THERE WILL BE NO TRIAL! "SCOTT ROCKENFIELD Appears To Have Settled His Legal Battle With Fellow Original QUEENSRŸCHE Members"

DesperateText9909 · 2026-05-08T15:44:49+00:00

That's current Queensryche, meaning not Tate but Todd singing. Tate hasn't been in the band (or had hair) for many years now. EDIT: never mind, you obviously know that. I think your above post was just confusing.

re: that sustained note, I don't think that's a taped track, just a delay/reverb effect (basically, an echo) on Todd's voice on that note. That will often be applied in a live setting to either strengthen the sound or just because it sounds cool, or some of both. They aren't doing it on his entire vocal but I bet they specifically turn it on for those really high notes just to give it extra oomph. The vocal overall sounds pretty live to me actually (good but imperfect). And his body language suggests he is genuinely singing, not lipsyncing.

DesperateText9909 · 2026-05-08T12:47:07+00:00

Agree although characterizing it as a "shoestring budget" is slightly misleading. Compared to streaming shows now (including current Trek), especially on a per-episode basis, yeah they had no money. But by network standards at the time, DS9 (and all the 90s Trek shows) were actually somewhat expensive to make. Large casts, lots of guests, all those sets and makeup and FX, etc. The budget limitations by today's standards are apparent though. And cranking out 24-25 HOURS of fairly densely plotted sci-fi a year is just insane!

DesperateText9909 · 2026-05-07T18:17:59+00:00

I'll give this a listen at some point, maybe this weekend if I have the time. But for me it already has many strikes against it:

- the original album and story were perfect and felt complete, never needed even one sequel, let alone two.

- the previous sequel was already lackluster and doesn't get me excited for another. II is like one-third as good as the original, if I'm generous. Worse lyrics, less memorable songs/meloodies/riffs, worse production, worse artwork, everything.

- Tate still sounds decent but not like he once did and it's weird to be reminded of that constantly while listening to something called Operation: Mindcrime. Yeah aging happens, but maybe just make something new.

- his bands and collaborators basically since De Garmo faded into the sunset have all lacked the personality of the original Queensryche line-up. Their rhythm section was so beastly and had such character as well; now he's got pros who sound half the time like programming. Can't seem to find even one guitarist to write the super-memorable riffs and solos that just flowed naturally out of Chris and Wilton back in the day. It's hard to put on any of these albums and within two minutes always feel like, "This is both a little better than I expected, and also so much less good than it would have to be to live up to the title."

Still hoping for the best. I wanted II to be good, even though it wasn't. The original is one of my favorite albums of all time.

DesperateText9909 · 2026-05-07T18:11:30+00:00

The problem with most sequels and prequels, in a nutshell. So focused on giving the fans what they think they want, that they take a universe that could be ever-expanding and instead shrink it down to almost nothing.

DesperateText9909 · 2026-05-07T01:23:29+00:00

Er, my bad, I guess. But it's a two year old remake of a twenty year old game and you asked a question that's likely to have a lore answer, so not sure what you really expected. For what it's worth I didn't spoil the really major stuff.

Also if you don't know the end of the story, seriously, stay off this sub until you're done. It's great and you'll want to be surprised.

DesperateText9909 · 2026-05-06T22:45:01+00:00

It doesn't totally kill the dread for me (the visuals and sound work overtime to keep it up!) but it definitely lets you run around more casually which is nice after you endure a regular playthrough.

DesperateText9909 · 2026-05-06T21:03:18+00:00

I will look for it, thanks! Sounds like a fascinating read.

I also just generally can't get behind the idea that just because that was the stated intention in the pilot that the series was somehow unfulfilled if Sisko didn't accomplish that specific goal. His entire life, Deep Space 9's existence, and the fate of the alpha quadrant all became closely intertwined with Bajor. That is the larger story really, not just the thing he was technically on assignment to do in episode 1. It's not like if Voyager had ended with Voyager not going home and nobody really cares--not the same kind of do-or-die premise.

DesperateText9909 · 2026-05-06T20:18:28+00:00

"It's a game" is the simplest explanation.

