|
Serf posted:As did the other Taylor Kitsch-starring traditional game movie disaster Battleship. Battleship is one of those things where the movie itself is terrible. But the sheer fact that it exists at all makes it somehow bizarrely entertaining.
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 04:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 02:30 |
|
|
No one says "you sank my battleship" so the movie failed at the one thing it should have done. Not even worth watching
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 04:51
|
|
|
Kurieg posted:Battleship is one of those things where the movie itself is terrible. But the sheer fact that it exists at all makes it somehow bizarrely entertaining. Battleship is a wonder of modern cinema. Just, not by dint of being good. For real, if you have a couple of hours to kill, it's worth a watch to see what it looks like when someone accidentally makes a satire by mashing the halves of two different films together.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 08:30
|
|
|
Lemon-Lime posted:Battleship is a wonder of modern cinema. Just, not by dint of being good. There's a whole 3rd film as a bridge between the two that shows for less than 5 seconds in a jumbled cacophony halfway through. It's a kind of amazing movie for the sheer inanity. Also the peg bombs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 09:56
|
|
|
Battleship seems to have been the start of Peter Berg's descent into rabid nationalism.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 10:01
|
|
|
Kurieg posted:Battleship is one of those things where the movie itself is terrible. But the sheer fact that it exists at all makes it somehow bizarrely entertaining. My love for Battleship comes without a hint of irony. At no point does the movie come anywhere close to making sense, and it is all the better for it. Everything, from the peg bombs to the actual literal game of Battleship, to the failson main character and their increasingly absurd tactics is just loving great. Liam Neeson makes zero effort to change his accent. The scene where they get the USS Missouri back into operating shape with a bunch of actual WW2 veterans goofily mugging for the camera while Thunderstruck plays in the background is the most jingoistic thing since Will Smith and Martin Lawrence drove a Hummer through a hillside of Cuban shacks on their way to Guantanamo Bay. There's also a second story in that movie, about a stranded group of explorers, mostly engineers, who are desperately trying to call for help, but are picked off by the indigenous life. Battleship is great and I recommend it to anyone who likes weird movies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 11:13
|
|
|
Serf posted:My love for Battleship comes without a hint of irony. At no point does the movie come anywhere close to making sense, and it is all the better for it. Everything, from the peg bombs to the actual literal game of Battleship, to the failson main character and their increasingly absurd tactics is just loving great. Liam Neeson makes zero effort to change his accent. The scene where they get the USS Missouri back into operating shape with a bunch of actual WW2 veterans goofily mugging for the camera while Thunderstruck plays in the background is the most jingoistic thing since Will Smith and Martin Lawrence drove a Hummer through a hillside of Cuban shacks on their way to Guantanamo Bay. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 13:34
|
|
|
Serf posted:My love for Battleship comes without a hint of irony. At no point does the movie come anywhere close to making sense, and it is all the better for it. Everything, from the peg bombs to the actual literal game of Battleship, to the failson main character and their increasingly absurd tactics is just loving great. Liam Neeson makes zero effort to change his accent. The scene where they get the USS Missouri back into operating shape with a bunch of actual WW2 veterans goofily mugging for the camera while Thunderstruck plays in the background is the most jingoistic thing since Will Smith and Martin Lawrence drove a Hummer through a hillside of Cuban shacks on their way to Guantanamo Bay. Don't forget the scene where they drift a battleship.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 14:51
|
|
|
Kurieg posted:Don't forget the scene where they drift a battleship. what 
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 14:58
|
|
|
Goa Tse-tung posted:what https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDBE7p8nO4A
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 15:01
|
|
|
"A cinematic masterpiece." -Serf McSerfington
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 15:04
|
|
|
oh my goodness that looks like a weird movie
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 15:04
|
|
|
Some naval warships, if they fire enough cannon at once, can be moved by the recoil. I have no idea if the Missouri was actually one of them, but yeah, that's how you drift a battleship. That movie was loving nuts and to this day I'm still not sure how it got made. Much like how the D&D movie with Jeremy Irons, a Wayans, and no actual D&D settings got greenlit. edit: Holy poo poo that scene was actually dumber than I remembered.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 15:06
|
|
|
Kwyndig posted:Some naval warships, if they fire enough cannon at once, can be moved by the recoil. I have no idea if the Missouri was actually one of them, but yeah, that's how you drift a battleship. That movie was loving nuts and to this day I'm still not sure how it got made. The answer to your first question is Transformers. I have no idea how the D&D movie got made but it also rules, specifically because Jeremy Irons and Marlon Wayons are in it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 15:17
|
|
|
Just to clarify, the music isn't actually in the movie. However that clip also shows off one of my other favorite dumb things about the movie, the alien's main weapon is a cannon-launched impact detonated bomb that just happens to look like the pegs from the board game. also: This needs to be seen. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMwQbD3ZI4o
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 15:30
|
|
|
That may be the most dramatic push-over-a-claw-machine scene ever filmed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 15:38
|
|
|
Might be the wrong thread for it but..did anyone ever play Iron Heroes (Monte Cook), and if so, how broken was it? I'm curious because Cook seems to really favour casters, and here he made a DnD variant where, essentially, everyone is a warrior. Spuckuk fucked around with this message at 15:58 on Apr 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 15:53
|
|
|
