this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2024
119 points (98.4% liked)

Asklemmy

43755 readers
1280 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Example; the Legend of Zelda: BotW and TotK weapon degradation system. At first I was annoyed at it, but once I stopped caring about my “favorite weapon” I really started to enjoy the system. I think it lends really well to the sandbox nature of the game and it itches that resourcefulness nature inside me.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Tehdastehdas@lemmy.world 65 points 1 week ago (2 children)

The lack of interpersonal conflict in Star Treks overseen by Gene Roddenberry is a good thing. Humanity got their shit together, made Earth paradise, and went exploring the galaxy and other frontiers in life. Shoehorning conflict and darkness into the newer series destroys what made it unique.

[–] tetris11@lemmy.ml 19 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I couldn't quite pinpoint what I didn't like about the newer series, but you've nailed it - the hyper realistic tone it now has really clashes with the explorative nature of the old series.

[–] tiramichu@lemm.ee 33 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

There are some ways in which the newer shows like Discovery are realistic, but there are also ways in which they are stupid.

For example, two federation officers in a life or death situation where they have two minutes to solve an urgent crisis, and they decide to spend 60 seconds of that having an emotional heart-to-heart.

If that was in TNG, they'd have got the job done like professionals, and then had the friends chat later in ten forward. Because that's how people with jobs get their jobs done.

TNG era was quite cheesy in some ways, but it kept characters real in that they always acted appropriately for their role and position, not just like a bunch of emotional oddballs who get to be in charge of a spaceship for some reason.

[–] tetris11@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 week ago

Well said. Discovery was more about individualism and the "rich tapestry" of family histories to show that these characters have inherited their greatness and that no one else is equipped to be in the singular intense situation they are now in.

TNG was more about the mission. Sometimes family history came into it, but most of the team was just doing the best they could given the circumstance and their characteristics were more quirks that helped the overall effort. At least that's how it felt. Not one single character was more special than another.

No particular heroes, just professional heroics.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] FriendBesto@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Seen shows where the writers --as they recalled-- originally removeded about this. Made writing harder, since it was more difficult to write plots, but fuck that, it made them think outside the box, which made for some excellent episodes Re: grander ideas and nuanced takes on many subjects. Most, if not all, have come around to seeing Gene was definately ahea of his time and came to agree, too.

However DS9 was excellent, even though it diverged from Gene's formula.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 39 points 1 week ago (9 children)

Lord of the Rings (the books) are terribly written by modern novel standards and while the story is amazing their value purely as literature is quite low. I will always defend people who loved the movies and couldn't get into the books.

[–] boatswain@infosec.pub 18 points 1 week ago

I understand where you're coming from, but I disagree completely. They are written in a different style than we're used to today, but they're masterfully done. To me, the movies are largely good adaptations, but the books are far superior.

But that's the nice thing about taste: everyone's entitled to their own.

[–] MrScottyTay@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 week ago (5 children)

I've read the Hobbit and the fellowship a few years ago. I absolutely adored the Hobbit, genuinely think that is an awesomely written book. Fellowship however, is not a fun read, despite the content in the book actually being good. But the act of reading it is not.

I enjoyed it a lot. The only parts that annoyed the hell out of me was the constant singing and the overly long ring council. The rest I have only fond memories of. Granted it was a long time ago.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Mariemarion@lemm.ee 5 points 1 week ago
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Chozo@fedia.io 36 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

A big complaint I saw about the live-action Cowboy Bebop adaptation for Netflix was that the acting was too cartoony/over-the-top.

Personally, I thought the acting was spot-on for what they were trying to accomplish. It was meant to be a live-action anime, so it was never intended to be 100% tethered to reality to begin with. The characters are meant to be characters, and I thought they did a great job with it. Spike, Faye, and Jet were all perfectly-cast, IMO, and they all felt like their original characters felt from the animated series. There are so many times where you can just close your eyes and listen to them talk to each other, and it feels exactly like it felt watching the anime on Adult Swim back in the early 2000s as a kid.

I honestly loved the live-action adaptation and thought it was amazing. I'm still immensely disappointed that the reception was so poor that Netflix decided to cancel it halfway through the story. There are so many characters I wanted to see that didn't appear until later in the original series. I would've loved to see a live-action Toys In The Attic or Heavy Metal Queen.

