Close Menu
NERDBOT
    Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram YouTube
    Subscribe
    NERDBOT
    • News
      • Reviews
    • Movies & TV
    • Comics
    • Gaming
    • Collectibles
    • Science & Tech
    • Culture
    • Nerd Voices
    • About Us
      • Join the Team at Nerdbot
    NERDBOT
    Home»Featured»Maybe You Should Actually See “Eternals” Before Trashing It Completely
    Featured

    Maybe You Should Actually See “Eternals” Before Trashing It Completely

    Derrick MurrayBy Derrick MurrayNovember 5, 20217 Mins Read
    Share
    Facebook Twitter Pinterest Reddit WhatsApp Email

    Like many of you, I have not had a chance to see “Eternals” early. I too will have to wait until the film hits theaters to actually see it and develop my own opinion. This is typically the argument that people apply to films they want to like but can’t reconcile their own biases with what the critics are saying.

    This often results in comments like “critics don’t matter anyway” and “no one trusts Rotten Tomatoes” or “they all have it wrong, they haven’t seen it yet and I love it so everyone else is wrong.” We continually see this attitude and response with things like the Snyderverse, where critics and naysayers poke countless holes in the plot and execution, but all critiques fall on deaf ears. Suddenly, the critic community is null and void, and their opinions of film mean nothing.

    We should be able to apply this across the board, to all films even ones we don’t like. It’s completely fine to disagree with critics, and I say that as an actual film critic and reviewer. My reviews are my opinion based on my own personal bias and enjoyment, and regardless of how objective I try to be, how I feel about a film will not always be how you feel about it. This is the ebb and flow between audiences and critics, and will forever be the disconnect between them. This is the natural order of things, that is until “Eternals” emerged as a polarizing film among critics and early screening fans. Suddenly, the entire conversation has changed from “Rotten Tomatoes shouldn’t be trusted” to only discussing the film through the eyes of early critic consensus. I’m sorry, but this is bullshit and completely unfair to the merits of the film. The simple fact that outlets insist on leading with how bad the film is doing critically weeks before its actually released is hypocritical at BEST, and trashing the film seems to be the only way we have chosen to discuss it.

    Here’s the thing, “Eternals” may very well be an ok film. It may even be a bad film and a majority of the critics and audience’ scores may very well be accurate. [Editor’s note- we did have a reviewer see it, who didn’t hate it, but had some thoughts on what could’ve made it better.]

    The difference is, most of us haven’t seen the film yet. And even further, the majority of us rarely make our judgements based on these very critiques that seem to be the only way we’re willing to frame the film. If we’re not willing to do it for say, “Venom,” why the hell are we so quick to do it for “Eternals?” We seem to be obsessed with not only tearing the film down based on reviews we seldom regard as meaningful, as well as letting the media run with these scores as fact. They aren’t facts; they’re opinions that we go out of our way to not take into account but have somehow made them the standard for how we talk about “Eternals.” Again, without even seeing it.

    One could argue that because of the hype surrounding the film- and that it’s a MCU release- is why we’re choosing to backpedal on our harsh stances against critic scores. So sure, I can give you the element of surprise at how many critics seem to not have enjoyed the film. However, like EVERYTHING else, we have to look at what is actually being said about the film instead of just running with the low Rotten Tomato score. We’ve all fought hard to point out that the actual scores on Rotten Tomatoes seldom represent actual reviews, as it is an aggregated total that rounds up and down depending on how the site chooses to apply it to a film. For example, a reviewer can rate a film 3 out of 5 stars, but if the content of their review SEEMS to be more critical, then it will count as a rotten review. However, if it’s generally positive despite some flaws, that exact same score could also be considered fresh.

    We are constantly pointing this out for films we loved that critics don’t, but for some reason are refusing to apply this same kind of due diligence to “Eternals.” The discussion has moved away from whether or not the film is good or bad and more about tracking how high or low the arbitrary score is and what it means. We’ve have collectively boiled down the entire film to whether or not its Rotten Tomatoes score is high or low and where it falls in the long list of MCU scores. Listen, I’m a huge marvel fan and recognize that it can be significant when a Marvel film is anything less than dazzling. But we simply can’t disregard the scoring for everything else and then suddenly make it the only way we frame THIS film. It is simply unfair to a film that isn’t even in theaters yet, and for me is an example of how we are having the wrong discussions about the new, bold film.