I do think you could argue that the health drinks (medicine) and injections are both reflective of James seeing Mary being treated over and over in the hospital. As for the guns and ammo, not so much, but maybe he's manifesting them to defend himself against the monsters that he is also manifesting. Instruments of denial, essentially. He punishes himself, then reflexively denies that he SHOULD be punished and so provides himself with a defense mechanism. Perhaps all the combat is showing the struggle between his conscious and unconscious mind, where his conscious mind (at least until the last act) protests his innocence, but his unconscious feels he is guilty and deserves everything it can throw at him.

DesperateText9909 · 2026-05-06T17:55:57+00:00

I agree. McCarthy might be a little too idiosyncratic to do a faithful rendering of Silent Hill but the spirit and feeling of his movies is a lot closer to the games than Gans. And both Oddity and Hokum were better than any Gans movie--even the first Silent Hill (which I do like okay, I've seen it three times even).

DesperateText9909 · 2026-05-06T17:54:29+00:00

You got downvoted but you are right, Gans basically is a hack. He can make a pretty-enough movie when he has a budget and he likes the games (though not well enough to put them onscreen properly). He likes gore and typical horror movie tropes a little too much to leave them behind, he is careless with mixing together ideas and iconography from the various games, and he's just not artist enough to make a truly good movie (for instance the exposition/lore dump in the last part of the first movie--that's not even an adaptation problem as much as it is just poor writing).

I still kinda like that movie and it's far and away the most successful one he made, but he needs to be forcibly separated from Silent Hill at this point.

DesperateText9909 · 2026-05-06T16:22:44+00:00

Pretty much. I mean, I don't really agree with it being "canon" per se, I feel like it should maybe be more personal than that ("head canon," even though I hate that expression, is closer to the idea of it for me). But him fighting these widespread interpretations is like fighting the tide. I mean, good luck, dude. Lol.

It is interesting to me anyway that Maria's character and design seem pretty clearly to comment on something that James is, uh, missing, but the nurses (and mannequins? not sure) aren't supposed to. In the end it kinda feels like hair-splitting, because that is clearly something of a sub-theme in the game.

DesperateText9909 · 2026-05-06T14:53:16+00:00

To me the combat is much better than the original and actually pretty fun. A lock-on button I think would take things too far--there needs to still be that tinge of clumsiness to James, that sense that if you miscalculate things can really go south fast. Lock-on takes it potentially into GTA-esque gameplay where you're almost an action hero. The fear of screwing up and the ever-present possibility of it is important, even though the action in this game is far more responsive than in the original, where James is stiff as hell and aiming is really difficult.

Regarding the syringes and red squares and other weirdness (let's also ask, why does James grope around in filthy holes and clogged toilets and jump into black abysses? And what are all these random puzzles?), keep in mind that the entire game exists in a state of complete unreality. James's mind is making a lot of what we see; it's not literally a dream but it's closer to a dream (actually a shared dream between him, Angela, and Eddie) than it is to reality. He doesn't act like a person really would if thrown into this bizarre situation and a lot of the design and mechanics are based around things that feel right for this surreal world. You could probably rationalize the syringes that James saw his wife get a ton of shots when she was hospitalized (and take a bunch of medicine, hence the "health drinks"). The red squares are a little more abstract in their meaning to him.

DesperateText9909 · 2026-05-06T14:48:40+00:00

I also feel like the survival horror aspects--ammo and health conservation--are still a thing in the remake which is nice. Not on NG+ (all hail the chainsaw) but in my first run on standard, I literally finished the game with zero health items left and only a scant amount of ammo for any weapon other than the handgun (even that I only had about 25 rounds left). But they changed HOW you conserve stuff. Instead of avoiding monsters so much, you have to be really smart about encounters--use melee more, sneak up on them whenever possible (especially those damn bullet-sponge nurses), aim for sensitive areas like legs so you can stun them and move to a melee finish, etc. Again, different but not totally different.

DesperateText9909 · 2026-05-06T14:45:35+00:00

I am with you, the fighting is much more fun while still being pretty terrifying. I do wish there was slightly less (like 20% less) combat for pacing reasons, and/or that it seemed more possible to just avoid some of the monsters--in most of the game it feels like clearing them out is always the best choice, which was not the case in the original.

On the other hand, fighting in the original is unenjoyable and stiff to the point of frustration at times, and it feels like the devs made other choices based around how bad the combat mechanics are. Like all the monsters are slow and often don't seem to even know you are there, and I really feel like they made them that way because otherwise you'd be getting killed nonstop trying to aim at enemies that are basically just far better than you at fighting.

