Ending on an unrelated Byron quote feels vaguely disrespectful? So many other little scripting issues. I wish I could pluck out the bulk of the creature portions and plop them into a better adaptation.

(It also feels like it just doesn't trust the viewer in writing out the creature's intentional murders, which let the book end on tragedy, because that would hurt the very simple and sympathetic take the movie goes for because, again, lack of trust.)

(in the novel he has a rather positive home life and is just that self-possessed; he tries because he can) to the blanket thematic shift from hubris of self-styled visionaries (now secondary) to...parental abuse in which the abuser is forgiven? To say nothing of "You're the monster" as dialogue.

The creature scenes are affecting and well-executed, but I can't think of a narrative change that doesn't serve to make it feel less urgent, more pat, and rather untrusting of its audience, from the need to explain Victor's fixations with conquering death

...or the 4 remake, which I forget exists because mentally I'm still like "RE 4? Oh yeah, that's a pretty recent game." (Over twenty years old)

Still need to play CV at some point, but for the classic style, I think from favorite to least (all good though), I'm: 0 (yeah), 3, 2, 1 or REmake (undecided)

For the action-styled entries I'm: 4, 6, 5

Yet to play 7, 8 or the 2 and 3 remakes.

There's nothing more gained there than there would be walking into a chess tournament and demanding a do-over every turn until you come out on top. At its worst you have people bombing black diamond runs without learning how to do a pizza stop and being like, "Wow, that sucks. Who'd find that fun?"

I understand games have shifted toward experiences you're meant to complete. But in older titles (the kind save states get used on), each stage is a win-lose proposition and getting better (maybe never beating it!) is the whole experience.

The ending is on YouTube if you want it and there's really no difference between just watching it that way and save-scumming to it in terms of experiencing the game?

I'll never win a tennis tournament; I can't jump into 1600 ELO chess. Some things take skill and time and that's just how they are.

Counter arguments will be: I'm old/don't have time/will never see the end of some games otherwise. That's fine! I'll never beat Gradius. Better that I just slowly progress as far in as I can every once in a while. Or just engage with things I do have time for.

Like, how games approach their challenge and difficulty is part of the art. Either that or games aren't art and they're just a collection of things (visuals, music) that are with gameplay design as some completely removable thing. I don't really agree with the latter.

It winds up affecting discourse/opinions quite too, especially on harder games. Later elements that seem like random gotchas can reveal their cleverness, intent, and commitment to testing players in engaging ways if you've built up the skills and muscle memory they assume from preceding sections.

That but unironically. It's fine if you want to do it for whatever reason, but at best it's like watching a TV series on 2x speed; you've seen the content, but not really engaged with it as designed. Either games are art or there's nothing lost by using save states; can't be both.

Real David Lynch-movies-on-phones territory, and for similar reasons.

Some first-episode stumbling blocks here, including my mic setup, but it should be fixed up by Episode 2! She has never been through any of this material and is not particularly a fan, so it's a combination informed retrospective/fresh visit. Of more interest to those who know the material, but...!