79

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
[-] CrabAndBroom@lemmy.ml 1 points 10 minutes 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.

[-] tiefling@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 48 minutes ago* (last edited 14 minutes 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.

[-] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 3 points 2 hours ago

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.

[-] Corno@lemm.ee 2 points 2 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!

[-] 2ugly2live@lemmy.world 8 points 7 hours ago

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.

[-] SomeGuy69@lemmy.world 5 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

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.

[-] asexualchangeling@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 hour ago

There are dozens of us!

[-] iamhazel@beehaw.org 1 points 5 hours ago

I didn't read the GOT books. That said, I enjoyed the show through to the last episode and wouldn't have thought twice about any of it if the fans weren't so angry. Idk why but I just don't have the ability to be critical of (or follow very well) story or writing, or anything really. Maybe I'm just too good at suspending disbelief?

[-] CrabAndBroom@lemmy.ml 1 points 25 minutes ago

I thought the general broad strokes of what happened were fine (IE with

spoilerDaenerys being the big villain and stuff
), I just thought it was rushed and done in a kind of sloppy way. I really didn't like
spoilerBran becoming the king though

'cause I fucking hate that character lol.

[-] Kushan@lemmy.world 11 points 10 hours ago

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.

[-] Tehdastehdas@lemmy.world 40 points 13 hours ago

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 12 points 10 hours ago

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 14 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

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 4 points 8 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.

[-] eezeebee@lemmy.ca 4 points 8 hours ago

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 3 points 7 hours ago

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.

[-] eezeebee@lemmy.ca 2 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

You benefit a lot from being able to use ranged weapons from time to time.

Totally. My first playthrough was as a sorcerer which was difficult, but advantageous in many ways. These games are praised for not hand-holding and DS2 is no different - you're expected to adapt. Adaptability is not just a stat, but a state of mind.

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 have to disagree. I never felt body-blocked so often in 2 as I did in 1. They don't make it easy, but in 2 most areas you can just run through if you bait enemy attacks as you dodge. There are some exceptions like Iron Keep which is downright sadistic in forcing you to kill the enemies, though, for sure. I felt the same way with the bloat-heads in Oolacile township, Demonic Foliage in Darkroot Garden, crystal undead in Duke's, 90% of enemies in Undead Burg and Parish, New Londo Ghosts. I'm sure the amount of experience with either game can make the difference between running through and getting stun-locked though - I still feel like a noob when playing 1.

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.

I think you're right. I played 2 before 1. Both were frustratingly difficult at times, but that was the only expectation I had going in, since the series is known for being about overcoming challenges.

[-] Corr@lemm.ee 2 points 5 hours ago

This is very interesting to me, re: enemy spam. Goes to show everyone is different. I literally have no issue running through basically any area in DS1, including the ones you listed. Meanwhile iron keep, the magic swamp area, the bell tower area, and the run back to the samurai dlc boss all haunted me. There's another part in the dlc where you send like oil barrel dudes through a trap door. I did that area about 30x until Everything despawned.

[-] eezeebee@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 hours ago

This is very interesting to me, re: enemy spam. Goes to show everyone is different. I literally have no issue running through basically any area in DS1, including the ones you listed. Meanwhile iron keep, the magic swamp area, the bell tower area, and the run back to the samurai dlc boss all haunted me. There’s another part in the dlc where you send like oil barrel dudes through a trap door. I did that area about 30x until Everything despawned.

I definitely know what you mean about those areas in 2. All four Lord Soul runbacks in DS1 make me feel a similar way. Though if any of these areas in either game were easy it wouldn't feel so dang good to overcome them :)

[-] Corr@lemm.ee 2 points 3 hours ago

The lord soul runbacks are rough for sure. I hated doing them, but never for the enemies. Just so long for no real reason lol. But you're right, challenge is absolutely the name of the game here

[-] tetris11@lemmy.ml 7 points 10 hours ago

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

[-] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 28 points 14 hours ago

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 7 points 5 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.

[-] MuffinHeeler@aussie.zone 2 points 5 hours ago

I've tried so hard, multiple times (years apart) and just can't read the books. I read the hobbit fine, that's a great book, but the trilogy I just found myself skipping pages to my favourite movie parts. It just went on and on. It's a shame really, I'd love to have read them.

[-] bradboimler@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

I started with the Hobbit really wanting to finally read the Lord of the Rings but I couldn't get into it

[-] MrScottyTay@sh.itjust.works 8 points 11 hours ago

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.

[-] jerkface@lemmy.ca 1 points 5 hours ago

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

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.

[-] Karjalan@lemmy.world 2 points 8 hours ago

I remember as a kid I was really into fantasy things and my dad told me about LOTR and thought I'd like it. I'd read the hobbit for school already and really enjoyed that... But LOTR was painful, I didn't even complete the first book

[-] sanguinepar@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago

I would probably say that FOTR is my least favourite of the LOTR trilogy, TTT and ROTK are both more enjoyable IMO.

That said, I saw the movies before I read the books, so that might be a factor, I'm not sure.

[-] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 hours ago

Personally, my favorite book of his is the Silmarillion, he's in his element and is writing a text book about cool fantasy stuff he dreamt up.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone 11 points 13 hours ago

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.

[-] whotookkarl@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

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.

[-] Stern@lemmy.world 11 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

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 4 points 7 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).

[-] Kushan@lemmy.world 7 points 10 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)
[-] Kayday@lemmy.world 13 points 14 hours 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.

[-] Chozo@fedia.io 27 points 17 hours ago

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.

[-] SomeGuy69@lemmy.world 2 points 7 hours ago

I wholeheartedly agree. I also loved the live action and I usually hate live action. It definitely isn't because of nostalgia.

[-] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 2 points 8 hours ago

I really liked it too, and was deeply disappointed that it was cancelled prematurely.

TBH, it seems like Netflix cancels everything that I really end up enjoying, and dragging out shows that should have been a limited series (e.g., Stranger Things).

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2024
79 points (98.8% liked)

Asklemmy

43659 readers
1474 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