    Like I said before, “Eternals” may actually end up earning its scoring. It could very well be a rare occasion where both critics and audiences agree, good or bad. What I can’t stand for is holding the film to a score we tend to disregard regularly, consistently leading with this scoring as the only way to discuss the film, and purposefully trashing the film because you’re uncomfortable with its diversity and inclusion of things that make you uncomfortable. First of all, grow up. Second, this kind of framing sets the film up for ONLY failure rather than failing or succeeding on its own merits. “Eternals” deserves all the same passes we give to other films (Yes, I’m still talking about you Snyderbros) and if we’re not careful in how we talk about movies, we may end up setting it up for failure.

    Lastly, this framework will inevitably exacerbate the problem these same people have been complaining about for years when it comes to the MCU. We want them take risks and try something different, and have gotten a little tired of the same old third act CGI battle formula that the MCU has refused to deviate from. If we continue to only talk about “Eternals” is this negative light, anything that is a risk or different with end up being done away with altogether. We’ll then be stuck with same movie repeated over and over again, and we’ll end up going back to the same old song and dance. I don’t know if “Eternals” succeeds in the risks it purportedly takes, but we have to be willing to give it a try and judge it on its own execution. NOT what fanboys who don’t like diversity think of it. I’m not saying we have to like this film to force the hand of Marvel Studios to continue to take risks. Simply that, if we keep this trash talk slander up we may never get the chance to watch the MCU perfect these broadened horizons.

    We can talk about the film’s flaws and successes, and I might watch it this weekend and decide that everything that has been said about the film is 100% correct. But I’m going to watch “Eternals” before I give my opinion. You know, how we do for just about every other high profile, blockbuster? We simply need to change how we’re talking about this film, and move away from only framing it as failure before any of us even get a chance to see it. It opens in theaters on November 5th, 2021.

    And that’s what really grinds my gears.

    Do You Want to Know More?

    Share. Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn WhatsApp Reddit Email
    Previous ArticleNetflix Reveals Details for Tomorrow’s Official “Stranger Things” Day!
    Next Article Dolly Parton to Guest Star on “Grace and Frankie”
    Derrick Murray
    • Website
    • Facebook
    • X (Twitter)
    • Instagram

    Derrick Murray is a Los Angeles based stand up comedian, writer, and co-host for The Jack of All Nerds Show.

    Related Posts

    “Lisa Frankenstein”

    Diablo Cody Says R-Rated “Lisa Frankenstein” Cut is ‘Superior’

    March 26, 2026

    Snoop Dogg to Star in God of the Rodeo Prison Drama

    March 26, 2026
    "Ernie & Emma," 2024

    Bruce Campbell Says Cancer Diagnosis “Doesn’t Change Anything”

    March 26, 2026

    Witch Hat Atelier English Dub Release Date Announced by Crunchyroll

    March 26, 2026

    Opinion: The New Harry Potter Trailer is Fine – Nothing More, Nothing Less

    March 25, 2026

    Diablo Cody is Currently Writing “Jennifer’s Body 2”

    March 25, 2026
    • Latest
    • News
    • Movies
    • TV
    • Reviews
    Online Games Evolved: From Classic Consoles to Browser-Based Entertainment

    How Online Games Evolved: From Classic Consoles to Browser-Based Entertainment

    March 27, 2026
    VPS Purchase — Everything You Need to Know

    VPS Purchase — Everything You Need to Know

    March 27, 2026
    How to get backlinks for an online store and actually grow traffic