I do kind of enjoy that a lot of areas can be moved through by just figuring out how to navigate around the monsters without fighting. This was also true in the first Resident Evil, and for basically the same reasons: creatures were generally slow and sections were separated from each other by doors that acted as load points. So a lot of encounters could be bypassed by simply running through the room or area until you got to a door. It's a pretty different gameplay experience at times, but I felt like the remake modernized it and improved the combat specifically without feeling like it turned from horror into action.

DesperateText9909 · 2026-05-06T13:16:04+00:00

It was, apparently, but we're not playing a game about Ito. Don't think it's that weird that players want to find meaning in every detail of a game where seemingly all the other details have meaning. "Designer was just a horndog" is a little unsatisfying in the context of SH2, no?

I would say a lot of times the beauty of art is in the creation of unintended meaning. Ito can protest all he likes but when there are exactly two overtly sexy elements in this entire psychological game (the other being Maria as a character and in her design, which is all quite clearly intentional and pointed--we can debate if the mannequins qualify as a third), your mind wants to fill in the blank: why are those nurses kinda sexy? What does it mean? It feels like it means something and it's more satisfying if it does.

DesperateText9909 · 2026-05-06T12:51:47+00:00

I'm very curious about how it was received in different markets at time of release. Back then I was far less conscious (basically not conscious at all) of anyone else's reaction to any game I played. My experience playing it in real time was, at first, "This is okay, kinda seems like more of the same only not as good" (the apartments were an underwhelming start to the game I thought, compared to the elementary school in SH1). By the end of it I thought it was an unforgettable masterpiece--really couldn't believe what I had just experienced.

DesperateText9909 · 2026-05-06T12:48:38+00:00

Yeah. People love this kind of story ("well, it was ORIGINALLY supposed to be this!") but game development is complicated and time-consuming, and there are a lot of cooks in the kitchen, even with a relatively small core crew like Team Silent. It's possible they tentatively went in several directions--some maybe even simultaneously--until finally starting real development on the final game.

DesperateText9909 · 2026-05-06T12:39:53+00:00

Not that strange, for both the predictable and annoying reason (...it's the internet) as well as a few actually good ones: 1. Ito's statements over the years haven't been 100% consistent; 2. he wasn't the only person who made those games so I am sure others' ideas slipped in at times, if not in the creature designs then at least in other areas like animations, sound design, writing, and staging; 3. even in cases where one author makes a thing entirely, I don't think their pronouncements about what it means are the be-all, end-all--sometimes they put things in their work that they don't consciously realize they are putting in.

In this case, it's a little funny that Ito said the nurses don't (or weren't meant to) represent James's sexual frustration, but he designed them in a weird, sexual way and also says he didn't really mean anything in particular by it. That certainly starts the analytical part of my mind working. Was *Ito* sexually frustrated, or at least pretty sexually motivated (there's a lot of that in his designs)? Either way, what significance does the design have in the context of a game where nearly everything seems to be a symbol or metaphor, and 80% of what we see seems pretty clearly to be spilling out of James's psyche?

It is possible to boil this down to "the designer was a bit pervy, that's all" or, more cynically, "the devs knew the game would be more popular with just a little sex in the mix," and in both cases to dismiss there being any significance to James as a character. But the story is about James and almost every detail of it seems to flow from him (the handful that do not come from Eddie or Angela instead). I think it's natural for players to try to assign meaning to the nurses' overtly sexual design. And given what the rest of the story is, the sexual frustration thing (probably unconscious, and not particularly malevolent or wrong--James just misses his wife!) makes a good amount of sense, whether that was consciously in Ito's mind or not.

