::Debating::

[Biohazard EXTREME]

Thee Stranger

- Well, he mentions how it "goes beyond Sci-fi to become philosophy". And you very well know Kojima always stuffs MGS full of that philosophical bullshit at the end of each game. So I'd give it a little more credit. Personally, I could do without it. I really wish he wouldn't. Because, frankly, I don't think he's really talented enough in that department. He pulled it off well in Snatcher, because it was very brief and effective enough. MGS was just a little too sappy and heavy-handed with it. But it was tolerable, because I had just finished one of the most fantastic video game experiences I ever had. But when it came full circle to that s**t again in MGS2, even more heavy-handed with crappy jazz music in the background, I really felt like punching the dude in the head at that moment. Because this was after witnessing him completely ******** the storyline of my game, and it was so bad that it really didn't deserve a pretentious-a**, preachy-a** finale. I think the problem is the guy has his head up his own a** sometimes. Especially after MGS became a huge hit. So for MGS2, he wanted to go beyond an action game, and the result was total suckage. I was glad to find MGS3 didn't really have that philosophy s**t. But it was back for MGS4, along with a bunch of the s**t I hated from MGS2 (still can't get over the arm; still doesn't make any damn logical sense.)[/rant]

Hey, you can criticize the storyline all you want, but don't be dissin' the Jazz music in MGS2, that was awesome. Best tracks in the whole OST were the jazzy ones.

Thee Stranger

Woosh, sorry about that. Moving on. Well, I can't really say. It obviously doesn't list all the movies that served as influence. But if Rambo was such a huge one, I think it would have made it up there alongside Predator. But I could see your point there, as there IS obvious Rambo and Escape from New York references.

Yeah, like I said, the fact that Escape from New York is missing off that list... Well, let's just say Rambo had as much influence on MGS as Escape from New York, take it as you will.

Thee Stranger

- Oh, I don't know. "Mission.. accomplished" right before he stabs the knife down next to that dude's head was pretty cheesy. I's not so much the s**t Rambo himself says, it's the ridiculous action and the s**t other characters say about Rambo. Like I said, they make him a goddamn super hero. That's why he's so cheesy.

"Who is this man? GOD?!?"
"No. God would have mercy... he won't."

Yeeeaaahhh... first of all, Trautman, you must not be reading up on your Old Testiment. Ever heard of the Great Flood? Sodom and Gomorrah? Judgement Day? Apparently you weren't aware that God is a mass murderer who puts Rambo's antics to shame. And then, after he kills you, you get to burn in Hell in ever-lasting pain and agony forever and ever! How's THAT for mercy? xd God > Rambo.

Well, yeah, I'm not denying that Rambo III is the cheesiest of them all, but still, it's not like it's frequent. In fact, that one part, where they got the Hinds, tanks and military jeeps, plus the soldiers all heading in their direction, and Trautman says, "Any ideas?" and Rambo says, "I guess surrounding them's out of the question." That was actually really funny and clever, I thought.
But most of the time Rambo is a man of few words, and that's what I like about the character.

And besides, you always say Rambo's a super hero. He's like a freakin G.I. Joe... Maybe, but he's a G.I. Joe with Violence. And frankly, if you take like... I haven't seen the G.I. Joe movie, but I'm pretty sure it's not as violent as Rambo. And frankly, that kind of thing cheapens the experience.
I mean... Imagine if Rambo 2 and 3 were intended to be PG movies... And you take that audience and you add all that violence... That's a pretty damn awesome PG 13 movie. So yeah, maybe that's where we disagree, afterall, I HAVE been watching Rambo since I was 2 years old.

Thee Stranger

I don't know. Maybe it's because McClane's one-liners are just so damn good. But personally, I think Joe Hallenbeck from The Last Boyscout is the undisputed one-liner king (also played by Bruce Willis).

Even above Ash from Evil Dead?

Thee Stranger

- Obviously they're not the same. But they can easily be compared. Graphics and special effects (which was the main focal point here) share a lot in common. But even disregarding that; video games, just like film, is an evolving medium. Film was very primitive at its start, and evolved with the advance of technology, just like videogames. It had a lot of limitations in the earlier days, just like video games. So while people may always look like people in film, the film could be black & white (which I know plenty of people who won't watch anything in black & white), or the colors washed out, or the film grainy, or blurry, or bad sound -- NO sound if you want to travel all the way back to the late 1800s -1920s at the medium's birth. And they didn't have the kind of camera equipment to achieve the kind of dramatic angles and film techniques that they have today. They didn't even have animatronics, let alone computers. And movies were being made long before the advent of VHS, DVD, etc. And that's got nothing to do with cinematography. That's just home video format. And in regards to the transfer, then you got the quality of the film itself to consider. How it aged, etc. Now look at the original 1933 King Kong. King Kong looks like s**t, right? But put it in context to 1933, and it was a special effects extravaganza the likes of which had never been seen before. Just like early 3D graphics on the PS1.

