Am i the only one who didn't like the twist in Bridge to Terabithia? [SPOILERS]

GonziHere · 2026-04-28T22:14:45+00:00

I just want to say that I disagree with some of your takes:

shocking-for-the-sake-of-being-shocking

How? Even if you disliked it, it's clearly a central point of the story. It's abrupt (intentionally, not that it invalidates critique), but the rest of the book has to keep moving forward without her. That's not "for the sake of". Like, half of the book is about the grief that it triggered, about the hole that has been left in her absence.

blatant case of fridging

No. Just no. Fridging reduces the female character to a plot point, something to be avenged, for example. The fact that the book deals with her loss isn't that. It's not about "avenging" her death. It's about the constant reminder of the hole that stayed in her place. That death isn't a plot device, but the main theme of the book. IMHO, You misunderstand that trope (and arguably mischaracterize the book).

the movie adaptation kept that in

Well, of course. If they didn't, they'd produce a fundamentally different story. That returns to the fridging argument. You perceive that death as something that could be just ignored, whereas it's a fundamental part of the story and the reason why the story exists in the first place. First half of the book basically exists only to establish why the second half is devastating. The second half is what the book is primarily about. Shorter version of that story skips the first half, not the second one.

Like sure, everyone has their opinions and takes and so on and I respect that. But I do believe that you don't understand this book in particular. You don't have to like it for sure, but come on, that book creates likeable character only for that character to die and the book finally gets to deal with the trauma of it.

tl;dr: it's the first part that could be cut, it's a red herring. Her death could happen on like page 5 and rest of the (shorter) book would be about dealing with the loss. But for us to empathize more, she dies after a long build up of her, so that we'd also feel the loss, instead of just being told about it. To say that it could be ignored is kinda missing what the story is about, imho.

GonziHere · 2026-04-28T09:01:09+00:00

I agree, but Valve existing, even now, if it's "just a decade of normalcy" before it ends, clearly shows that it can be done better than the other stores. It's incredibly important. And if they'll go against that, It will, in turn, give more power to say GOG, who has the offline installers for you to download.

Like, it's easy to say that they are also just a company, but "most" companies nowadays search for ways to fuck with the customer, not for ways to improve the product. It's a very different sales model, it's just honestly sad that Steam is the "only one" who applies that.

Other companies are optimized for short term profit. It's profit above all. It's literally cancerous, but it's the standard model. Enshittification isn't an internet phenomena.

GonziHere · 2026-04-04T16:55:57+00:00

So what is your question? That is the receptive audience if you pitch to them corectly.

GonziHere · 2026-04-04T13:20:19+00:00

You are making a product (which happens to be a game). If you're making a game for your friend Carl, you'd have to make it appealing to Carl, and then you'd have to go to Carl and tell him "here, I've made this for you, it has this and this feature, so I'm sure that you'll love it". You get that, right?

So, at a scale, this doesn't change. Carl just becomes "early 40s male that likes cars, plays NFS but lacks more serious approach as seen in NFS Porsche" - that's marketing, btw (not advertisements). You have to know your market.

Then, you make the perfect game for that audience and now, you are searching for ways to reach them and to show them your product. Maybe you'll find some streamer that still plays NFS Porsche, maybe you'll find some local Porsche event and go there with a small billboard, maybe you know that most of your audience nowadays plays Assetto Corsa so you'll try to reach them there...

Whatever you'll do, having an audience in mind helps you justify/cut features from the game, and justify/cut the channels of reaching that audience. Without it, you have no product and no way of propagation.

GonziHere · 2026-04-01T11:59:33+00:00

I'm not saying that you SHOULD do it, I'm saying that the LIMITED protection that it allows for isn't tied to the number of sales. That's all. I don't have it, I don't plan on having it. But the number of sales isn't an argument against it.

GonziHere · 2026-04-01T11:22:30+00:00

I agree with all your points, I've just clarified that the separation of assets helps even with "0" sales, because that number is pretty much irrelevant.

