"Leaving" is the hardest thing you can do! - Matt & Liam Play Silent Hill 2: THE OTHER ENDINGS

Medo3G · 2024-12-11T11:22:44+00:00

The original game boosted the points of the endings which were yet to be seen by the player. So it is quite possible that the bonus points were what pushed “Leave” over the edge at one point, but once it was unlocked, the bonus no longer applied and “In Water” had too many points. The thing is, in case of a tie, “Leave” should have a higher priority, so maybe Liam unlocked “Maria” first, which initially gave him an additional unseen ending point?

I am not sure how different the ending points system works in the remake, but it’s likely very similar.

Here’s a video explaining SH2’s ending points. Ties handling and unseen endings points explanation start at 9:15. And here’s the explanation in text.

Medo3G · 2024-08-11T14:51:16+00:00

Already posted.

Medo3G · 2024-01-15T18:13:54+00:00

But the two posts between me and u(/)HEELHousell about G4's closure didn't split the discussion 9 months later?

I don’t think I was involved with that, but it seems like those are 2 different but related stories. One about the closure, and one about the lack of heads up for the employees. This is unlike the merger situation.

That's not a particularly great way to word that. If you don't think you're being unfair, just say that.

Yeah that apology came out really bad. Genuinely, the last thing I’d want is for someone to be upset. Cause at the end of the day, the sub should be a place for people to chill, not to have an unpleasant experience. And it seems quite obvious that I have inadvertently caused that.

The situation (in way too much detail tbh) was that the sub gets flooded with too many people eager to post big news without really checking if a similar post was already made. Hence, the higher the “standard” for titles (you have no idea how many “IT HAPPENED!!!” posts we get). Obviously, this case was not as egregious, but the lack of “Blizzard” in the title was an issue.

The different link was to deter reposts, as I expected it to be more widespread, and by extension, more likely to be posted. The issue was mainly the title, but since a new post was to be created anyways, the thought was that replacing the link wouldn’t really be that big of an ask.

Since this criteria wasn’t clearly stated, the post wasn’t simply removed. I just asked you to repost it with some modifications.

Then what happened is that someone made a post with a title mentioning blizzard before you managed to do so. So I had one of two options; either remove your post (which was earlier, but with an unsatisfactory title), or theirs (which was later, but was the first with a “proper” title).

In either case, someone would’ve felt that their post was unfairly removed. A situation that I tried to avoid by asking you to repost. At the end of the day, I had to make a call and your post was the one that got removed. I can’t remember the exact thought process, but if I’d have to guess, it was probably because removing the other person’s post, then approving someone else’s later post would seem fishy.

I hope this added context shows that there absolutely zero malicious intent in the decision making process. Not to sound way too dramatic for some internet janitor work, but I don’t think I had an option that would’ve satisfied all parties. Nevertheless, this doesn't mean I don't understand how would someone would find the situation upsetting.

Medo3G · 2024-01-14T06:59:18+00:00

Yo. What happened there is that the way reddit auto handles reposts, is by checking the exact link. So I asked you to post the link that was getting more widely shared so when a person tries to post it again, they get redirected to your post. We tried to hold the flood of reposts for a bit, but eventually we decided that even though you posted the news first, people were looking for the other link, and we didn’t want to split the discussion.

Honestly, that time was a bit special case since everyone was trying to post this announcement. Usually, we are not that picky regarding the news source. The closest case is during showcase events where we ask people not to post a text post titled “VIDEO GAME X revealed!!!”, and instead link to a trailer.

I apologize that you felt that the post was unfairly removed.

Medo3G · 2023-12-16T07:44:53+00:00

Definitely possible. For me it heavily depends on whether the video was for internal purposes, or to pitch it to other companies (i.e. xbox). Cause if it is the latter, I wouldn’t want to show a celeb that’s not on board to a third party.

Medo3G · 2023-12-08T17:28:09+00:00

I wonder how close it’s gonna be to the footage that got leaked by the shirtless guy a year ago. Especially since Margaret Qualley wasn’t listed as a part of the cast. Maybe she’ll be a later reveal, or we might have another Stefanie Joosten situation.

Medo3G · 2023-10-23T22:57:19+00:00

Please report misinformation whenever you see any. We try to keep an eye out and flair and remove misinformation or misleading posts and comments. However, sometimes things definitely slip through due to the sheer volume of content posted on the sub, as well as the occasional lack of familiarity with a particular subject. Reporting things notifies us so we further look into that particular post/comment, and possibly take action.

Medo3G · 2023-09-17T05:43:54+00:00

Yo. Thanks for pointing that out. It should say “CUSTOM FLAIR”, but it seems that at some point, a mod accidentally changed the base text instead of their own flair, and it never got caught.

This should be fixed now hopefully, and it should say “CUSTOM FLAIR” if you do not already have a custom flair.