a gun, it's easy to just kill everyone. There's absolutely no challenge involved, or stakes since you have very limited use for money so why rob anything?

I get that it was a streamlined, slick version of Thief for the next generation, but to me it's just dumbed down and boring, taking away everything that made Thief 1 & 2 (and 3 to a lesser degree) so unique.

FBC obviously would be a no brainer for a comic book series. I wonder why they haven't done it? It's not super expensive to make and would easily make a profit

I will also rate them on a scale of 1-5. Note these are not my opinions on the movies themselves, Brosnan has a top 3 Bond movie and Dalton doesn't even crack the top 5.

Sean Connery:
Connery is amazingly charismatic and just the right kind of ruggedly handsome Bond requires. He's got everything going for him, and his Bond is iconic for a reason. However I do think his version of the character is perhaps a bit bland; it's simply Sean Connery as a secret agent. He brings little nuance to his portrayal, staying pretty much the same for his whole run. He doesn't surprise, his Bond is a caricature and never strays far from Connery. 4/5

George Lazenby:
Another case of a charismatic dude doing himself as a secret agent. Lazenby's Bond is a lot softer than the others, sure the script is basically Bond in love but Lazenby himself wasn't a tough guy. He's not a very good actor either but very likeable. 2/5

Roger Moore:
Roger was the first to NOT play himself as Bond, and his Bond is a fucking psycho. He displays little emotion past "stressed" or "in pain", he's got a permanent smirk on his face and he seems to enjoy killing people the same as having sex. The infamous scene where he just kicks the evil henchmen's car down a cliff pretty much defines the Moore Bond, and I think it's the funniest take for sure. 3,5/5

Timothy Dalton:
Now Timothy I think is the best actor out of all the Bonds. He's not playing himself, and he's not playing a caricature either. His Bond goes from a charismatic leader to a man falling in love to a psychotic killer within the span of like 30 minutes, and he does all three amazingly. His Bond definitely has the most range, showing Bond as a flawed but very human, a person. That said, Dalton I think when he gets mad is the craziest, he's even more mental than Moore. Moore is cold and distant, just amused but Daltons Bond if crossed will not rest until he's ripped you to shreds with his bare hands. Amazing, too bad the movies aren't that good 5/5

Pierce Brosnan:
Ah, this is a hard one. Goldeneye is one of the best Bond movies, it feels both grounded and extravagant at the same time, a balance Dalton's movies tried but couldn't quite pull off. It has iconic villains and henchmen and Bonds little pals, and Brosnan is at the top of his game. BUT, Brosnan is soft. His Bond doesn't enjoy killing, he's a hero not an antihero like Bond's supposed to be. He's charming, but he's too charming. And his movies go from bad to worse after Goldeneye. If I were to rate only the first one, he would score higher but as a whole Brosnan gets a 3/5.

Daniel Craig:
Ah, the second best actor of the series. His Bond is a new take, and probably the only one where they actually thought about who Bond is and what defines him. His Bond is an emotionally stunted manchild, a violent Gorilla in a suit who's also very intelligent and emotional. He's exactly what Bond is: a blunt instrument with too much autonomy and a tendency to go rogue, but with added sensitivity none of the others except Dalton had. Great take on the character, again Casino Royale is the best of the bunch and goes to my top 3 Bond movies. Rest are uneven, mostly bad with some great stuff occasionally, but he always keeps his performance top notch. 4/5.

As we know, republicans used to be progressives and democrats conservatives. The switch happened in the 1930s onward, democrats became liberal and republicans conservative.

Right now, we're seeing Republicans and especially MAGA supporting very radical ideas about the government, America's role globally and fusing religion with politics. It's not liberal, but it's very radical and in many ways opposite of conservative, which is defined as "Conservatism is a cultural, social, and political philosophy and ideology that seeks to promote and preserve traditional institutions, customs, and values" Democrats on the other hand ARE trying to maintain a world order defined after WW2, are very much trying to resist change.

So the question isn't whether republicans are turning liberal, but rather are they increasingly radical and democrats are increasingly conservative?

And why democrats are failing is the same story as with conservatism throughout history: the old story doesn't ring true anymore, it doesn't offer meaning to people and a majority want something new.

Edit for clarification, here are the definitions of conservative and radicalism:

"Conservatism is a cultural, social, and political philosophy and ideology that seeks to promote and preserve traditional institutions, customs, and values."

The word actually has no connotations regarding political platform. The opposite would be radicalism:

"Radicalism refers to political, social, or ideological beliefs that advocate for fundamental, "root-and-branch" change, seeking to alter the core of existing social, economic, or political structures."

Frontstreet esp, just hard shit no chorus or pop