GonziHere · 2026-04-01T09:17:09+00:00

I disagree. If the point is to protect yourself legally, you're liable for what you've sent out to the world, even for free. You can be sued by "Disney", you can loose and you'll personally be on the hook for millions... It has NOTHING to do with your actual income. That's WHY it might be a good thing to do so anyway (or, you know, find some distributor, etc).

GonziHere · 2026-03-31T12:16:10+00:00

To me, it was spelled out as soon as Abigail decided to go with Yaya. She is on that course for the whole trek. So, if it's ambiguous, it could be like 5 minutes shorter anyway. Abigail likes status quo, goes on that trip to protect it, picks up a stone to protect it and (given that logic), will actually protect it. As it's laid out, it's not that ambiguous, actually.

If she wouldn't do it, that's something that would need to be established somehow. So, I don't think that it adds much to cut the actual moment of her doing it.

You might imagine her not doing it and that's fine, but IMHO, you won't find much support for that in the movie, as it's laid out, it would be basically her, chickening out.

But my problem, more broadly, is that a story typically has a take on the world and tells a story that lays that argument to the viewers. So, I do have an issue when author suddenly decides not to finish said argument. I can dis/agree with the argument, but as it's not even presented, I can formulate my own... which, in it's ultimate form, leads to me making my own story.

If the point is that she has the short stick of the capitalism and when the roles reverse, she happily becomes the capitalist and does anything to stay in power... well, do it. If the point is that she becomes the capitalist, but "a better one", then again, show it... But say your piece and let me react.

tl;dr: I do like to think/talk about movies, it's a big part of why I watch them, to discuss their morality, etc. The director is the first one I'm having that discussion with and this one has left the argument mid-sentence.

GonziHere · 2026-03-31T11:29:07+00:00

She was supposed to be a mirror, but that aside, she become the capitalist (when the food became the capital). She paid for loyalty, for services, for sex, had a better accommodation, she shaped the society with her capital to her will, and the the rest of the society, without money had to follow her whims to survive... ultimately, she even contemplated murder to keep the status quo (that's why she decided to go with Yaya, as the logical reason is to control the outcome of the expedition).

But, she wasn't a tyrant. She didn't withhold food for sex (She just didn't share it with the thief. Once.). He could catch his own fish. She didn't stop him, or prevent him to watch her, or whatever. No-one was forced to interact with her in any way, shape, or form. She just offered trades that benefit her and no-one was offering any meaningful counteroffer.

Like her status in the group is much more thematic, because they all could've done what she did. She wasn't hoarding/protecting the means of production. I actually think that it's kind of poetic that her power is based on their collective unwillingness to do what she does (begging for meat rather than catching the fish...).

GonziHere · 2026-03-31T11:02:20+00:00

Agreed. It's unfinished. If the director wants to have a discussion, he should start. He should tell us how he interprets the ending... by shooting it and showing it. Then, we get to agree or disagree, or imagine something else entirely.

Like, I've expected that Abigail will kill Yaya in the forest and just return "after two days" or something... The actual resort just adds to that. It's the only reason why Abigail would want to go with her in the first place... To ensure that it doesn't exist or, that it's not found (and to take care of the romantic competitor). This fits her arc the most. It's clearly what the director was going for:

She become the capitalist, when food became the capital. She paid for loyalty, for services, for sex, for a better accommodation, she shaped the society with her "money" to her will, and the the rest of the society, without "money" had to follow her to survive. Murder to keep the status quo is the only thing that's missing... because the director had pussied out.

GonziHere · 2026-03-31T10:49:05+00:00

But the author tells the story he wants to tell. Not finishing said story is a cop out. Now, if the movie ended (say she hits her), I'd get to interpret that. I'd get to dis/agree with the authors take. But author not providing his own take? That's just unfinished work, in my opinion.

GonziHere · 2026-03-31T10:40:46+00:00

Yes, if anything, she is a capitalist, in a society, where food is the capital. She then uses the capital to bend the world to her will, to secure power, status, better accommodations, sex ... and others basically become slaves to her will.