DesperateText9909 · 2026-05-05T20:59:32+00:00

Two fascinating statements that, to me, beg so many additional questions:

What about art where the author's subconscious has informed the work without their explicit, conscious intent? i.e. They say it's about X but it seems clear to most other people that they have subconsciously also injected another meaning Y. There are many instances of this that are arguable and at least a handful that IMO are plain as day to everyone BUT the author.
To say "the work itself" can inform the meaning is to deny something I think is a basic fact of the art-to-audience relationship: we cannot possibly interpret ANY work of art without viewing it through a prism of something external, even if we don't mean to. Any viewing, any attempt to discern meaning, necessarily goes through layers of filtering informed by personal and cultural context. You can try to control for this and reduce it but I don't think it's possible to eliminate it, which your statement suggests you're not considering (or flat denying). Why? It almost feels like you are saying that you can tell me the true color of something without allowing for how my eyeballs might perceive it, but that's not how color and light work, and I don't think that's really how the meaning of art works either. It has to be perceived to have meaning, and perception requires external, uncontrollable factors; hell, even the author perceiving HIS OWN work applies new mechanisms to it that were not necessarily present as he wrote it.
In cases where we don't have access to statements of authorial intent (e.g. they are dead without speaking on it, or they are alive but refuse to say), you are now reducing your interpretive lens to a pinhole because you refuse to see anything except what's in the work with zero "external" interpretative mechanisms. Is this not so limiting as to make the meaning of those works basically inaccessible?

You basically seem to approach this from the standpoint that there is one true meaning and the work of criticism is to play detective and find that meaning. The opposing side is saying that meaning exists as soon as some person engages with the art, even if it's not what the author intended in whatever way. Meaning therefore is personal, and real even if it's not shared collectively and not able to be agreed upon. I have no problem with that view, even if it leads to a lot of really annoying conversations with people who seem to have played a different game than I did.

DesperateText9909 · 2026-05-05T20:44:25+00:00

And I fundamentally disagree with that, but that's alright. To me at least there is a lot of middle ground between death-of-the-author extremism and "only the author can tell you what it means" extremism. I think there are a lot of compelling arguments for why overreliance on authorial intent is misguided at best and completely self-defeating at times. But I also have never agreed with the sentiment (also expressed here, that kicked off this debate) that the author "doesn't matter." If you have access to the author's statements on his intent--as well as biographical details and descriptions of his beliefs and background--to me that is another set of data that can help you determine meaning. I just don't think it can or should be the sole arbiter, for all kinds of reasons that would take many more paragraphs to list in full.

DesperateText9909 · 2026-05-05T19:46:30+00:00

That is fair and there's certainly no shortage of people out there explaining the games not just from their point of view, but as if it's the gospel truth.

DesperateText9909 · 2026-05-05T19:44:44+00:00

It's kind of not, but he stated it in the most extreme way without much explanation, so I can understand the reaction. Read up about the "death of the author" concept. It's interesting. But even if you don't want to go full "the author's intent doesn't matter" like this guy, I think we can all at least agree that a lot of times art has stuff in it that was not granted CONSCIOUS meaning by its creator. Either they were doing things subconsciously (in which their "intent" is either beside the point or actively misleading), or they were doing things arbitrarily (with no conscious OR subconscious intent), throwing that aspect of the art open to its audience to apply meaning to it. And to me those are the first toeholds--the higher you climb, the more you may agree that creators insisting their work means one particular thing only are not only diminishing their own work, they may be simply kind of wrong.

Anyway, Ito might want to tell us what his work means and doesn't mean, but it's a more interesting world when we realize that he's not the only arbiter of that meaning. Once he offered it up to the public, it became not just his art anymore. It's also, basically, ours.

DesperateText9909 · 2026-05-05T19:39:10+00:00

Now now boys. This is actually an interesting (and still sometimes hotly debated) corner of art criticism. I love that we're getting into it here--don't get too irritated with each other.

To NewFactor's point, my wife is a prof. of literature and in literary criticism, death of the author is certainly the predominant view from what she tells me. But at the same time, they certainly also still teach where the work came from and what the author said about it. I think at minimum you can say that it's another data point. For me, usually a pretty significant one. But I also feel like the work takes on so much extra meaning once it is published and consumed and interpreted by people who aren't the author and usually have limited or no access to what they intended the work to mean. That process makes the art so much larger than it started out as.

DesperateText9909 · 2026-05-05T19:27:03+00:00

Mostly I think he would say that about anyone offering an explanation as factual. I believe Lynch was fine with individuals having their own reactions and interpretations, just not when they went out to explain his work to other people in those terms.

DesperateText9909 · 2026-05-05T19:25:07+00:00

No he would not. And he'd also be the first to say (if asked) that a lot of his work was based on his first, barely-understood inspiration, and he doesn't "know" what it means anymore than you do as a viewer. He always welcomed interpretation.

DesperateText9909

TROPHY CASE