[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 week ago

Yea, if anything my main compliant about the show was that they took away too much levity.

Cowboy Bebop had some really stark messages about family, relationships, and the impermanence of time - and it delivers that through characters that live life fully in the moment and run from their fate. In the live action version the characters were too willing to fall into morose reflection and focused too much on their eventual fate - for me the seriousness of the show really undercut how serious the underlying message was.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 33 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

The Original Mafia game is generally criticized for being a linear game in an open-world, but I think its linear nature is one of its strengths, because it gives the narrative a tight, driving focus that open world games tend to lack.

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 16 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Shadow of the Colossus was linear, but I don’t recall anyone complaining.

[–] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 15 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

I think Mafia received that criticism because of its surface level similarity to GTA, which is known for packing a ton of random side content in its open world.

In Mafia there is genuinely nothing to do out in the world when driving around outside of the main story missions, except for occasionally a mechanic at a garage will offer you some small mission to steal a newer and faster car. Because of that, people complained that the open-world part was pointless and a waste.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] MrScottyTay@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

I've only played 2 and I feel the same way about it. I wish more games did this approach of using an open world as a setting for a linear game to perform.

You get the best of both worlds with this approach. The feeling of the world being more real and lived in, whilst having the tightness of the storytelling of a linear game.

I've always defended how mafia 2 did it and never understood why people wanted it to be more open world. The story had me gripped too much to even think about that stuff.

I always find it weird in some open world games where something in the story is described as being a race against time or so important it needs to get done now, but as the player you can just forget that for a bit and go do something else before continuing. Even just the ability to do that takes me out of it.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] foggy@lemmy.world 30 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (6 children)

People have a boner for Simpsons seasons 3-8, the Conan years.

The Simpsons were excellent pretty much through season 12, much of seasons 13 and 14 are still legit.

I don't disagree that most of the best episodes are in that era... But Trilogy Of Errors is forever my favorite Simpsons episode, and that's S12E18. (Linguo... Dead??? "linguo IS dead.")

I woukd go as far as to say that seasons 9 - 13 all contain at least one 'top 30 of all time' episode.

The fall off was not swift with Conan's departure.

[–] MimicJar@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

The truth is there are SO MANY great episodes of The Simpsons. Even the current seasons have a lot to offer.

I also think that the earlier seasons get an advantage because they're the episodes we've all seen dozens of times.

Obviously I won't deny that the earlier seasons have 10/10 episodes. Maybe there are fewer 10/10 as you go along, but even a "bad" episode will have some great jokes in it.

In fact the "I'm a sign, not a cop" meme/macro, that's a season 20 episode.

[–] bad_news@lemmy.billiam.net 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

At the time I thought there was a noticeable drop as of the movie. Never really pinned down what season that is to watch either sides of to see if my theory stands, but, that's what I recall.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Karjalan@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Omg I love that episode too. I quote that grammar robot so the time "shuddapa yer face" "shut up your face"

I also am a software developer and use 123 fake street for testing forms all the time.

I'm surprised at how late it was, would have assumed it was pre double digits

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 22 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Ariel in Disney's A Little Mermaid doesn't drop everything for "a man".

She is clearly interested in land culture from the opening of the film, spending her time collecting shipwreck items and trying to learn what they are. She also isn't interested in the hobby her father wants her to do, singing.

King Triton is abusive when destroying Ariel's collection of artifacts, which makes you think of what else is going on with how he parents her.

So, Eric shows up and seems like a way out. It isn't a lot of information to go off of for adults, but it is something solid for a teenager.

And what did she give up to gain her legs? Her voice. People interpret it as her giving up being able to speak for herself, but it is her giving up the thing that her father cares about.

[–] Aeri@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

Also I can't look past the fact that there's absolutely no way that they wouldn't establish a form of nonverbal communication. ASL? Enthusiastic head nodding?!

[–] FriendBesto@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

In the original cartoon, it is explicitly shown that Triton does not like, or enjoyed or wanted to harm or hurt Ariel by destroying her collection. He wanted to protect her from her own follies and didn't know what else to do. At worst, flawed but well intentioned.