    How to get backlinks for an online store and actually grow traffic

    March 27, 2026
    Most studios searching for a match-3 level design company are looking for five different things. Some need levels built from scratch, others require a live game rebalanced before churn compounds, and some demand a content pipeline that won't fall behind. These are different problems, and they map to multiple types of companies. The mistake most studios make is treating "match-3 level design" as a single service category and evaluating every company against the same criteria. A specialist who excels at diagnosing retention problems in live games is the wrong hire for a studio that needs 300 levels built in 2 months. A full-cycle agency that builds from concept to launch isn't the right call for a publisher who already has engineering and art in place and just needs the level design layer covered. This guide maps 7 companies for match-3 level design services to the specific problem each one is built to solve. Find your problem first. The right company follows from there. What Match-3 Level Design Services Cover The term "level design" gets used loosely in this market, and this causes bad hires. A studio that excels at building levels from scratch operates dissimilarly from one that diagnoses why a live game's difficulty curve is losing players (even if both describe their service the same way on a website). Match-3 level design breaks into four distinct services, each requiring different expertise, different tooling, and a different type of partner. Level production — designing and building playable levels configured to a game's mechanics, obstacle set, and difficulty targets. This is what most studios mean when they say they need a level design partner, and it's the service with the widest range of quality in the market. Difficulty balancing and rebalancing — using win rates, attempt counts, and churn data to calibrate difficulty across hundreds of levels. Plus, this includes adjusting live content when the data shows a problem. Studios that only do level production typically don't offer this. Studios that do it well treat it as a standalone service. Live-ops level design covers the ongoing content pipeline a live match-3 game requires after launch (seasonal events, new level batches, limited-time challenges) sustained at volume and consistent in quality. This is a throughput and process problem as much as a design problem. Full-cycle development bundles level design inside a complete production engagement: mechanics, art, engineering, monetization, QA, and launch. Level design is one function among many. Depth varies by studio. Knowing which service you need before you evaluate a single company cuts the list in half and prevents the most common mistake in this market: hiring a full-cycle agency to solve a level design problem, or hiring a specialist to build a product from scratch. The List of Companies for Match-3 Level Design Services The companies below were selected based on verified credentials, named shipped titles where available, and the specific service each one is built to deliver. They are ranked by how well their capabilities match the service types outlined above. A specialist who does one thing exceptionally well sits above a generalist who does many things adequately. SolarSpark | Pure-play match-3 level design specialist SolarSpark is a remote-first studio built exclusively around casual puzzle game production. With 7+ years in the genre and 2,000+ levels shipped across live titles including Monopoly Match, Matchland, and KitchenMasters, it is the only company on this list that does nothing but match-3 level design. Level design services: Level production, difficulty curve planning, fail-rate balancing, obstacle and booster logic design, live-ops pipeline, competitor benchmarking, product audit and retention diagnostic. Verdict: The strongest pure specialist on this list. When level design is the specific constraint, SolarSpark is the right choice. What they do well: Every level is built around difficulty curves, fail/win balance, obstacle sequencing, and booster logic, measured against targets before delivery. Competitor benchmarking is available as a standalone service, mapping your game's difficulty curve and monetization structure against current top performers with specific, actionable output. Where they fit: Studios with a live or in-development game that need a dedicated level design pipeline, a retention diagnostic, or a one-off audit before soft launch. Honest caveat: SolarSpark does not handle art, engineering, or full-cycle development. Logic Simplified | Unity-first development with analytics and monetization built in Logic Simplified specializes in Unity-powered casual and puzzle games, with match-3 explicitly in their service portfolio. Operating for over a decade with clients across multiple countries, the studio positions itself around data-informed development: analytics, A/B testing, and monetization are integrated into the production process. Level design services: Level production, difficulty progression design, obstacle and blocker placement, booster and power-up integration, A/B tested level balancing, customer journey mapping applied to level flow. Verdict: A credible full-cycle option for studios that want analytics and monetization treated as design inputs from day one, not as post-launch additions. What they do well: Logic Simplified builds analytics and player behavior tracking into the design process. Their Unity expertise is deep, and their stated MVP timeline of approximately three months is competitive at their price point. India-based rates make full-cycle development accessible without requiring a Western agency budget. Where they fit: Studios building a first match-3 title that needs the full production chain handled by a single vendor, with analytics built in from the start. Honest caveat: No publicly named match-3 titles with verifiable App Store links appear in their portfolio. Ask for specific live game references and retention data during the first conversation before committing. Cubix | US-based full-cycle match-3 development with fixed-cost engagement Cubix is a California-based game development company with a dedicated match-3 service line covering level design, tile behavior, booster systems, obstacles, UI/UX, and full production on Unity and Unreal Engine. 