They say that once you post something online, it's there forever. They're right but you can still set profiles to private or delete content to make it less visible. Yeah, somebody could still dig it up but most employers aren't going to dig that far.
Still, you're better off never posting stuff that could come back to bite you later on.
I don't think that big developers/publishers are going after guaranteed sales. Older styled adventure games or Baldur's Gate-like RPG's would have guaranteed (if relatively niche) sales, but those same big developers and publishers won't make very many of those. They're interested in games with the potential to sell tens of millions. That's why safe games/movies/whatever media get made. It's more about financiers saying "This is what we COULD make."
Anyway, there are plenty of games that are niche or risky getting made now. We have a pretty healthy diversity in terms of budgets.
I used to think it was just good but after some recent viewings I consider it to be one of the best war movies.
Pretty much everybody loves the boot camp scenes. It's the half in Vietnam that is less popular, but that's the part that validates the first half. I don't see the movie as anti-military so much as it is saying that the boot camp was a necessary evil to get soldiers ready to survive. The war machine here is the boot camp, efficiently weeding out not just weakness but also outliers. Kubrick never falls into the cliche that the military doesn't want soldiers to think (his script outright says the opposite); he's saying that the military wants them to think a certain way. The best shot of the movie comes after the boot camp scenes. It's when the squad leader dies, the next man steps up, and the squad moves in perfect unison from cover to cover. It's when the madness of the first half starts to make its own sense even if it never becomes palatable.
There are lots of very emotional movies of war's injustices (Kubrick even made a great one earlier in his career), but leave it to Kubrick to make a horrifying dissection of it.
Actually doesn't look too bad in my opinion. The funny thing is that most of the complaints I've heard about Gal Gadot playing Wonder Woman was that she was too skinny or more specifically, her boobs weren't big enough. Seems like they can make it work.
It does seem like the film is too cluttered with heroes and the amount of people they are putting in it could have been saved for the eventual Justice League movie.
Hollywood has never met a pair of boobs they couldn't make look bigger.
I re-watched Amadeus for the zillionth time. Yep, still awesome.
The last move I saw for the first time was Get Low. Meh. Robert Duvall and Bill Murray give great performances in a bad movie. The early parts were promising and I wanted to get to know Duvall's character, but by the end I kinda wished I didn't.
I liked TLoU plenty. It played around with perspective really well, it managed to make zombies not feel boring, and it was a big game that didn't feel the need to give more ammo than I could ever use. Still, I would have liked to see more interaction in the gameplay between Joel and Ellie and I have my doubts that a game about shooting stuff in the face is going to be my "greatest game ever."
Anyway, I'm not so sure that other games weren't praised as much as TLoU has been. Half-Life 2 was in a similar situation in that it had a big budget, was perceived to be of extremely high quality, and happened to be in a very popular genre. Super Mario 64 and A Link to the Past come to mind too although HL2 is probably more comparable because it had add-ons and multiplayer to keep the hype rolling.
Still, I do agree with you that TLoU is also benefiting from timing (which seems crazy after the big deal people were making about releasing a non-sequel so late in the generation). Sony is in a drought of big budget exclusives and that magnifies the other factors a bit.