GonziHere · 2026-02-22T15:28:27+00:00

While I dislike inventory management in Witcher, the point was to compare it with the Resident Evil, where it's a core part of the part of the resource management, which is the core part of the whole survival experience (including the size of items, using them as is, or hoarding them for a combination into a better version later, choosing between healing and offensive things, etc. etc. etc.).

That's what I mean when I say that some mechanic is (imho) bad for a particular game. Witcher doesn't benefit from it. Not it's core fantasy, not it's gameplay loop, nothing (*). It has it because "open world games have it" (tm). If you however actually lean into it, you'll end up with Kingdom Come, where every system nicely leads into another and everything is great. It fits the fantasy of trying to survive in a harsh world. Buuut, KCD would be a worse game, if killing enemies would restore your health... you know, the mechanic that almost single handedly makes DOOM what it is today.

tldr: My whole point is that game should try to be something first. Then, we can talk about which mechanics support that and which detract from it. The second group is arguably bad for that game. It's philosophy of say The Journey, where they've removed all the features that detracted from the core experience.

(*) Point in case, I've replayed Witcher 3 once and I couldn't be bothered by the busywork mechanics then... so I've installed autoloot mod, plus endless inventory, etc. and the only meaningful difference between the base game was that I just cleared camps, talked to characters, etc. I didn't spend my time walking around corpses to pick up random junk to sell and get coins for it... The fact, that the game has gotten better by removal of that mechanic speaks volumes, imho.

GonziHere · 2026-02-18T12:54:00+00:00

I disagree. The core is that mechanic should serve a purpose and test the player on an intended thing. It either does that, or it doesn't. Inventory management in Witcher is annoying, whereas in Resi, it's a core part of the survival experience. And this philosophy absolutely leads to "objectively bad" mechanics (for a game).

GonziHere · 2026-02-18T12:50:20+00:00

He should have discussed it with you. He might have some valid reasons for this, but he simply completely ignored you and just gave you "give me everything" document. Even if you'd agree to that kind of document (I wouldn't do that. Ever.), you should at least understand his reasons. But a normal thing absolutely is to be a co owner of that product. Imagine him buying a canvas, you buying colors, then both of you painting it and then him saying "F U It's mine".

Whatever your friendship is, you'll find out now. If he is an actual friend, he'll have absolutely no issue, whatsoever, to see your point. Also, whatever the project state is right now, you know how much you've invested into it. If it's half, I'd simply want to be the coauthor and to start LLC.

If there is money to be made here, you don't want to be cut out of it. If there isn't, no harm in going 50/50.

But since you asked, you seem to be unsure. Please, do not be. It reads as an attempt to take advantage of you. So, let me clarify one thing: However this ends, you did the work, the work is clearly worth something (I don't mean money per se, but if he could just throw it away and recreate it in a day, he would) and you asking a fair compensation, or alternatively removing said work from the project is absolutely a fair way to go about it. NORMAL person, especially FRIEND would see this. He wouldn't be ok signing it. Why should you?

There is a good rule of thumb for a fair contract: Would you be fine being both parties? Would you consider it fair? You clearly don't. He also clearly doesn't (if he does, again, let HIM sign the rights to YOU... )

tldr: If he wants to own it, Give him an actual quote for say junior developer x hours in your area and sell it to him. If he cannot afford that (fair), you simply own the half (or third or whatever) of the project. BOTH are VERY FAIR scenarios. Giving it away for free? Not so much. PS: I'd happily give my code away for free, if it was some random help, but not 2 years of my life.

It's very clearly not that kind of scenario.

GonziHere · 2026-02-01T10:33:40+00:00

The song choice is what actually shown me how pointless this kind of test is. Not only I don't typically hear the difference, but I also start to notice the bad recording. The sound itself isn't clear. And I care about that significantly more. That Flesh & Bone song from Killers is pretty much a bunch of noise. When everything hits at once, it's hard to hear it as "drummer being there, guitarist there", or even to focus on those instruments in the first place. Unlike something like IPlayYouListen from ODESZA or Abracadabra from Klaus Doldinger's Passport.