This is obvious on the shot of his face, showing his sad expression, hurt and regret as he looks back at her and as she starts crying, as he leaves. This important nuance was completely cut out from the live action film. Doing so recontextualised the entire scene.

Which in the film does make him look like a crazy asshole father, do not know why this was done as it just unnecessarily vilifies him without reason and removes previously shown emotional depth and context from the cartoon. My guess was because he = man, and man = bad, which went along with some people working in the film and some others saying that she had dropped everything for "a man."

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Postmortal_Pop@lemmy.world 19 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I heard a lot of complaints about the twins in borderlands 3.They're shallow, they're obnoxious, they remind you of wanna be tiktok influencers, on and on.

That's not a bug, that's a feature. Guys, Handsome Jack was bottled lightning. He was a masterpiece of good writing, good design, well placed improv, and just plain dumb luck. They were never going to pull that off again. You'd need to open a real vault to find that level of treasure.

The Calypso's are exactly what they say on the tin. They're all those obnoxious, unfunny things I mentioned because sometimes villains aren't well thought out, complex characters. I fucking love shooting Troy in his smug hot topic weeb face. I don't need to consider the complexity of a man driven to an extreme or the show erosion of one's moral character in pursuit of power, they were two shitty kids on an ego trip with no regard for the damage they did. It is plain, and simple, and easy.

Are there problems with the rest if the story? Absolutely. Are there some awful plot-holes? Oh my fuck, yes. But are the Calypsos the thing that ruined the game? Fuck no, they're fine and perfectly shootable as a bad-guy needs to be.

[–] Zahille7@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Just gonna chime in to say I bought Tiny Tina's Wonderlands cause it's on sale right now for like $12 on steam (the season pass is only $5 too) and MY GOD IS IT AN ABSOLUTE BLAST TO PLAY!

I'm just having straight up fun with this game, and I'm already wishing there was a sequel coming out tomorrow so I could dive right in when I finish this one. The bright vibrant world is fun to explore, the enemies are entertaining to fight with their quips and banter, the new mechanics (spells instead of grenades, new dedicated melee weapons and inventory slot, enchanted rings/amulets/armor to change that can all act as individual class mods to switch up your play style a bit) feel right at home in the fantasy setting.

I've heard about the lack of endgame and DLC stories, but I don't care. I'm just having fun with my bowguns and magic missile launchers.

[–] NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone 18 points 1 week ago (7 children)

The Zelda complaint is extra bullshit considering other open-world games like Just Cause do exactly the same thing by giving the guns limited ammo, so you constantly have to switch weapons based on what the enemies drop.

[–] Stern@lemmy.world 19 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (4 children)

Considering in prior Zelda games you didn't have to worry about your sword being unusable or your shield breaking (inb4 "what about...", there's like three circumstances in a dozen plus games, cmon.), I can understand why folks weren't so keen on it in the new ones. Yeah you could run out of magic, arrows, or bombs, but that boomerang wasn't going anywhere.

[–] sanguinepar@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

that boomerang wasn't going anywhere.

Tbh, if I had a boomerang as a weapon, I'd get precisely one throw out of it (whether I hit anything or not).

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Kushan@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago

I think if you're comparing open world games to open world games then yeah, BOTW doesn't do anything too terribl differenty, but when you compare BOTW to other Zelda games then it's very different and that's where the criticism comes from.

Personally I feel BOTW is a very competent open world game, probably one of the better ones I've played but I still didn't gel with it because I was already strongly feeling fatigued from too many games becoming open world and not making that leap particularly well (Mass Effect Andromeda and FFXV coming to mind for me personally), what I wanted was a more traditional Zelda game and that's simply not what BOTW was.

[–] Aeri@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago

I mean if I run out of RPG ammo in GTA I can buy more for a universal currency I don't have to keep beating crime lords down with a big stick until one of them drops a fresh one.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Kushan@lemmy.world 15 points 1 week ago (1 children)

One that always stood out to me was the ending of the Tom Cruise war or the world's movie.

