Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - honk

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 59  Next >
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Cancel culture
« on: October 24, 2021, 02:48:34 AM »
I feel like the OP has things a little backwards. The decision to "cancel" a public figure by deplatforming them, cutting ties with them, or otherwise professionally shunning them, is always going to rest with the studios, publishers, and other corporations that have the power to do so. It's not something that can be achieved by general consensus on Twitter. Netflix chose to stand by Chappelle and his material. WB and JK Rowling's publisher chose to stand by her. They absolutely could have chosen to "cancel" them instead, and that wouldn't have been any more definitive proof of the almighty power of cancel culture than the fact that they didn't is definitive proof of its impotence. Conversely, Hollywood could have chosen to not cancel people like Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey. They would have been harshly criticized and possibly faced boycotts for it, which is probably why they didn't do it, but they could have done it, and I have no doubt that at least Weinstein (and quite possibly Spacey too) could have weathered the storm and continued his career. Another great example is Mel Gibson. Hollywood blacklisted him back in 2006, long before online outrage took the form it holds now, and was only welcomed back into the fold after several years of exile. Cancel culture is not something that happens to studios and other corporations, it's something they choose to actively do or not do.

Shane Gillis is a bizarre example to bring up as evidence of the ineffectiveness of cancel culture. I'd say he was pretty effectively canceled when he lost his role on SNL and with it his shot at mainstream success. Of course he wasn't going to delete his podcast out of shame and retire from comedy altogether as a result, and I think it's a little silly to imply that's a metric to measure whether or not someone has been canceled. And regarding Michael Richards, let's be real - his career in film and television more or less began and ended with Seinfeld. The incident with his racist tirade wasn't notable because it marked the end of his career, it was notable because it was the first time anyone had heard of him in the years since the end of that show. He's either got the worst agent in Hollywood, or, as I suspect is more likely, he's simply chosen to leave film and television behind and focus on small-time local comedy.

And speaking of comedy, I believe that we as a society have reached a point where mocking and belittling marginalized groups publicly is no longer considered acceptable, and that's not a bad thing. The idea of changing societal standards is also not a new one. A hundred years ago, comedy acts frequently involved blackface and open, overt racism. I'm sure if those comedians were still around today, they would call us oversensitive for not considering their acts to be acceptable, just like aging comedians today call modern audiences oversensitive for pushing back on their acts ridiculing people for being gay, trans, or having a foreign accent when they used to perform them with no backlash for so long before.

If the standard for what's considered harmful to trans people is this low then entertainers will most likely just never talk about them publicly. That sort of dehumanization seems to me like it would be harmful to that community.

Yes, I'm sure that trans people would be horrified if entertainers stopped talking about them publicly.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: October 23, 2021, 05:08:50 PM »
It's been pretty well established by now that the claims of a rigged election are in fact baseless. Indulging false equivalencies or entertaining obvious lies as possibly being true is not good journalism.

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Superhero Movies & Comics General
« on: October 17, 2021, 10:35:34 PM »
Yeah, but physical danger shouldn't simply be a non-concern for him either. That's just not the character. Part of Batman's appeal is that he has physical limitations and can't just plow through enemies with brute force.

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Superhero Movies & Comics General
« on: October 17, 2021, 04:24:51 PM »
New capeshit trailer, new hot takes from yours truly:

Batman casually wading through a hail of bullets unfazed is going too far. Not because it's unrealistic - I don't care about that - but because it makes him absurdly overpowered. Where's the tension if he's that indestructible? If an assault rifle being emptied into his chest doesn't even make him flinch, then how is he ever in any real danger when he's fighting in hand-to-hand combat? You'd need a rocket launcher to actually hurt this dude! I'm also not a fan of Colin Farrell's Sopranos-esque take on the Penguin. I could see it working for a more traditional mobster like Carmine Falcone, but it's just not an interesting choice for the Penguin. Everything else looks pretty cool, though. I'm not super keen on this being yet another grimdark Batman, but at least this is a bit different in that the focus seems to be on his recklessness and self-destructive behavior, which could make for an interesting look at the character. I love the emo look Pattinson is rocking. It simply shouldn't work, but it does.

