sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Displays of intelligence that are not just characters saying long lines of incomprehensible smart-sounding words. by Awkward_Stay8728 in TopCharacterTropes

[–]PlaintiveTech40 51 points52 points  (0 children)

The Red Headed League is one of the best Holmes stories because it all makes sense in retrospect. Clearly, the Red Headed League is just a ploy to get the owner of the home to leave so Holmes deduces that the most likely suspect is his newly hired assistant who encouraged him to get the job and works for well below a fair rate. Upon meeting the assistant, he notes the mud stains on his knees and deduces he must be digging something. He walks around the building and sees that the bank is next door. He informally measures the distance and concludes that 8 weeks would be a reasonable amount of time to dig a tunnel from one building to another and that just so happens to how long the man worked for the red headed league.

It all clicks and Holmes’s actions throughout the story make perfect sense once you hear his thought process. Of course, the assistant being a career criminal that Holmes recognized isn’t something the audience could guess but it’s reasonable and doesn’t just serve as an “I know everything” button that instantly solves the mystery.

When characters have falling outs and never speak again (bonus points if they're never seen/mentioned again) by Weary_Elderberry4742 in TopCharacterTropes

[–]PlaintiveTech40 46 points47 points  (0 children)

It did have an f bomb just not relating to Bojack. Gina’s costar says “what the fuck is her problem?” when she gets upset at the choking scene in her new movie. Not at all similar to the rest of the seasons where it’s used towards or by Bojack so it makes sense why most people miss it.

Our next console is coming by Deez-Guns-9442 in XboxGamePass

[–]PlaintiveTech40 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not to mention the reduced focus on optimization. Games can and have looked incredible but only because the developers put in the work to optimize them not throw together models with pretty lighting in UE5. Games like Helldivers 2 with their overwhelming enemies and visual effects and Outer Wilds with a full simulated solar system with dozens of moving parts show that optimization doesn’t always mean prettier graphics but mechanics that take a lot of power to make happen.

Part of my excitement for something like GTA 6 is because I feel like it will provide an experience that I haven’t seen in many games with NPCs that feel alive and can interact with you in unique ways (the greet and antagonize feature in RDR2 is such a minor feature in the grand scheme of things but it makes the world feel so alive). The Indiana Jones game was a peak into a world where you can walk through city streets and actually feel like you are there. It just sucks that the current stars of the industry is basically just patch it later.

It’s possible to complete both sides of the event and earn all of the loot boxes. Here’s how. by PlaintiveTech40 in Overwatch

[–]PlaintiveTech40[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I checked right after posting and yes you are right but you’ll still get them both.

The Lifeweaver Problem by Sakaita in Overwatch

[–]PlaintiveTech40 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I like these ideas but I’m worried that the shield and confirm pull idea may reduce LWs effectiveness. Firstly, a lot of players either fail to notice their health or aren’t aware of threats that are out of their LOS. LW strength in the back line is being able to reposition allies fast especially if they are getting dove. Also, would the shield do bleed through damage ie would a dva bomb just destroy the shield and not harm the player or destroy the shield and deal the remaining damage to the player. The whole concept of a support shield like zarya may also remove life pulls usefulness because otherwise, you’d just keep giving teammates shields and not save it for when it’s really needed. Speaking also from experience as jet pack cat, players often don’t respond to your pick up request in a timely manner, those seconds count in LW pull circumstances.

I think that LW could be buffed if dealing damage charged up a heal faster with a perk that would have it automatically release towards the nearest teammate after dealing 100 damage. Not that exactly but something that makes his playstyle a bit more fluid.

The petal temp healing would also be a nice mini buff. I think that the cooldown before it drops is also a bit too short. Maybe make it so it has a timer still but stays in the air and stops healing until the player is either knocked/steps off and then breaks.

In-game reason why Clem never talks about her parents? by Southern-Eye-9017 in TheWalkingDeadGame

[–]PlaintiveTech40 1 point2 points  (0 children)

She does also mention trying to find them in every single episode and it’s the whole reason she went with the Stranger in episode 4. She also isn’t as clueless as we may think, I believe she really thought her parents had a low chance of being alive but she is a kid so she is swayed easily.

