VaranDragon wrote on Jan 24, 2020, 15:29:
No, what Im saying is that Witcher's success and quality has more to do with it being a great adaptation of the book.

MoreLuckThanSkill wrote on Jan 24, 2020, 14:48:

Beamer wrote on Jan 24, 2020, 14:13:
True Manning aficionados know the true greatest Manning (am I gatekeeping enough?) is Cooper!

Though Preston is a close third.

What the hell, OBJ is apparently a real goddamned athlete, even when it comes to catching M&M's thrown at you!

Bodolza wrote on Jan 24, 2020, 13:53:
Lots of fans may be unhappy with the quality of the product KK is producing, but with the exception of Solo, she's still bringing in bucket loads of money. All the whining in the world won't make a difference if the money is still flowing.

Kxmode wrote on Jan 24, 2020, 13:21:

Beamer wrote on Jan 24, 2020, 10:20:

Burrito of Peace wrote on Jan 24, 2020, 09:58:

Prez wrote on Jan 24, 2020, 09:36:
You guys never get tired of jerking yourselves off.

No shame in self-love. Maybe seek the guidance of a therapist to deal with your puritanical self-loathing.

Who knew Prez was a pilgrim?!

Thanksgiving was invented for self-gratification. It's all clear now.

VaranDragon wrote on Jan 24, 2020, 10:18:

Beamer wrote on Jan 23, 2020, 14:21:

JTW wrote on Jan 23, 2020, 14:15:

ldonyo wrote on Jan 23, 2020, 11:09:
Since it's a book series-to-TV adaptation, no.

The article addressed that point. The show wasn't made because of how the books sold, it was made because the fan base from the game is huge.

They got the book license, not the game license, and yet everything they did stylistically, was inspired by the game. Cavil is a great match for the game Geralt, but looks very little like the book Geralt (who's actually pretty thin and lanky), the costumes, the sets, all of that are more reminiscent of the games than the book.

Even the music is very similar. Yes, someone can argue it's Polish-influenced, but the show's score is clearly heavily influenced by the game's.

I love all the "actually" people feeling technically correct, when the reality is what you said. The show happened because of the games, not because of the books, and are going after the look of the games, not the books. They licensed the books because that's how it had to be done, and they're using the source material, but let's be honest, the show is very much the game being brought to life.

Jesus Christ, OF COURSE the show happened because of the games. But there would be NO SHOW, and NO GAME if it weren't for the books, and as much as it is influenced heavily by the games in the visual and musical department, the actual script is basically the Last Wish and parts of the Blood of Elves.

For there to be a golden age of game to TV adaptations you actually need great source material, and games are NEVER great source material simply because great writers are very few and far between in this industry.

Burrito of Peace wrote on Jan 24, 2020, 09:58:

Prez wrote on Jan 24, 2020, 09:36:
You guys never get tired of jerking yourselves off.

No shame in self-love. Maybe seek the guidance of a therapist to deal with your puritanical self-loathing.

HorrorScope wrote on Jan 23, 2020, 20:45:
Ghostery and uBlock do not like this site.

JTW wrote on Jan 23, 2020, 14:15:

ldonyo wrote on Jan 23, 2020, 11:09:
Since it's a book series-to-TV adaptation, no.

The article addressed that point. The show wasn't made because of how the books sold, it was made because the fan base from the game is huge.

They got the book license, not the game license, and yet everything they did stylistically, was inspired by the game. Cavil is a great match for the game Geralt, but looks very little like the book Geralt (who's actually pretty thin and lanky), the costumes, the sets, all of that are more reminiscent of the games than the book.

Cutter wrote on Jan 23, 2020, 13:23:

chickenboo wrote on Jan 23, 2020, 12:15:
There shouldn't even be a settlement in the first place. Riot trying to buy its way out of the fire with a paltry $10M split among 1000 women where the settlement most likely affirms Riot refusing to admit any guilt.

No one is forcing them to take the settlement. They can pursue legal restitution however they see fit. It's supposed to be compensation, not winning the lottery. How many of those 1000 women were actually harassed? And then to what degree?

What if I pay you a compliment and it's completely innocuous but you interpret it as sexual harassment? How do I have any control over how you interpret what I say? Wars have started for less. And even if I was making a pass at you does that entitle you to a multimillion dollar payout? Get real. If that's the way the world worked we'd all just be sitting around suing each other all the live long day and nothing would get done.

Yeah, from the sounds of it there were definitely a few women who were really harassed. It actually sounds like most employees were harassed - sexually or otherwise - by bad management. So where are their payouts? For everyone who ever feels hard done by by a corporation, where are their payouts? Ever been fired without cause? Lots of people are all the time, where are their payouts? Why are they any less deserving? Yet legally speaking they are. That's real discrimination in my book.

jdreyer wrote on Jan 23, 2020, 12:54:
Looking forward to the new hard-R full violence and nudity HBO ten-part series: PONG.