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Just Watched
« on: October 07, 2021, 03:53:43 AM »
Free Guy (Shawn Levy, 2021)

Some of the action scenes are fun, there are a few entertaining visual gags, and Ryan Reynolds is always great. But the rest of this movie is really bad. Even the setting, a video game city constantly being torn apart by gamers eager to level up, grows stale pretty soon. But what really kills the film is everything set in the real world. Nothing about it works. Nothing. The guy from Stranger Things is an absolute black hole of charisma who sounds like he's bored out of his mind every time he speaks. The cameos from various YouTubers/streamers are pure cringe, and I honestly think that the climax, such as it was, would have been more compelling without the movie constantly cutting to those guys and their running commentary. And Taika's performance in this is not just the movie's low point, but also the low point of his career. I've never seen him be less funny than he was here. I strongly suspect that he was encouraged to ad-lib his entire performance.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: October 02, 2021, 03:25:31 PM »
The military supports Trump. Just one word from him and they'll have Biden and Harris arrested in an instant. But he's biding his time for now.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: October 01, 2021, 03:55:08 AM »
The opinions of the editors are the opinions of the newspaper. It's impossible to put out  an assertion without it being an opinion. Newspapers regularly retract false statements and disparaging things that they later come to regret. If an editor made false claims in the newspaper it is only because the newspaper endorsed their statements. It is not a free forum; anything written is the voice of the newspaper and it is the newspaper's responsibility to keep it in check.

Yes, an editorial, as written by the paper's editor, is generally meant to be taken as the paper's opinion. An op-ed, on the other hand, is not written by the paper's editor, and so it is not meant to be taken as the paper's opinion. Surely you understand the distinction. Rod Liddle is not the editor of The Sunday Times, and what he wrote was not an editorial. It was an op-ed. Again, newspapers allow people to write articles expressing their own opinions. It happens all the time.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: September 30, 2021, 04:57:46 AM »
"British media" = 1 article, by one guy, in one newspaper? Hilariously disingenuous.

You know that when a journalist publishes an article it goes through a number of editors there at the newspaper right? And if they later find that they were inaccurate the newspaper typically publishes a retraction? You know that, right?

If a newspaper is publishing it, they take responsibility for it. The Sunday Times is the largest in its market catagory, which makes it notable that a large British newspaper is calling the election a fraud:

The article in question is clearly an opinion piece, and its author has a long history of being more of a reactionary rabble-rouser than any kind of serious journalist. There's a grain of truth in what you're saying in that giving someone a platform is to a degree a show of support, not a neutral act, and the media in general do deserve pushback when they essentially hand a megaphone to grifters, liars, and extremists for no good reason. But that's a question of their cynical business practices, not of their actual beliefs. You can't just take it for granted that the opinions expressed in opinion pieces must therefore reflect the beliefs of the newspaper. That's simply not how it works. Reputable newspapers allow people with wildly different political beliefs to write these kinds of articles all the time. I don't think they necessarily should, like I just said, but they do.

Incidentally, if anyone is interested in actually reading the article without having to pay, it's right here. Wouldn't you know it, the article says nothing about the Arizona audit at all and only mentions the subject of voter fraud to dismiss it. Liddle's actual argument is that the election was "rigged" via the collusion between corporate, political, and media figures to suppress stories damaging to Biden, undermine Trump's presidency, and so on. I still don't agree with him, but there is at least a valid discussion to be had on that subject. And in the defense of those skeptical of the unified resistance to Trump, I will say that the Time article Liddle and others are concerned with is very sensationally written. It plays up the supposed secrecy of the agreements these parties made, repeatedly uses provocative and misleading terms like "cabal" and "conspiracy," and in general reads like a deliberate attempt to rile up Trump supporters. It's really very irresponsible journalism, and I'm surprised Time published it the way it was. In any case, so much for:

British media reviewed the Arizona audit results and came to the conclusion that the election was a fraud:

In the future, you might want to read the article yourself and not just take a YouTube talking head's word for it on what it's about.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: September 22, 2021, 01:35:16 AM »

Like the article says, Pence refused to go along with this because he knew that he didn't have the authority to. But what if he had done it anyway? The Republicans in Congress would have eagerly gone along with it. Who would have stopped them? Who could have stopped them? And more alarmingly, who will stop the Republicans in the next election if they get their way and state legislatures pass laws essentially allowing them to declare their preferred candidate the winner if they want to?