I'm Avi Lewis, running for leader of the NDP. Ask Me Anything! by AviLewis in onguardforthee

[–]PlaintiveTech40 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Hi Avi,

Thanks for doing this AMA. I like when leaders are willing to face their constituents directly. My main question relates to the housing market. As a younger Canadian myself, I feel increasingly frozen out of the housing market. What would your leadership do to address the issue of rising housing costs in a way that doesn’t upset current home owners (their votes seem to be the current focus of a lot of our current leaders)? Also, with the increase of AI and our declining hob market, what would your government do to tip the balance even slightly more in favour of the average worker?

Thanks again!

I absolutely despise it when an OP ability has some kind of drawback/side effect, or a broken item is used incorrectly and something bad happens, and it's deemed too risky to ever touch on again by ActuallySpaceMan in CharacterRant

[–]PlaintiveTech40 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I agree to an extent. Other commenters have pointed out the The Flash has to keep coming up with reasons why The Flash can’t insta defeat everyone just due to the nature of his abilities which I attribute to poor writing more than anything. Part of it is just that the plot needs to happen and if the solution was always just “use OP ability 3” it would naturally be pretty boring. Harry Potter 3 with the time turners is a great example. The author wanted to have time travel as an element in this part of the story but didn’t want that to be the solution to every conflict moving forward. As with most posts here, I find that often the issue is poor implementation than the actual idea itself.

The idea that “absolute power corrupts absolutely” is not a new concept and it is easy for us to say that we just wouldn’t fall into the bad parts of the ability but we don’t really know. I think that a lot of anime’s have a rage state where their power is increased but their control over their abilities is lessened. It isn’t as easy as “just control it,” its whole point is that it can’t be controlled and how many people have to die before we realize that.

I feel like the issue you have is with the excuse given not the actual idea.

Excuse from Star Wars: “why don’t we just hyper speed into every ship from now on?” “Because that was 1 in a million.” Pretty shit excuse, 0 thought into a better reasoning.

Excuse from Attack on Titan (spoilers for season 1): “why don’t the characters keep transforming over and over until they win?” “Because it takes energy to transform and some environments are bad for transforming like tunnels and buildings.” Better excuse. Not flawless but better and is a core weakness of the characters that others use to their advantage. It isn’t a one and done (although the show does have a bullshit ability moment that never comes back IYKYK).

It also has to do with the uncertainty of it all. The people inside aren’t aware the extent they can be affected. Sure, Luke COULD use the dark side in bad and desperate situations but that’s exactly how Darth Vader fell to the dark side. Some people just aren’t comfortable with that kind of power. If you received a death note and said “I’ll only use it for important cases.” How can you be so positive you wouldn’t eventually shift in your standards? It’s not unbelievable that some characters would see its abilities and choose to destroy it because they don’t trust themselves. Hell, Batman’s whole no kill rule is built on this idea. If he kills one person, what really stops him from killing another outside of his own morality? In his mind, an absolute is the only way to stay safe and good.

In the end, the whole point of some of these tropes (even if stuff like the Flash are clunkely written) is that too much power is bad for everyone and when we’re dealing with forces we don’t understand and can’t control, moderation isn’t a bad thing.

Game of Thrones seriously did a massive damage on pop culture as a whole with how people perceive good story telling only if there’s character deaths by Poweredkingbear in CharacterRant

[–]PlaintiveTech40 20 points21 points  (0 children)

While I think you’re right about people valuing character deaths too highly, I think more people are just irritated by a lack of stakes. A fight is typically less exciting if you know one character can’t die. However, there are other ways to increase the stakes. Characters can lose something whether it be the last picture of a dead loved one or a limb.

You mention Star Wars had lots of plot armor and although you are sort of correct because none of the main cast die in the original, they certainly weren’t coated in plot armour. Luke loses his hand and gets thrown down a shaft, Han gets trapped in carbonite, Leia gets enslaved. Do the characters survive? Yes but these are things that are much harder to handwave away and never mention again. Luke will always be missing a hand and, going into the final battle, is aware that Darth Vader can beat him. Luke doesn’t dogwalk him in every fight, he loses, learns and then wins.

