-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Super Best Friends |OT| The Space Traitor ERA
- Thread starter NoblesseOblige
- Start date
Hush up little girls, a lot of cats have that name...
>_>
<_<
>_>
I'm legit curious what bulk releasing did to Woolies metrics.
I haven't even watched passed episode 2 of the LP as I've played so much DMCV that I've kinda put myself off.
She did it in a really condescending/shitty way, so he's treating it like every other shitty statement/comment media companies/workers put out.
Gonna need more detail on how exactly she was being condescending about the extremely real racial homogeneity in entertainment criticism and reporting.
What exactly rubbed you and probably pat the wrong way about it, and is it actually bad enough to be a net negative that erases this extremely obviously positive stance she's taken?
---
I do agree that carol herself doesnt have much personality, but her interactions with maria save her character. I have hope she can go somewhere interesting in the future. The movie definitely has a problem with some overt corporate feminist posturing, but there are times when they really get it right. (Eg. her relationship with her superior and how she learns to overcome his attempts to stoke her sense of inferiority.)
I honestly hate the guardians movies (at least the first, never bothered with the other) so its nice to have a space marvel movie that's at least as good as the first iron man movie. This is definitely middle of the road overall, but ive honestly loathed a lot of Marvel's recent output, including Infinity War. It also stands pretty nicely on its own, basically mainly only tying into the first avengers movie.
A lot of it is her tone and word choice, along with the cringe of her interacting with that black reporter lady, which has very strong "if you don't like/care about this thing/cause/position, you are bad and should feel bad" vibes, which automatically generates a "fuck you and whatever you're associated with" response in a lot of people.
Is it rational that it "automatically generates" that response? What is actually leading to that? Because it sounds like the thought process is "i dont follow this closely, so if this person is asserting it's important to know about it that makes me a bad person, and I don't want to be a bad person."
Do you see why this seems flawed and kind of insecure? People always bring up other things after feeling that way, but the only really consistent way to argue against this kind of thing is to take the position that near-equal representation in any field is actually bad. And when people don't take that position, i don't assume they're hiding those feeling secretly, i think they're just refusing to examine what it actually means when something makes you uncomfortable.
Personally I don't at all think feeling that way is necessarily bad! Learning how to fit your own ideals requires moments of non-comfort.
EDIT: i want to reiterate that i specifically said I do NOT assume people are either with or against. I assume they are confused about their own reaction to someone talking positively about something they probably also agree with. However, i don't think being confused is necessarily healthy, and i especially don't believe it's reasonably defensible.
Last edited:
I'll second that I think the Brie Larson stuff is taken way out of hand. I think she's right to want a more diverse press tour and I think the anit-diversity crowd have misconstrued it to a lot of people because they'd rather people talk about her being an asshole and not notice how many white press people ask the questions in the last dozen marvel movies.
I don't know if it's rational, but I think it's certainly an instinctual reaction to poor communication and perceived judgmental conduct that creates a perceived "you/them vs me/us" divide. I believe I read in a book a while ago that highly aggressive/confrontational approaches are actually really bad for getting people to accept ideas, because of that instinctual reaction - if you want to people to change their minds, you need to expose them to positive stimuli instead of negative stimuli, to overwrite their learned experiences and assumptions.
So, in the context of this stuff, Brie Larson saying something that can be perceived as "fuck white dudes and their opinions" as the preface to her statement of "we need more diverse voices in film criticism" is a pretty big poison pill that causes an instinctual negative reaction, because there's a lot of stuff that can be read with that subtext floating around. It turns a fairly laudable cause into something intensely personal/incredibly easy to dismiss, which actually gets in the way of accomplishing the goal by causing pointless division.
In before Pat pops into the thread to talk about how he's never seen a Red Letter Media video in his life and we all need to chill out with our dozens, no hundreds of scathing insults to his personal character.
Thanks for the clarification on what you're saying. I would agree that intense aggression can undermine your cause, but I also think that in this case a large group of people have developed a wildly expanded definition of what constitutes "being aggressive", especially when it's coming from a woman or non-white man, and that this oversensitivity has developed as a result of an initial failure to self-examine. When this has become self-feeding to the extent it has, there's very little one can do to avoid generating a negative response besides just not talking about these important issues at all.
It's a bad situation, and the only way out is for people who have these negative reactions to turn them in a reflective direction, rather than a reactive one. As a person with a large following and great influence on/admiration from a lot of people who might not understand why people care about these sorts of issues, it would have been encouraging to see pat put in the effort to try and gain a more complete understanding of the situation, rather than assuming the worst of a person and not questioning where the reaction to them might have its roots.
While perfectly communicating exactly what is desired without tripping any nerves is of course the ideal route to better understanding and a better world, human nature at times actively works against making that as simple as it can sometimes sound, and I don't fault brie larson for not being perfectly successful
Oh shit, I only saw Liam and Pat playing so far. Gotta find some of Woolie giving it a shot now.
im psyched for sekiro because it sounds like they basically made it into a full on action adventure game with a few upgrades rather than an action rpg. Also I was one of the people who fell for the whole samurai sword trick in dark souls 1, where it's broken when you load into the game.
lol in my case I forgot Liam was gonna do it too.
He's very early on, his reactions to stuff have been pretty cool. Stream was great, Billy shows up!
It's fantastic so far, and yeah that seems like the best way to describe the changes they've made. Careful playing it immediately after playing DMC5, though. I've found myself trying to lock onto enemies with R1 and dodge with X way too many times so far...
Yep, fresh off DMC5, it's a struggle.
Doesn't help that we're getting Bloody Palace in about a week.
I thought for a second you meant they streamed together, since "Woolie and Pat streaming something" usually means they did it together.
Yeah I've been sticking with Sekiro longer than I ever did with DS1. There's an argument to made that it's overall more difficult, but I can't say it doesn't explain itself well (for the most part) and give you the opportunity to practice. Though I wonder if that's necessary with the generally more complex combat system. I can't imagine trying to figure out sweep-countering or the Mikari thing by myself.
Heres a hot take for everybody: I don't consider Sekiro a souls game. It's just so different in design outside of some presentation stuff that I don't think it really has much comparable to souls games/bloodborne. Reminds me way more of tenchu.
Also I don't think Sekiro is actually that hard once you get the basic gist of deflections going (learn to rely on normal blocking. If you hit deflect early, just keep holding onto that button and eat the hit.) it just wants you to jump between levels a lot. If you hit a part that feels way too tough, it probably is, so go deal with something else. MB(first two letters of the boss's name) was kicking my ass until I decided to go to a different area (that was waaay easier) and beat that reasonably tough boss and got some story upgrades. When I went back she was significantly more doable.
Also I don't think Sekiro is actually that hard once you get the basic gist of deflections going (learn to rely on normal blocking. If you hit deflect early, just keep holding onto that button and eat the hit.) it just wants you to jump between levels a lot. If you hit a part that feels way too tough, it probably is, so go deal with something else. MB(first two letters of the boss's name) was kicking my ass until I decided to go to a different area (that was waaay easier) and beat that reasonably tough boss and got some story upgrades. When I went back she was significantly more doable.
This doesn't feel like that much of a hot take, and I feel similar (despite never playing Tenchu).
In any case the difficulty seems to be ruffling a few feathers both on this site and elsewhere. I didn't pay much attention at the time, but was the initial reaction similar for Bloodborne?
Absolutely similar. I feel like this one has a much better ramp-up than bloodborne tho, the first generic enemies you fight are pretty dang scrubby.
---
Something i keep forgetting to mention is the camera transparentizing objects in the foreground. This is new, right? Cause i know a lot of people complain about the camera in these games