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Now Playing (the Video Game Version)
« on: September 21, 2021, 03:26:31 AM »

Arkane's latest game is pretty good. I just wish it had more than four levels. They're great levels, and just like in the Dishonored series, there are a ton of hidden paths over, under, around, and through the terrain and enemy outposts. They're a lot of fun to explore. But there's no getting around the fact that there are only four of them. That's not enough for a full-sized game. You can visit each level at different times of day, and they do change a bit, but only a little bit, like with more snow falling, different enemy placement, certain buildings being unlocked, and so on. The levels never stop being fundamentally the same old levels that you'll quickly grow very, very familiar with. I remember criticizing the latest Hitman games for having only six levels. Wasn't that cute.

There are actually a lot more problems with the game than just that. When you're not slipping past your targets' defenses and assassinating them, the missions usually have you revisiting each level many times to do something dull like discover a code or password. In fact, it's almost always to discover a code or password, which unlocks a door or safe where you find something that indicates you need another code or password. It's so tedious and repetitive. I respect Arkane's obvious desire to not just rehash Dishonored and do something new, but at the same time, it's the holdovers from Dishonored - exploring and navigating these great levels, playing around with your powers and weapons to cause havoc among your enemies in fun and creative ways, balancing stealth and firepower as you infiltrate your targets' bases, and taking out the colorful villains you encounter in whatever way you find most fitting - that make this game as good as it is. It's the new elements, and especially the time-loop mechanics, that don't add much of value.

So as not to be too negative, I will say that I like the story. While the excessive swearing is a bit overly edgy, it soon becomes clear that the main character is not another stock gritty dark-haired white guy FPS hero, but a goofy guy who stumbles over the lame jokes he makes, sings to himself, and comedically yelps in response to setbacks. He's genuinely funny and endearing. The main antagonist is similarly likable, and the two characters have a fun rapport as they regularly exchange banter and insults. The supporting cast are fleshed-out and have distinctive personalities, and the voice acting for everyone is on point. I also really enjoy the pseudo-1960s style and setting. It gives the game such a unique and memorable look.

Arts & Entertainment / Re: FES Book Club
« on: September 07, 2021, 04:29:54 AM »
The Peculiar Exploits of Brigadier Ffellowes
The Curious Quests of Brigadier Ffellowes

Two collections of fantasy short stories by Sterling E. Lanier. They center on the exploits of retired brigadier Donald Ffellowes, told by him to the patrons of a club he belongs to, always to mixed reactions of awe and skepticism. The basic format of an adventurer telling fantastical tall tales was pioneered by the Jorkens stories of Lord Dunsany (one of the most innovative and influential fantasy writers of all time, despite his relative obscurity - one day I'll discuss his works in greater detail), but where Joseph Jorkens is a comical figure and his tales are almost always goofy and lighthearted, Ffellowes's stories are grim and eerie in tone. That being said, I wouldn't go so far as to call them horror, as they're simply too action-packed, lively, and generally just fun.

The common theme that unites most of these stories is the idea of essentially recontextualizing ancient mythologies and folklore. In each story, Ffellowes encounters elements of or believers in a particular belief system, but sees it stripped of myth and presented in a more modern fantastical context. And typically, that means he discovers a monster or a cult at the bottom of it all. It's a great idea, and it's very enjoyable to see how Lanier interprets each religion. But then when the story focusing on Irish folklore comes around...this was such a groaner for me. The subject of Samhain, the Celtic harvest festival comes up, and the story makes it clear that the characters pronounce it as sam-hayne. It's actually a plot point. Ffellowes hears the name and thinks it's someone named "Sam Hayne," not realizing until the last second what it refers to. That's not how it's fucking pronounced. I've always heard it pronounced as sow-win, and I guess other regions have slightly different ways to pronounce it, like sah-win, but in no Celtic country has it ever been pronounced as sam-hayne. These stories were written back in the sixties, and I know they didn't have the Internet back then, but they had encyclopedias. Imagine just assuming that a foreign word is pronounced the same way an English word of the same spelling would be and not bothering to do any research to confirm it.