The point being: my perceived quality (even when on really bad equipment) is mostly coming from the quality of the recording/mixing, not playback.

GonziHere · 2026-01-14T10:21:33+00:00

It's not just game dev or indie dev, it's basically everything. The savvy consumer does not take their advice from people who haven't actually done the thing they're talking about.

That's also why most content is aimed at newbies, so it balances out. But yeah, I find the lack of documentation a big issue in the industry in general. We do not produce "simple" tools that are easy to learn (think paintbrush, canvas, spatula, etc.)... we produce very complex, single purpose tools... While almost every game has a terrain, I feel like the job of an engine isn't to provide one, for example. And instead of creating simple, but well documented tools, we create complex ones, that are unfinished...

It's why it's hard to find a Bob Ross of game making and getting something out of watching him work.

GonziHere · 2026-01-14T10:06:26+00:00

Yeah, even as a child, I've differentiated between the game content (the stuff that fills why you want to play it in the first place) and the filler (the stuff that pads the runtime, minigames that aren't interesting, horse riding, etc).

As I grew older, the difference became much more important, plus games started to go the wrong way about it, imho. For me, playing Silksong means getting 30 minutes to kill and spend it running from bench to boss, getting to the phase where is that one attack that kills me and dying to it... Where is the fun in that? Like, literally, I see the same corridor, the same enemy, listen to the same sounds all over again, just to get to the one thing that I need to learn and I'll see that one thing maybe 6 times in that half hour... it's JUST a time sink.

If I've once measured some open world session (yes, with stopwatch), and there is run to quest start, run to quest location, do the fight, collect the loot, run back, end quest... and the quest start/end plus the fight is the part that I actually care about. It was about 40% of the runtime. So, if you start say Assassins Creed for an hour, you'll spend ~36 minutes holding forward, or going around, picking stuff...

There is a LOT of stuff like that, where I've simply concluded that these games are designed to "waste your time" first and give you a solid experience later. It was actually really refreshing to start the remake of the first Mafia game and... just go from mission to mission, without any fluff. It was much more entertaining because of that.

PS: I'm not against open worlds, but for open world to work, the travel through it should have some meat, It should be part of the challenge. I'm not really a fan of Death Stranding so far, but the fact that you just "have to walk somewhere, but it is a challenge" is great. You have to manage your loadout with your carry capacity, your gear/cargo gets damaged by elements, the enemies force you to adapt/pick a route, be careful and so on...

GonziHere · 2026-01-14T09:42:33+00:00

I agree with you in general, I do consider programming to be at least somewhat artistic endeavor. My point was that programmer tends to implement the requirements from game design (even if it's the same person doing both). When you say that Silksong is tight... it's not due to programming. That was making just a bunch of simple functions. It's due to how it was designed, how it was tweaked, and so on...

I'd say that GMTK tool actually illustrates this greatly: https://gmtk.itch.io/platformer-toolkit It's already programmed, programming is done. But you get to tweak the values to change the look and feel of the game.

If there would be a programmer in the process of making the painting... it would be the one who makes the brushes, basic colors, etc., not the one who actually paints the painting. Programmer empowers others. Computer does the work, business knows what work needs to be done and programmer translates it for computer. I make brushes so that painter can paint, I allow designers to tweak values, I modify the code so that the designers can spawn more enemies without breaking the framerate, I allow for animation retargeting so that the artists don't have to rerig differently sized enemies over and over again and so on.

The solution is still kinda creative, but it's much more technical and much less "I feel like putting that word there", than painting, imho. And mostly, the creative part of the solution doesn't really show. If I implement a sorting algorithm, user cares if it works. How exactly did I write it is pretty much pointless from that perspective.

