this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2024
87 points (98.9% liked)

Asklemmy

43659 readers
1597 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy πŸ”

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_[email protected]~

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 β€œfavorite 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
[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 hours 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.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 11 hours ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours 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.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 13 hours ago (1 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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 hours 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?!

[–] [email protected] 4 points 13 hours 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!

[–] [email protected] 11 points 18 hours 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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

I guess, but wouldn't that complaint apply to the whole show? I took the scene(s) as them being so far removed from Diana that they couldn't even conjure her memory properly. Her kids didn't have scenes like that, and I can't imagine her "ghost" not seeing them. I think it's because they didn't feel guilty, at least not like those two, so they didn't have manufacture an apology, they had nothing to apologize for. ~~I'm also reading way, way, too much into it.~~

[–] [email protected] 46 points 1 day ago (1 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.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 21 hours 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.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (1 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.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 19 hours 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.

[–] [email protected] 32 points 1 day ago (7 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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah, I stopped reading The Two Towers halfway through when it switched to Frodo's and Sam's perspective and I knew it'd just be a slog to get through.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 hours ago

Yea - the endless stair case is what I think of whenever I recall Tolkien's writing style.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 16 hours 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.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 22 hours 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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 16 hours ago

The Hobbit is far better than LotR. It's no contest.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 22 hours ago

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 (3 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 19 hours 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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 17 hours 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)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 21 hours 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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 hours ago

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

[–] [email protected] 9 points 20 hours ago

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

[–] [email protected] 5 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours 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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 12 hours ago

There are dozens of us!

[–] [email protected] 31 points 1 day 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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 day ago (5 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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 hours 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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

I think there would have been less issue with the Zelda weapon system if they started you with a bigger inventory space or made the tree guy who expands it someone you talk to and learn where to meet them later at the beginning of the game.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 hours ago

That is kinda what happened in Tears of the Kingdom.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (1 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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 17 hours 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).

[–] [email protected] 8 points 21 hours 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next β€Ί