But that facepalm aside, these stories are delightful romps.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: September 02, 2021, 08:46:12 PM »
It's not off-topic at all to call attention to the fact that the people complaining about Biden's behavior are the exact same ones who ignored, shrugged off, or even supported similar antics from Trump. Standards for what is or isn't acceptable behavior are set by people, not ordained from on high, and so it's perfectly valid to question who it is that's setting the standards and what their criteria are.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: September 02, 2021, 03:37:58 AM »
So now that a Democrat is in the oval office, Republicans are back to caring about how we/the president treat(s) the families of fallen soldiers?

Are you certain that's it's all the Republicans' fault in this and that Biden isn't a disrespectful buffoon?

Nope, not what was asked. Let's try that again:

So now that a Democrat is in the oval office, Republicans are back to caring about how we/the president treat(s) the families of fallen soldiers?

Do you have a response to what Iceman actually asked? Not to the strawman in your head, but to the actual quote, right there in front of you. If it helps, I'll rephrase - why is it, after four years of turning a blind eye to the apathy and contempt regularly showed by the president towards veterans, fallen soldiers, and the families of fallen soldiers, that Republicans (and by extension, you) are now suddenly sticklers for showing the proper respect towards these people?

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Now Playing (the Video Game Version)
« on: September 02, 2021, 03:04:48 AM »
Twelve Minutes

A great premise very poorly executed. You play as a man trapped in a twelve-minute time loop in which a murderous cop barges into your apartment while you and your wife are trying to spend a quiet evening together, with tragic results. With every new time loop, you have a chance to learn something new about the situation - who this cop is, why he's doing this, how to stop him, what your wife knows about it, and hopefully, how to break the loop. The main problem for me - and make no mistake, this game has plenty of problems, but I don't feel the need to discuss them simply because this one by itself kills the whole experience for me - is that while this is a premise that cries out for player freedom and experimentation, the game refuses to oblige you. The number of interactable objects and environments in this setting is surprisingly quite low, and it soon becomes clear that there is only ever one way to achieve any given objective. There's only one way to incapacitate the cop. There's only one way to find out where an important item is hidden in the apartment. There's only one way to convince your wife you're in a time loop. Being forced to hunt for each arbitrary, highly-specific solution to each obstacle is no fun at all.

Also, the big twist ending of the game is a lazy cop-out and a thoroughly unnecessary attempt at "explaining" the existence of the time loop. It was all in the main character's head. None of the game's events actually happened, they were a manifestation of his guilty conscience. Interestingly enough, that's almost exactly the same stupid "explanation" that The Sexy Brutale had for its own time-loop premise, and it came across as really lame in that game too. Some time-loop games have pretty cool in-game explanations of their premises, but other games have no need of an explanation, and I wish that more writers would have the courage to just not bother trying to explain it all. Lots of weird things happen in video games that don't have in-game explanations.

Anyway, yeah, bad game, do not buy.

The Forgotten City

And here's a time-loop game that's actually quite good. You're trapped thousands of years in the past in an isolated Roman city where if anyone commits a crime, everyone in the city is turned to gold. Your only hope is to take advantage of how the day constantly repeats itself to find out what's going on, escape the city, and save its residents from their golden doom. To say much more about this game would be to ruin the mystery and overall sense of discovery. It's enough to say that this is a clever blend of dungeon-delving, political machinations, and thoughtful philosophy, all at a modest price. It's definitely worth your time and money.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: September 01, 2021, 04:11:10 AM »
It is claimed by multiple people that he checked his watch multiple times.

By grief-stricken parents whom by their own admission were already angry at Biden, and I suspect were also "primed" by the right-wing ghouls eager to turn this into a scandal:

I'm sorry for their losses, but I don't find their accounts particularly credible. They came to the event ready to lash out at Biden, and that's what was bound to happen no matter what he did or didn't do. It's far more likely that Biden looked at his watch once or twice during the ceremony, and then Darin Hoover unconsciously embellished that into a hyperbolic story of Biden looking at his watch all the time, like with every single casket.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki was asked about the issue during today’s press briefing by Fox News reporter Jacqui Heinrich. Here’s how the exchange went down:

Heinrich: “Some of the Gold Star families have criticized the president’s conduct at the dignified transfer. There was a father of one Marine who said the president shouldn’t be checking his watch every time a flag-draped transport case came out of the plane. And a sister of another Marine said that it felt like a fake and scripted apology. Was the President looking at his watch and does he have a message to those people who felt that they were offended?”