Yeah, but again, you can compare special effects to graphics, but you can't compare story to story... Because films have always had at least basic stories. And "Your princess is in another castle" doesn't count.
I watch an old film here and there, but honestly, the thing that compels me to watch old black and white movies are the actors, the scripts, you watch it to see Marilyn Monroe, or Groucho Marx deliver their lines, with their charisma and their timing... And that's what makes those movies still enjoyable. But even if they are enjoyable to movie enthusiasts, that doesn't mean they're not dated. A Day At The Races is a fantastic comedy, but you put it into the theaters nowadays, and most people won't get it.

But I digress, with Games, that one aspect that's most important is not story, it's gameplay. So in that aspect they can't be compared. With video games... The test of time is in the gameplay, where you'd go, "this is still fun." Or you'd go "after what I played recently, this isn't that awesome."
Like, River Raid for Atari 2600, still plays as smoothly as any top down airplane shooter you'll see today.
And yeah, even though a game enthusiast will play it and say, "This is a lot of fun," a normal person won't get it.

Thee Stranger

Yeah. The Public Enemy T-shirt, the arcade place with the kids playing After Burner and Atari games and s**t, riding around on a moped with a boombox on the one kid's shoulder, blasting Guns N' Roses, etc. Hate to tell you this, but I just watched T2 last night, and it looks like a film that was made in 1991. Just like T1 looks like a film made in 1984. And the T-1000, especially when he's in his chrome form, is starting to look a wee bit dated.

Well, it's obviously not gonna be seamless. There is an extent. But it's not as evident in T2, there's a few references, yeah, but overall, it still looks... New... And yeah, it's 2010, it's TWENTY years after T2 was released, obviously now the chrome effects would feel a bit dated. Hell, even the first Matrix is starting to look a bit dated compared to like... Wanted, or whatever.
Another factor is the music. Again, I understand that T1 had a lower budget, but it's soundtrack was so blatantly 80's, with the synth and all, that it's impossible to overlook.
Whereas T2 had a fully orchestral score.... You know, maybe that's what it is... And maybe you don't care so much, but to me, the soundtrack places a movie. I watch Beverly Hills Cop, with that Axel Foley music, it's so clearly 80's, but again, I watch... Say, Gremlins, with orchestral score, and Christmas Carols, and you don't hear that 80ness.
In fact, that might be the biggest factor for me.
But cinematography too. Let's just bring up Rambo one more time. If you take a scene from Rambo 2 or 3, just a scene of 2 people talking, let's say... Just the grain in the film, the acoustics of the voices, the camera work, it's obvious that this is not a modern film. Same with Terminator 1 etc. That's the thing, I see T2, and the picture is so clear, the acoustics are so... Like, there's nothing about the picture or sound quality in it that makes it dated.

Thee Stranger

I would have to agree on Jurassic Park's effects, though. Those dinosaurs, for the most part, were CGI, and they still look real to this day. Countless movies utilizing CGI for creatures that have been made after Jurassic Park look all plastic and fake. I don't understand that.

I guess you just gotta have the right eye for it. Beats me, bro.

Thee Stranger

- Well, you still like 2D Contra, right? And that's cool, I just didn't like the storyline of T2 as much. That's why I prefer T1, despite some occasional really dated special effects. And I really thought T1 did a great job with the whole time travel aspect, because T1 didn't really create any time paradoxes, while T2 did with the destruction of the chip and stuff. Thus, preventing the war. So how could the Terminator have existed in the first place?

Well, let's not discuss time paradoxes, lest we have to call in Colonel Campbell to say, "You've created a time paradox!"
There's all kinds of time travel theories, and they're all fantasy at this point, so you can take it any way you want. I mean, theoretically, if you look at T1... If Reese hadn't went back in the past, then John wouldn't exist, then he wouldn't be around to send Reese to the past, then John shouldn't exist.
Sarah said it right, "A person could go crazy just thinking about it."
So let's not bring the logistics of time travel into this. I love time travel.
Although if you wanna bring up Time Travel, that could very well be the reason I like Terminator better than Aliens. There's a few things I have a serious hardon for, conceptually:
Time Travel
Alternate Reality Scenarios
Post Apocalypse
And like I mentioned, bad guys turning against other bad guys to even the odds for the good guys.

Terminator as a franchise deals with all of those things, so I think it's no surprise that it's one of my favorite franchises ever, and above Aliens.  

[Biohazard EXTREME]

Thee Stranger

- I disagree.

In fact, I think a lot of the music in MGS2... And the whole series, I think there's way too much techno. Or techno tones in it. I mean, I know it's all technology, but I'd rather hear like... Industrial type music. Which is why I liked Terminator 2 soundtrack better, so this pretty much answers that other topic.
I'll take industrial over synth techno any day.

Thee Stranger

- Yeah, I was around 12 or 13 when I was first exposed to Rambo. And yeah, Rambo is good for violence and all that. Like I said, entertaining.