Kurieg posted:Just to clarify, the music isn't actually in the movie. This scene never gets any less magical no matter how many times I watch it. Other great things about Battleship: the aliens are contacted accidentally via a knock off of the arecibo message they arrive and promptly have what I can only assume is an interstellar drunk-driving accident by ramming a satellite and losing their communications ship the aliens destroy only weaponry, and obey some weird non-aggression principle where they will only fire when fired upon a literal game of Battleship takes place in this movie Rihanna is here the main character of the movie attempts to steal a burrito while the pink panther music plays and is then tazed by the police his brother's name is Stone Hopper there is a Top Gun homage with a soccer game, America vs. Japan
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 15:58
|
|
|
Serf posted:There's also a second story in that movie, about a stranded group of explorers, mostly engineers, who are desperately trying to call for help, but are brutally murdered by brainless, jingoistic Americans. It's what makes the film worth watching.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 16:03
|
|
|
Spuckuk posted:Might be the wrong thread for it but..did anyone ever play Iron Heroes (Monte Cook), and if so, how broken was it? And I haven't played it myself, but I know I've seen it discussed before. IIRC there were some classes that were okay if everyone's playing IH classes, but also a few that were complete garbage (so, par for the course in D&D-related stuff). If you don't get any hits here you could try the chat thread.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 16:28
|
|
|
Spuckuk posted:Might be the wrong thread for it but..did anyone ever play Iron Heroes (Monte Cook), and if so, how broken was it? It's broken but not for the reasons you think. Basically Iron Heroes is a collection of mechanics that look like they work, but actually don't in play. In addition there was a ridiculous amount of errata for it that I'm not sure is actually collected anywhere anymore. edit: Also it does not play well with anything else, my primary advice for anyone still willing to play third edition and 3.5e rules thinking of combining IH with it is to just run away screaming.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 16:31
|
|
|
I'm fairly familiar with Iron Heroes, and I'm working on a post for the F&F thread. It won't be a full write-up because far too much of it is reprinting 3rd Edition D&D, but I should be able to hit most of the major points.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 16:52
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I'm fairly familiar with Iron Heroes, and I'm working on a post for the F&F thread. It won't be a full write-up because far too much of it is reprinting 3rd Edition D&D, but I should be able to hit most of the major points. Cool, would love to see that. I thought it was a super interesting idea for a setting, and that, yeah, the ruleset was probably going to be a dumpster fire.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 17:24
|
|
|
I've heard it said that IH was a prototype for 4e even before Tome of Battle, but I don't find that to be true. The thing about IH is that while it does empower warrior classes, most of their abilities are just static bonuses, or a mechanic where you gain tokens which you spend to get bonuses. There are very few really tactical abilities, so Mearls' poor design sense in 4e and 5e is not really a surprise. Ultimately, IH balances martials and casters by just not having casters (except for one optional class that uses skills instead of D&D style casting). That's actually a huge problem, because a ton of D&D monsters are effectively spellcasters in monster makeup, or their tactics are based around spell-like abilities. The book even warns you off of just using monsters from the Monster Manuals, in which case, what's the point? Once again, it's the problem with D20 as a whole: the big selling point is compatibility, and that vanishes as soon as you make D20 fit whatever you're trying to do.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
Well, it's not like 3.x/PF has balanced encounters even out of the box. One of the best things 4E did was actually spend a bit of effort into making sure that all the math that was done for the game actually had a point. D20 as a whole is entirely too interested in stating everything out like it's a PC, and thus has no respect for the DM's time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 17:51
|
|
|
Spuckuk posted:Cool, would love to see that. Okay, it was a bit too long to fit into a single post, but I put up part 1.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 18:06
|
|
|
I still think Mearls wrote IH because he heavily invested in a glass bead factory.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:I've heard it said that IH was a prototype for 4e even before Tome of Battle, but I don't find that to be true. The thing about IH is that while it does empower warrior classes, most of their abilities are just static bonuses, or a mechanic where you gain tokens which you spend to get bonuses. There are very few really tactical abilities, so Mearls' poor design sense in 4e and 5e is not really a surprise. The only way in which IH is a proto-4e is as a cautionary tale in what not to do when attempting to balance classes and rules to get rid of the Linear Fighter Quadratic Wizard paradigm.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 18:28
|
|
|
Especially since mearls wasn't in charge of 4e until the end. and Bo9S and Tome of Magic have much more in common with 4e design wise, and were written by the people who wrote 4e.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
I think that Mearls was seen as the face of the design team for a lot of people following 4e's development, thanks to the articles he wrote. Including the rust monster one that drove people completely insane.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
I never understood that, because outside of, again, tournament modules, nobody wants to lose their poo poo to a gotcha monster/trap. That's basically what a rust monster was prior to 4e, a giant gently caress you button to noncasters, who already had it rough enough without having all of their stuff stripped off of them and destroyed. It's like the opposite of fun. At least with the 4e Rust Monster you knew that if you won the encounter then your loss of cool poo poo is temporary. This insistence that you have to be able to break people's toys in a game you play for fun is just maddening to me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