Now to be clear, this is not a good film and I don't recommend that anyone bothers to go watch it, but a criticism I regularly saw was that the ending was bad - the aliens all just die suddenly.

That was literally the only thing that film got right from the source material. They changed literally everything else in an attempt to modernise it, it didn't work but they at least kept the ending and that's the bit people didn't like.

[–] Thehalfjew@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

Yeah. It's a movie about surviving. Not winning. And the opening sets up the end.

[–] CrabAndBroom@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It seems like a lot of people complain about Doctor Who not really having any canon or rules, and contradicting itself constantly (sometimes within the same episode) but I don't think that's necessarily a failing because it's not trying to do that at all.

The trend these days is for a lot of shows, especially sci-fi ones, to be sort of 'internet-proof' and be designed to withstand the people who go through frame-by-frame looking for little errors and contradictions to pull apart, and Doctor Who ignores that completely and just aims to be big fun campy dramatic nonsense, which I think it mostly succeeds at. I think the only cardinal sin for that show is don't be boring, which IMO it pulls off more often than not.

And it's fine to not like that of course, but I don't get it when people try to call the show out for not doing something it's never really tried to do, at least since it came back in 2005.

[–] abbenm@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

The Van Gogh scene is amazing, and it made me think that I understand the purpose of the show

[–] Kayday@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago

Joker: Folie à Deux.
The first movie was not about Joker, it is about Arthur. Joker is the unfortunate identity he takes on as a result of the events of the first film. But at the end of the day, he was just a guy. He was delighted but bewildered at the people rallying behind him.

!Folie a Deux picks up is after the police inevitably apprehend Arthur. He is on medication, and speaking to a mental health professional regularly. He doesn't want to be Joker, but everyone around him expects him to be. The tragedy of the ending is that Arthur rejects the love and admiration he has earned, knowing it will not redeem him to the people who hate and fear him now. He chooses to be completely alone and powerless to stop hurting people.!<

As far as the musical numbers went, they were infrequent and clearly a representation of the connection between Arthur and Lee. There was at least one scene where we view Arthur from the perspective of onlookers after he finished singing and dancing, but all they saw was him staring at a TV or something. I always felt like the songs added to character development, but even if they weren't your thing they were brief and heavily outweighed by scenes with just dialogue.

[–] 2ugly2live@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago (1 children)

In the last season of The Crown, Princess Diana's "ghost" makes an apperence to Charles and the Queen. People were super upset, saying that it's offensive to speak for her in that capacity.

That show is not fantastical, and they have never shown "ghosts." I took it as those characters having a mental conversation with her, like, technically talking to themselves, as part of their grieving process, and not that the actual spirit of Diana came from the afterlife to tell Charles it's cool.

[–] tetris11@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Memory or not, they're putting words in the mouth of a deceased woman to make a survivor feel less guilty

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] tetris11@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 week ago

Everyone is on fire in this thread. Every comment legitimately interesting and well thought out. Upvotes abound. (Apologies for the meta)

[–] eezeebee@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Dark Souls 2 gets so much hate for a few things that I don't see as a big deal, or gets blamed for things that are present in the other games in the series.

They tied a stat called Adaptability to your dodge, so you have to level up that stat to get the same number of invincibility frames as the previous game. I did not notice at all until I read complaints about it. I never felt entitled to a certain number of i-frames. I can see how it might be annoying to someone with more experience from DS1, but it's far from a deal breaker for me.

People complain about hitboxes, as if DS1 isn't full of nonsensical jank in this category.

They complain about enemy spam, as if there aren't 12 undead crammed in a small room before the Gargoyle boss who will body block you if you don't deal with them. Or 8 Taurus demons followed by 6 Capra demons in a row. Or 40 crystal undead that hit like trucks in the Duke's archives. Or another 12 undead in one room in The Depths.

Then there's the magic bullet - Miyazaki wasn't that involved. Ok, well does that mean the rest of the company is useless? Maybe he should create the entire games all by himself just to make sure those pesky colleagues don't screw it up. It's so disrespectful to the rest of the team to imply they aren't shit without him.

People cry "development hell" when you point out the very unfinished second half of DS1, but crucify DS2 which had a massive change of direction and redesign halfway into development.