Choobeastia wrote on Jan 23, 2020, 12:49:

Beamer wrote on Jan 23, 2020, 09:38:
As annoying as the China censor-creep into Hollywood is, it's far less that the sinister Chinese government is forcing anything or funding anything, and far more that the Chinese box office for blockbusters is generally 50%-150% of the US box office.

If you're a cynical, publicly traded company producing cynical products designed to appeal to the widest audience possible, this means having to enter China. A $200MM movie will make its money back faster if it doesn't ignore 30% of the global market.

So they avoid anything the Chinese censors will dislike, and often add something the Chinese audience will. Not doing so means missing hundreds of millions of dollars. And it isn't as if we have many movies being made for art or creative purposes anymore. There isn't a whole lot left out there other than giant blockbusters carefully crafted to appeal to literally every single human being on the planet. It's why I find TV much more satisfying (also, it's why network television blows.)

What you just described it how they "force" and "fund" ideas. Their market has money to spend that outside companies want. Let's call that market square. The Chinese Government keeps their market square through censorship of media inside of China. They don't impose anything outside of China, but they do have a lot of money available inside of China.

The outside companies are from markets that are round and can accept many shapes of media. Luckily for the companies, that round market can ALSO fit square media. Square media sells well in China, and there is lots of money to earn in China. So they produce square media.

As a result, the Chinese censorship expands beyond the borders of China, not through force, but through coercive money, and our round markets start seeing a big uptick in square media, and square ideas, and a downswing in media and ideas that won't fit the square market.

Tipsy McStagger wrote on Jan 23, 2020, 10:52:

Primalchrome wrote on Jan 23, 2020, 10:41:
Because them libtards should be thankful for their betters fumigating their wisdom! If it weren't fer their betters, they wouldn't have jobs! Trickle down economics work, regardless of what economists say! All hail capitalizm!

I'm sure hoping this is a sarcastic tongue in cheek comment.

But.. Capitalism does work and it's the reason we have crazy forefront of technology and industry.

bigspender wrote on Jan 22, 2020, 22:32:

jacobvandy wrote on Jan 22, 2020, 22:16:

bigspender wrote on Jan 22, 2020, 21:48:
I understand that they want to use financial means to deter sexist behaviour, and a high sum is required in order to give enough incentive to change for a company, but why charge "the company / business" at at all? The "company" didn't do anything wrong, it was the individuals working in that company right? So target them, and their wages with fines or whatever the appropriate punishment is. It was individuals who did sexist things, and individuals that covered it up, and individuals that allowed the behaviour to perpeptuate.

It kind of feels like a weird palm off to not recognise that individuals are behind it, and blame a large entity instead. Isn't a bit like trying to sue Hollywood for what Weinstein or Cosby did?

It's all a bit weird to me.

Really, it seems weird to you for a company to be sued over what went on in their offices, during work hours, involving other employees and/or supervisors? The company hired those people, and allowed them to behave the way they did, breaking employment laws in the process. The "company" is not some nebulous entity, disconnected from what goes on within its walls; it is composed of the individuals who control and operate it, some of whom were among the accused. Hollywood is a place.

The company didn't hire anyone though, a manager did, HR did, a CEO did. It was people who let it happen, who didn't change it etc. A company isn't sentient.

Don't get me wrong, if this is how it works to make change, then sure do that, but all I'm saying is it feels weird that the individuals in question aren't really being personally punished.

MDB wrote on Jan 22, 2020, 11:55:
I'm amazed by the amount of positive press this is getting. I loved the 2016 Doom and this might be my first pre-order in a very long time.

mxmissile wrote on Jan 22, 2020, 15:47:
The only lesson that should be learned from all this BS is NEVER start or run your business in California. The socialists and SJWs running the failing economy and government (look at broken ass infrastructure if you dont believe me) are destroying way of life there.

MoreLuckThanSkill wrote on Jan 22, 2020, 14:28:

Beamer wrote on Jan 22, 2020, 13:49:

Partially here

Interesting, but I'm guessing most of the leadership who decided to do microtransactions etc. in OMDU are still around, making terrible decisions such as selling out to Stadia.

Oh well, I'm not going to say I'm not interested in how it turns out, because I did love OMD and OMD2. Hopefully the exclusivity period isn't too long, and OMD3 ends up being good/great.

Personally I'm trying to avoid buying anything these days except on Gog. Too much anti-consumer nonsense out there now.