The problem isn't that there are people who do think that getting your poo poo broken is having fun. The problem is that people who think that seem to always assume that's the only way to have fun. Like, that article is deriding people who don't want to have their cool hard-to-replace gear taken away because of one bad roll, because it's working under the assumption that the challenge of (for example) your stuff being destroyed is an integral part of what makes D&D fun for everyone. e: It's like with Dark Souls. A lot of people love it for the challenge, which is totally fine for them to do. But then you get the fans who deride anyone who doesn't like the challenge with "GIT GUD", like it's the person's fault they're not meshing with the game or don't want to do something that challenging. Evil Mastermind fucked around with this message at 20:14 on Apr 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 20:11
|
|
|
It really just boils down to a certain TG gamer mindset that things should be harsh, and attempting to be too fair ruins the game. Player characters should be in mortal danger and should die easily, the GM should have the ability to take things away easily, and you as a player should be proud of the hardships you've faced because that is Real Gaming. Once you've emotionally committed to that mindset, any time a game designer makes a concession to balance or fairness over the "realism" that you feel is core to the game, you're gonna see it as just another step in the pussification of your game. It's all horseshit, of course. There's nothing stopping any GM from making a particular encounter, adventure, or campaign extremely challenging. Ramp up the difficulty of any encounter by a lot and the players are at risk of character death. But you can see it right in that post, the guy makes a comparison to just having spawn points... they're equating a concession to game balance and fairness as being the same as removing risk. In my (admittedly limited) gaming experience, what actually happened in older versions of D&D, was that the GM had a much harder time evaluating how hard a given challenge would be in advance, and then often wound up fudging dice or even blatantly rewinding an encounter or having some random deus ex machina show up to save the PCs when they were about to suffer character deaths. Occasionally you'd get a GM who actually delighted in characters losing their stuff and being capriciously punished because of bad dice rolls, and those were invariably terrible GMs running terrible unfun games. But I guess if you played with one of those guys, then even if at the time you were having a bad time with your character you spent moths with getting killed, or being gimped forever by a rust monster, or whatever, now a decade later you can look back on it as having been a right of passage that makes you a Real Gamer, so any challenge to that experience's legitimacy is a challenge to your self identity. e. In fairness, I should add that giving players a magic item to replace one they've lost is a fairly trivial thing for a GM to arrange. It can feel too obvious if the fighter's magic sword gets eaten by a rust monster and then in the treasure chest in the next room there's a new magic sword that just happens to be exactly the same kind, but... yeah. The root of the issue is D&D, even in 4th edition, hanging way too much character balance and progression on presumptions of specific bonuses provided by magic items. Characters festooned with Items of +1, +2, and +3 is another one of the D&D sacred cows that have driven me away from the game. It means you can't really have adventures where the characters are captured unless you just obviously put all their equipment someplace close to their prison so when they break out they don't have to go for very long without their essential bonuses. Once you've played two or three of those scenarios, it becomes so obvious that it's just a joke. And yes, I'm aware of the 4e mod that just puts those presumed bonuses onto the character sheet, but that's just a hack that should have been the core rule instead. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 20:23 on Apr 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 20:16
|
|
|
Like everything else from the primeval days before AD&D, the rust monster was just something that seemed like a fun idea and a practical solution at the time. Then it became part of the Holy Scripture of Dungeons & Dragons and the rest is history.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
The main issue is with the equipment locks built into the game, not the innocent rust monster.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
But D&D has always been about the gear, ergo D&D will always be about the gear. Forever and ever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 20:41
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:It really just boils down to a certain TG gamer mindset that things should be harsh, and attempting to be too fair ruins the game. Player characters should be in mortal danger and should die easily, the GM should have the ability to take things away easily, and you as a player should be proud of the hardships you've faced because that is Real Gaming. I'd like to see surveys correlating this and political beliefs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 20:48
|
|
|
People complaining about losing their weapons should pull themselves up by their Bootstraps of Levitation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 20:51
|
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:The problem isn't that there are people who do think that getting your poo poo broken is having fun. The problem is that people who think that seem to always assume that's the only way to have fun. Same thing with level drain. It originally was the biggest gently caress you possible to most characters, and is a massive issue to use at the table. 3E was better than before, in that you actually get a save and have more normalized penalties. 4E was even better by making level drain instead be healing surge damage, which could easily be very deadly but didn't end with permanently screwed characters. Of course grogs hated this, because somehow fun is the exact opposite of "realism" or whatever the current watchword is in the Pathfinder crowd now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 21:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 02:30 |
|
|
Level drain was a dumbass mechanic even aside from taking away your progress because you had to sit there and rework your character in the middle of combat. There's a reason most RPGs hand out advancement at the end of the session, it's because reworking your character sheet during play grinds the session to a halt.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 21:39
|
|