30+ in-house animators can cover the full scope of puzzle game production. Level design services: Level production, combo and difficulty balancing, blocker and locked tile placement, move-limit challenge design, booster and power-up integration, scoring system design. Verdict: A viable full-cycle option for studios that need a Western-based partner with transparent fixed-cost pricing and documented match-3 capability. What they do well: Cubix covers the full production chain in one engagement, with strong visual production backed by an in-house animation team. Their fixed-cost model is a practical differentiator for studios that have been burned by scope creep on previous outsourcing contracts. Staff augmentation is also available for studios that need talent to plug into an existing pipeline. Where they fit: Studios that want a US-based full-cycle partner with predictable budgets, cross-platform delivery across iOS, Android, browsers, and PC, and a single vendor to own the concept through launch. Honest caveat: Named shipped match-3 titles are not prominently listed in their public portfolio. This is a verification gap worth closing during vetting, not a disqualifier on its own. Galaxy4Games | Data-driven match-3 development with published retention case studies Galaxy4Games is a game development studio with 15+ years of operating history, building mobile and cross-platform games across casual, RPG, and arcade genres. Match-3 is a named service line. What distinguishes them from most studios on this list is a level of public transparency about retention data. Their case studies document real D1 and D7 numbers from shipped titles. Level design services: Level production, difficulty curve development, booster and obstacle design, progression system design, LiveOps level content, A/B testing integration, analytics-based balancing. Verdict: The most transparent full-cycle option in terms of real retention data. For studios that want to see numbers before they hire, Galaxy4Games offers evidence most studios keep private. What they do well: Their Puzzle Fight case study documents D1 retention growing to 30% through iteration. Their modular system reduces development time and costs through reusable components, and their LiveOps infrastructure covers analytics, event management, and content updates as a planned post-launch function. Where they fit: Studios that need a data-informed full-cycle match-3 partner and want to evaluate a studio's methodology through published results. Honest caveat: Galaxy4Games covers a broad genre range (casual, RPG, arcade, educational, and Web3), which means match-3 is one of several service lines rather than a primary focus. Zatun | Award-winning level design and production studio with 18 years of operating history Zatun is an indie game studio and work-for-hire partner operating since 2007, with game level design listed as a dedicated named service alongside full-cycle development, art production, and co-development. With 250+ game titles and 300+ clients across AAA studios and indie teams, this agency has one of the longest track records. Level design services: Level production, difficulty progression design, level pacing and goal mapping, game design documentation, Unity level design, Unreal level design, level concept art. Verdict: A reliable, experienced production partner with a long track record and genuine level design depth. What they do well: Zatun's level design service covers difficulty progression, pacing maps, goal documentation, and execution in Unity and Unreal. Their 18 years of operation across 250+ titles gives them a reference library of what works across genres. Their work-for-hire model means they can step in at specific production stages without requiring ownership of the full project. Where they fit: Studios that need a specific level design or art production function covered without a full project handoff. This can be useful for teams mid-production that need additional capacity on a defined scope. Honest caveat: No publicly named match-3 titles appear in Zatun's portfolio, their verified work spans AAA and strategy genres; match-3 specific experience should be confirmed directly before engaging. Gamecrio | Full-cycle mobile match-3 development with AI-driven difficulty adaptation Gamecrio is a mobile game development studio with offices in India and the UK, covering match-3 development as an explicit service line alongside VR, arcade, casino, and web-based game development. Their stated differentiator within match-3 is AI-driven difficulty adaptation. Thus, levels adjust based on player skill. Level design services: Level production, AI-driven difficulty adaptation, booster and power-up design, progression system design, obstacle balancing, social and competitive feature integration, monetization-integrated level design. Verdict: An accessible full-cycle option with a technically interesting differentiator in AI-driven balancing. What they do well: Gamecrio builds monetization architecture into the level design process: IAP placement, rewarded ad integration, battle passes, and subscription models are considered alongside difficulty curves and obstacle sequencing. The AI-driven difficulty adaptation is a genuine technical capability that more established studios in this market have been slower to implement. Where they fit: Early-stage studios that need a full-cycle match-3 build with monetization designed in from the first level. Honest caveat: No publicly named shipped match-3 titles are listed on their site — request live App Store links and verifiable retention data before committing to any engagement. Juego Studios | Full-cycle and co-development partner with puzzle genre credentials and flexible engagement entry points Founded in 2013, Juego Studios is a global full-cycle game development and co-development partner with offices in India, USA, UK, and KSA. With 250+ delivered projects and clients including Disney, Sony, and Tencent, the studio covers game development, game art, and LiveOps across genres. Battle Gems is their verifiable genre credential. Level design services: Level production, difficulty balancing, progression system design, booster and mechanic integration, LiveOps level content, milestone-based level delivery, co-development level design support. Verdict: A well-resourced, credible full-cycle partner with a flexible engagement model that reduces the risk of committing to the wrong studio. What they do well: Juego's engagement model is flexible: studios can start with a risk-free 2-week test sprint, then scale to 20+ team members across modules without recruitment overhead. Three engagement models (outstaffing, dedicated teams, and managed outsourcing) let publishers choose how much control they retain versus how much they hand off. LiveOps is a named service line covering analytics-driven content updates and retention optimization after launch. Where they fit: Studios that need a full-cycle or co-development partner for a match-3 build and want to test the relationship before committing to full project scope. Honest caveat: Puzzle and match-3 are part of a broad genre portfolio that also spans VR, Web3, and enterprise simulations. How to Use This List The seven companies above cover the full range of what the match-3 level design market offers in 2026. The quality range is real, and the right choice depends on which service type matches the problem you're trying to solve. If your game is live and retention is the problem, you need a specialist who can diagnose and fix a difficulty curve. If you're building from zero and need art, engineering, and level design bundled, a full-cycle partner is the right call and the specialist is the wrong one. The honest caveat pattern across several entries in this list reflects a real market condition: verified, named match-3 credentials are rarer than studios' self-descriptions suggest. The companies that couldn't point to a live title with an App Store link were flagged honestly. Asking for live game references, retention data, and a first conversation before any commitment are things you can do before signing with any studio on this list.