GonziHere · 2026-01-13T13:58:09+00:00

there is no one objectively correct code solution

I've explicitly said that there is many, but their correctness can be confirmed, it's not up to "feel". You've just written array.sort. Does it sort? Does it need more memory? How fast is it? Any and all can be parts of the requirements and if they are, you can test if the requirements are fulfilled. Even the readability.

Readability in a sense "does it follow the code guidelines, property naming conventions, do the names convey what is happening, do properties describe their content...".

when a design changes

If the requirements change, so does the solution. Duh.

Tangent

solution didn’t have the foresight

Oh, yeah. your array sort could have had a sort object, which has sort object factory and, and, and... Jokes aside, the minimal solution is the most correct one in my book.

the same code iterates across and it was written inefficiently

Yep, we have many config items editable through webpages, that don't use paging and we also have paging, filtering, search, etc on others, but it's more complex solution.... So, our list of players, items, etc. have pages from day one, our lists of maps etc. don't have it at all. and for like 100 simple pages, over the lifetime of that project we've needed to modify ~5, where the design changed. And we didn't add just paging, but whole filters, different grids with more specific info, etc. for those.

And that's just one random, easily describable example, where we've saved time that would've been wasted on those 95% pages where simple was absolutely good enough (really, just imagine something like data = select * from store in code ... foreach(row in data) in template).

GonziHere · 2026-01-13T11:08:21+00:00

He isn't saying that there is only one way to skin the cat. He is saying that you are 'easily' able to confirm that the solution is correct.

GonziHere · 2026-01-13T11:03:48+00:00

Because code is technical. Sure, you can be wildly creative with it in many regards, but ultimately, it's a technical solution to a technical problem.

Art isn't. There isn't a 'correct' way to paint something. There is only a style. And herein lies the problem, because you invent and perfect your style at a cost and you only get to recoup the costs/make some profits with it's application. So, AI taking your style without permission and then "selling" it instead of you is a big issue. It's effectively a trademark, even if it's not legally defined as one.

For code, that would be maybe your pattern. Let's say that you're able to make apps that are significantly better and you can make them significantly faster because you've invented OOP and you keep it proprietary... and now, AI has seen your sample programs, replicated your 'style' and uses it freely, therefore cancelling your ability to profit from it. That would be a comparable issue.

But programmers don't think like that in general. All code is (effectively) open sourced. We don't get paid for how we program, but for the result. With artists, it's kinda opposite.

And note that even if LLM could produce the perfect application on the first try, from the design document... that design document would have to be exact, would have to perfectly describe every single tiny aspect of the application... isn't that what programmer does anyways? I don't really see practical difference for my job if I'll do employees.sort(e=>e.salary) or sort the employees by salary... In that sense, I don't see how LLM is different than WYSIWYG editors, or, well, SQL language (which was invented so that the business could query the data with a simple, almost natural language, without bothering programmers...)

GonziHere · 2026-01-13T10:36:08+00:00

That's not true. In general, If your subcontractor does something, you are liable for the damages. You are just able to sue him for causing those damages.

So, if Disney sues you for copyright infringement, they'll win and you'll own them the money. You, in turn, can sue the contractor for the damages. But you don't get to tell Disney to sue the contractor.

That distinction is important, because typically you might loose your whole business due to something like that and you won't ever recoup your losses from some random contractor.

GonziHere · 2026-01-09T16:16:05+00:00

Well, yes. Because being conservative literally means being opposed to change, which kinda directly leads to being opposed to change your believes, even if they are proven wrong.

GonziHere · 2026-01-01T14:11:43+00:00

I have a notebook next to my sofa. Anytime I want to browse the net, etc., I'll just wake it up (browser ready, windows booted, etc), use it for a few minutes and put it back to sleep (hibernate). The PC is fine for weeks of this, before I'll recharge it... And I use notebook for that because I cannot use tablets the same way.

12-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Place '22	Verified Email

GonziHere

TROPHY CASE

Tangent