Psaki: “Well, I would say his message to all of the family members who were there, those who were not even in attendance, is that he is grateful to their sons and daughters, the sacrifice they made to the country. That he knows firsthand what it’s like to lose a child and the fact no one can tell you anything or say anything, or there’s no words that are going to fill that hole that is left by that.

He’s not going to speak to and I’m not going to speak to the private conversations. Of course, they have the right to convey whatever they would like. But I will tell you, from spending a lot of time with him over the past couple of days, that he was deeply impacted by these family members who he met just two days ago. That he talks about them frequently in meetings and the incredible service and sacrifice of their sons and daughters. That is not going to change their suffering, but I wanted to convey that still.”

What wasn’t said in the clip? Firstly, there was no denial, no attempt at spinning it into him looking at something else or doing something else rather than checking his watch.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, there was no apology, no expression of regret, nothing.

If you’re not going to deny it, you should at the very least apologize for it. That didn’t happen today, as an apology did not come from Biden nor did it come from Psaki.

As I’ve often said, sometimes it’s what they *don’t* tell you that speaks volumes.

If Heinrich really wanted a firm yes/no answer about the watch, then she should asked that and just that. The second half of her question renders the first part of it essentially moot, because there's no way to address the watch without sounding like you're downplaying the feelings of the surviving family members. Just imagine Psaki trying to say, "First of all, the President was not looking at his watch. Second of all, his message to all of the family members who were there..." She'd be lambasted for that, and rightfully so. Heinrich's question forced Psaki to choose between talking about the watch or talking about the families, and I think it was intended to do so.

And of course Psaki wasn't going to legitimize a manufactroversy by apologizing for it, thereby essentially admitting that the criticism being aimed at Biden was totally valid and legitimate. It would be like Obama apologizing for the time he hurt Repubicans' feelings by wearing a tan suit. An apology isn't simply an act of courtesy in politics, it's an admission of guilt, and that's why you see them so rarely. Maybe it shouldn't be that way, but it is, and until such time as that changes, it's disingenuous to attack a politician for doing what virtually any politician in the world would have done in that scenario - thread the needle of offering sympathy and comfort to the families without agreeing with their complaints about Biden.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: August 31, 2021, 10:06:46 PM »
Biden was not checking his watch during the ceremony, and the video proves it:

Another lie from right-wing media.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: August 31, 2021, 12:34:16 AM »
Speaking of Corn Pop, it's really interesting how that story is largely assumed to be an absurd lie and/or a sign of Biden going senile, largely based on the intuitive response people have that a gangster would never call themselves something silly like "Corn Pop," when the facts are actually on his side. Well, I wouldn't necessarily say that there's ironclad proof of the whole account being true, but at least one witness has corroborated Biden's story, and there's ample evidence that Corn Pop was a real person:

(Scroll down to the end for the update. It's ridiculous that this article is framed as "lol this guy totally roasted Biden for his bullshit story lol" and buries the lede of "oh btw the story is actually true" so far down, but it is a good summary of the evidence supporting Biden's account.)

It's a bit like how so many people believed that Trump's unguarded, impulsive manner of speech was indicative of his general honesty, and refused to seriously consider the overwhelming factual evidence of his frequent and outrageous lies. Intuition is useful, but people need to learn that it isn't always right, and shouldn't be stubbornly clung to when it's contradicted by clear facts.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: August 30, 2021, 03:37:33 PM »
an apologist for everything Trump did.

What exactly did Trump do? I'd be interested to know the terrible things he did. Based on his actions and policies, I'd say he was a reasonably good president. I mean, he didn't surrender to the Taliban and leave £billions of military hardware in Afghanistan. He didn't read everything from a teleprompter and only take questions from pre-selected journalists. He knew what day of the week it was.

Tell me ... what was the terrible thing Trump did?

Well, there was that time we had a terrible pandemic and Trump spent several months insisting that there was no problem, it wasn't a big deal, and it would go away by itself very quickly, and also indirectly encouraged his followers to refuse to wear a mask in public. We'll never know what would have happened if there had been a competent president in the Oval Office rather than someone asleep at the wheel, but hundreds of thousands of Americans are dead, and Trump must bear some responsibility for that.