    Leading Companies Specializing in Match-3 Level Design Services

    March 27, 2026

    Mark Wahlberg Launches 4AM Club Challenge YouTube Series

    March 26, 2026
    "The Shrouds," 2024

    “The Shrouds,” SeeMeRot, & The History of Corpse Cameras

    March 25, 2026

    “They Will Kill You” A Violent, Blood-Splattering Good Time [review]

    March 24, 2026

    Quadruple Amputee Cornhole Pro Charged With Murder

    March 24, 2026
    “Lisa Frankenstein”

    Diablo Cody Says R-Rated “Lisa Frankenstein” Cut is ‘Superior’

    March 26, 2026

    Snoop Dogg to Star in God of the Rodeo Prison Drama

    March 26, 2026
    "Ernie & Emma," 2024

    Bruce Campbell Says Cancer Diagnosis “Doesn’t Change Anything”

    March 26, 2026

    Diablo Cody is Currently Writing “Jennifer’s Body 2”

    March 25, 2026

    “Star Trek: Starfleet Academy” to End With 2nd Season

    March 23, 2026

    Paapa Essiedu Faces Death Threats Over Snape Casting in HBO’s Harry Potter Series

    March 22, 2026

    John Lithgow Nearly Quit “Harry Potter” Over JK Rowling’s Anti-Trans Views

    March 22, 2026

    Pluto TV Celebrates William Shatner’s 95th Birthday with VOD and Streaming Marathon

    March 21, 2026

    “They Will Kill You” A Violent, Blood-Splattering Good Time [review]

    March 24, 2026

    “Project Hail Mary” Familiar But Triumphant Sci-Fi Adventure [review]

    March 14, 2026

    “The Bride” An Overly Ambitious Creature Feature Reimagining [review]

    March 10, 2026

    “Peaky Blinders: The Immortal Man” Solid Send Off For Everyone’s Favorite Gangster [review]

    March 6, 2026
    Check Out Our Latest
      • Product Reviews
      • Reviews
      • SDCC 2021
      • SDCC 2022
    Related Posts

    None found

    NERDBOT
    Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram YouTube
    Nerdbot is owned and operated by Nerds! If you have an idea for a story or a cool project send us a holler on Editors@Nerdbot.com

    Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.