Well, ther way I see it is, entertaining is good. Like... Why does a movie have to have deep story and character development to be considered "good"? I mean, Mortal Kombat is a good movie. It's fighting, special effects, cool music, likeable cast... It doesn't have a particularly well developed storyline, it's pretty simple. But that doesn't make it a bad movie. It's all about the objective. If you set out to make an action movie, and it's nothing but Drama scenes, how the hell is that a good movie, you know? But if you say, "I'm gonna make an action movie with guns, helicopters, explosions, violence," and you do all that, well then... "Mission.... Acomplished..."
Sorry, couldn't resist. And it's not like the backstory of Rambo 2 was bad, I mean, a recon mission to get proof that there are no American POWs, when he finds out there actually ARE, and he knows that Murdock is just gonna cover it up if he only brought back pictures... It's a good backstory to Rambo 2. Entertaining action. It delivered what it promised.
The director himself said, "I didn't want to make a war movie, I wanted to make an action movie."

Thee Stranger

- Oooo, that's tough. I'll say they're tied. Seriously, have you seen The Last Boyscout?

No, I haven't. But I'll look into it.

Thee Stranger

- I could argue pretty much all that same stuff for videogames. And yes, "your princess is in another castle" counts. Pong wouldn't. I'm not so sure what you're trying to argue here, though. I'm well-aware that they are two different mediums. It was simply an analogy. But just because Super Mario 3 is still fun doesn't mean the gameplay isn't dated. Graphics are secondary to gameplay in video games just as special effects are secondary to story in movies. That's all I was ever saying. And most gamers who were raised on PS2 are probably not gonna go be able to go back and "get" Double Dragon or something like that. And the majority of video games DO have a storyline now. s**t, I was just talking about Conker's Bad Fur Day in the Grill. A LOT of the humor and pop culture references in that game are pretty dated now. But then you got movies like the Alistair Sim Scrooge from, like, the 1950's that they still air just about every Christmas that is dated as hell in just about every aspect right down to its special effects, but is still enjoyable and easy for just about anyone to understand.

I'm just saying, that comparing games to movies is like... "The storyline for this video game is s**t, but it's still fun to play, therefore it's a good game."
And yeah, that's like saying, "The effects in this movie are s**t, but it's got a good storyline, therefore it's a good movie."
That's what I mean, the most important aspect of games is not the same as in movies. Heck, the most important aspect of games does not exist in movies, period. So it's hard to compare, because arguably, you can compare a game's graphics to a movie's special effects. But you can't compare a game's gameplay to a movie's anything. That's why in the movie, the story makes the most important factor. And if the storyline is s**t in the movie, that is to say, if you don't like it, you say, "I hate this movie." If the storyline is crappy in the game... Well, just look at how many people turn a blind eye to RE4's story. And I've talked to a lot of them who say, "Yeah... I know the story's bad... But... The GAMEPLAY! And the GRAPHICS!"
So it's like, in a game, the importance is: Gameplay, Graphics, Story, Sound... Generally speaking.
But in the movies, it's usually Story, Cinematography, Effects, Sound.
So it's not like the two media have the same set of priorities.
So it's hard to compare a game's graphics to a movie's special effects, because they're completely different on the priority scale. Again, generally speaking.

Thee Stranger

And I don't know, some of those shots in T2 have some grain. And I can still tell just by looking at it that it was a film made in the early 90s. Yes, it has much better production values than T1. But again, that's because T2 had a huge budget and more advanced technology behind it. T1 had a s**t budget, and CGI didn't even exist yet.

Yeah, well, lots of movies which have shots in dark rooms have lots of grain. That's just how the camera works in the dark, it's grainy. Even nowadays, newer movies are more grainy during the dark scenes IF it's largely well lit.
But if you take movies like Pandorum, which is mostly in the dark, yeah, you can see that it's a lot more clear than say T1. Both of which are mosty fairly dark. But it's not just the grain, like I said, it's also the acoustics of the sound. T2 actually is really well produced audio wise. I think it's a matter of improved microphones since early 90's. But I dunno.

Thee Stranger

- Maybe because they also used a lot of puppets and didn't rely soley on CGI for everything...?

Well, yeah, but that's the thing. When you can't tell the difference between CGI Dinosaurs and Puppet dinosaurs... You know they did some thing very, very right.

Thee Stranger

- Yes, I realize it's all fantasy, BUT, Reese did go back to the past and conceive John Conner, and died. Then was born in the future, where he is sent back into the past by John Conner. No contradictions. It works. Whereas T2 changes s**t that should completely delete everything Skynet. Thus deleting Conner and Reese in the process.

But the idea behind T3 is that judgement day is inevitable, it can only be postponed, so if you look at THAT angle, then nothing's erased.
Besides, like I said, there's different theories. Yeah, there's that back to the Future theory where if you affect the past, and you're from the future, it takes effect on you directly, regardless where you are. Like never being born. But then there's the... Umm... for the lack of a better analogy, I'll just say the Dragonball Z theory, where you can come back from the future, change the future, go back to the future, and it'll be the same, because that's the one particular timeline that YOU'RE confined to. Like, when you time travel, you start existing beyond time. Which arguably COULD be the case with Terminator, except you wouldn't know because it's a one way trip.

On a semi-unrelated topic: I remember watching this TV show when I was a kid, about a guy who had the powers to time travel, like, he's the chosen one. And one time he went back in time to when he was a baby. And he lost his powers, because the TRUE chosen one was the baby him, and not the him that went back. I don't remember how they copped out of that, but it was cool.