Also, the discussion was about Biden's behavior and mannerisms being "embarrassing" to a certain type of conservative who supported Trump. I'm in full agreement with AATW that that is the height of hypocrisy after four years of Trump's bullying, insults, and general boorish behavior.

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Now Playing (the Video Game Version)
« on: August 21, 2021, 04:37:39 AM »
Alan Wake

This is a very bad game, and one that almost perfectly exemplifies one of the worst trends I've noticed in story-driven games - completely divorcing the story from the gameplay. Look, if you want to make a game that's more about the story than the actual gameplay, that's fine. There's more than one way to make a good game, and just as great gameplay can be enough to overlook a weak story, a great story can also be enough to overlook weak gameplay. But you have to do it right, and by that I mean that the gameplay must tell the story. That doesn't mean that the gameplay necessarily has to be particularly unusual or profound. It can be as simple as killing lots of enemies, provided that the story is reflective of you needing to kill lots of enemies, like if it's set in wartime and the main character is a soldier.

Alan Wake does not do that. The story of the game is at first the main character searching for his vanished wife in a mysterious small town, which later turns into something more complex when he realizes that an ancient cosmic power is making him write a book that's magically destined to come true. The gameplay, however, is mostly just you trekking from one end of a dark forest to another while fighting off zombie-like enemies the whole time. None of it advances the story in the slightest, because the story is not about traveling through the woods or fighting zombies. The story is a relationship drama and a metatextual rumination on the power of fiction, and 100% of this story is communicated through the cutscenes. If the way the hero traveled to each plot-critical location was by climbing into a spaceship and blowing up an alien armada before landing at his destination, the story would be unaffected. If he tunneled under the earth and fought an army of mole-men with mystical martial arts before emerging at his destination, the story would be unaffected. I don't think I've ever a ludonarrative disconnect this pronounced in any game before.

The above would be a fatal flaw in the game even if the story, taken as its own separate thing, was truly great. But it's not. There's an interesting central conceit to the story, but the execution is bungled by clunky prose, awkward, inhuman dialogue, and the characters all being either bland and forgettable or too obnoxious to take seriously. Alan Wake himself comes across as aloof and thoroughly unlikable, his design is of course that of another generic dark-haired white guy, and the game's efforts to demonstrate what a great writer he supposedly is by filling the game with samples of his florid, overblown prose and endless narration are just laughable. Seeing untalented writers try and write like how they think a talented writer would write reminds me of the morons at Bethesda trying to write dialogue options for supposedly intelligent or persuasive characters. The gameplay is similarly lacking. You point a flashlight at the enemies, all of which are very similar, and then shoot them with your guns, all of which are very basic video game weapons. You do this about a million times over the course of eight or so hours. Most levels take place in the same dark woods and look almost identical, and your objective is very rarely anything more interesting than "reach the next point on the map." To call it dull and repetitive would be an understatement.

To reiterate, this game blows chimp, and I have no idea why it got so much praise from reviewers, even after reading the reviews in question. Like, I don't believe that anyone who's played more than a handful of video games in their life could find this gameplay tense or frightening at all. Because it's not, and I would know. I'm scared shitless of horror games, and I didn't so much as raise an eyebrow out of fear at anything in Alan Wake. It's simply not a scary game. Likewise, I'm a little puzzled by how many reviewers praised the "episodic" nature of the game, meaning that the game would occasionally just flash the title screen and say that it was the end of episode whatever. Why is that so laudable? Seriously, how does splitting the game up into episodes actually make the game any better or more enjoyable in any kind of substantive way? I would argue that it doesn't, and to single it out as an especially praiseworthy detail rings a little false. I can't help but feel that something was a little fishy with this game's reception.

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Superhero Movies & Comics General
« on: August 17, 2021, 12:12:45 AM »

Really glad this didn't happen. Evil/antagonistic Superman is boring and played out by now. It's bad enough that that shitty-looking Suicide Squad game from Rocksteady will have evil Superman in it too. And yes, it looks shitty. I mean, I'm almost certainly going to play it anyway, but it looks very bad:

Why are people praising this? It looks terrible! Anyway, yeah, I'm tired of evil Superman. Give me good Superman for once.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 59  Next >