[–] Corr@lemm.ee 5 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Ds2 does a lot right in vibes. I didn't really get it that much while playing but it focuses a lot on being an RPG and making you utilize the different systems in the game. You benefit a lot from being able to use ranged weapons from time to time.

That said I found the game kinda ass to play. I think the enemy spam in ds2 is significantly worse than ds1 other than the room before the gargoyle fight. When there is enemy spam in ds1, you can almost always run past it. In ds2 you're pretty much forced to fight every single enemy every single time.

I do think it's over hated but I think it's because people wanted a clone of ds1 which its not. If you went into without any expectations, I suspect it would be viewed much differently.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] ggtdbz@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 week ago (9 children)

I once read a comment on the old site about how Skyrim’s combat is like mashing WWE action figures together.

I completely agree but I don’t think that’s a weakness at all. Maybe when it released, the game was seen as a grand RPG by more casual people and as a watered down Oblivion by older ES players.

But I think by looking at it not through the lens of a grand RPG, but as a familiar, comforting brain-off experience, it really shines. It really gave us the most it could for how low effort it is to play, and I mean that in a good way.

I remember getting recommended a YouTube video (by the algorithm) called something like “why do we still like Skyrim” and I thought the video was very disappointing. And I think the video’s thesis was about the same as mine in this comment. I wanted it to be something like this:


I associate the game with a long tradition of RPGs that I wasn’t around for, as one of the last great games we got before the priorities of the industry shifted again. The graphics didn’t need to be perfect, the comically small number of VAs didn’t need AI bullshit, the straightforward story lines don’t need to be groundbreaking. The music and atmosphere though are immaculate. It’s a game with a ton of flaws, even some jank that is endearing in hindsight. It just works!

Throw on the modding aspect and you have a very “pure” PC gaming experience. This is exactly what I want from a game, something that’s good enough to just be fun to run around aimlessly in, without feeling like I need a podcast to play in the background, that I can just lose hours in.

I’m playing a much higher effort game now. Workers and Resources Soviet Republic makes the Cities Skylines 2 look like drawing stick figure houses. WRSR is absurdly complex and is super engrossing when you’re in it, if you’re wired to enjoy these types of games. However, I need to be mentally ready to jump in.

With Skyrim I just launched it when I was bored, and I was less bored after.

I insist: Skyrim’s simplicity is what made it work.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] SomeGuy69@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

The movie Tomorrowland. I don't understand why anyone could not like it. Maybe because I watched it in German, but I love this movie. It has character, it has character arcs and development, it has fun gadgets and delivers more than once a great message, that's motivating and gives you something to think about. It has an amazing fantasy world and I enjoy the dialogues too.

Sure they could've shown more of the high tech society and some lines are a bit cheesy, but I never saw the audience to be 18+ and more on being also entertaining to kids.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Corno@lemm.ee 7 points 1 week ago

Sonic Adventure 2's mech stages. I actually loved those stages and was really surprised to learn that so many people didn't like them, I always found it so satisfying getting good combos!

[–] tiefling@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

While I understand people's criticisms of Sucker Punch, I still really enjoy the movie and its soundtrack.

One of the most common criticisms I see is that their outfits have sex appeal. It's a totally valid criticism, but at the same time, I see this as Babydoll choosing an outfit that is the exact opposite of the unsexy hospital gowns she's forced as a way to escape her reality. I would do the same to be honest.

[–] SlothMama@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Forspoken is low key incredible and like, exactly one sound bite sealed it's fate, once it became a meme, people already made up their mind about it.

It was one of the best games I played last year and I found the story to be compelling and the gameplay fresh.

I think it'll be regarded as a hidden gem in the future unironically.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] mub@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 week ago

I enjoyed the ending to the Battlestar Galactica series. I know there were some missed opportunities but the writer's strike had an impact.

[–] LANIK2000@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

Everyone shits on Star Fox: Assault for shit controls. Which is half true at best, as in it makes you chose between 3 options (option C being the correct modern one) and the one the cursor starts on (A) is indeed shit. I mean it's remotely annoying once, but like come on, it's not even a hidden setting, it MAKES YOU CHOOSE!

load more comments
view more: next ›