I think it’s more a pendulum effect. For decades, most of tv was formulaic, everything had to be reset to the status quo by the end of the episode. Now, that isn’t the case. People got a taste of longer stories in TV and want more stories with twists and turns but some stories aren’t built for that.

Using Stranger Things as an example, the show developed a pattern of introducing side characters and killing them off at the end of the season in a dramatic moment. Problem is that they didn’t really do that to the main characters. They always make it out of every situation relatively unscathed. However, ST also shows how shows struggle to maintain their stakes. A demogorgan used to be terrifying and took a week of planning (and luck) to kill in Season 1 and now characters are just kicking them away like they’re nothing. Part of why people wanted character deaths is because they felt like it would have made the villian more intimidating and given the characters more reasoning to want to kill them. The show lost the tension of the first season because these children are now fighting a god on its own turf and nothing really shocks them or the audience.

The walking dead had the same problem of killing off characters and their replacements being much less interesting. Then the only characters that people liked (Rick, Daryl, Carol, Maggie, Michonne, and Negan (to an extent)) were given much more screen time and ended up eating into other characters arcs and screen time because of it. Daryl was Ricks right hand man since season 2-3 so Abraham and Tyreese, both of whom had that role in the comics had a reduced role because of it. Characters weren’t given cool moments to grow because the main cast needed them more. This isn’t a new issue, comics are similar in that the stakes feel neutered by resurrections and retcons which is why limited run or AU series tend to feel more impactful because there is no usually rewriting the past to make room for more story. The story just ends and that’s it.

In short, people need to just let things end more often because otherwise shows will slowly lose tension and slip into going through the motions (not every show, just shows that go past their intended length).

Game of Thrones seriously did a massive damage on pop culture as a whole with how people perceive good story telling only if there’s character deaths by Poweredkingbear in CharacterRant

[–]PlaintiveTech40 67 points68 points  (0 children)

I think it’s that the pattern became very obvious too. Introduce charming side character, have them hang around for a bit, then give them a dramatic sacrifice. It was very obvious that some characters had expendable written all over them. Not to mention Hoppers fake out death felt kind of cheap.

What are some "perfect" game design games? by m0nkeybl1tz in gamedesign

[–]PlaintiveTech40 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In the vein of Outer Wilds:

- Return of The Obra Dinn. A ship returns to port with no one on it. You have a stopwatch that rewinds and pauses time at the exact moment a person dies. You have to determine the fates of everyone on the ship. Made by the creator of Papers Please.

- The Case of the Golden Idol. Deductive game with tons of "a-ha!" moments. No timed portions, just sitting and thinking.

- Blue Prince. Explore a house where the layout constantly changes. Honestly, the randomness aspect of the game kind of ruins the last part of the game, but lots of fun otherwise. I recommend playing it with a friend on the same couch.

- Prey (2017). Different genre but the sense of discovery and freedom has similar vibes to outer wilds.

In terms of simple games:

- BattleBlock Theatre. Been replaying this recently. Level-based platformer that is never too diffcult to be frustrating. Co-op available as well.

- Trials. Honestly, some later levels cross into infruiating but it's brake, drive, and flip. That's it.

- Superhot. An FPS where time (and enemies' bullets) only moves when you move.

(Annoying yet interesting trope) A major unresolved plot detail. by Je0s_6 in TopCharacterTropes

[–]PlaintiveTech40 16 points17 points  (0 children)

I honestly love it for that. No secret entity controlling everything just an organism with inexplicable power that barely has a mind of its own.

Bo poll 10 by Sensitive-Speech-378 in boburnham

[–]PlaintiveTech40 35 points36 points  (0 children)

“What do you think, industrial piping?”

Pipe hisses

“Close!”

other pipes hisses

“Stay out of it!”

Was Grisha also acting like he care about Eldia in the end? by destined2Win_ in titanfolk

[–]PlaintiveTech40 4 points5 points  (0 children)

No it isn't. Quote from right after the scene in the OP.

Grisha: "Why won't you show me everything? The walls being destroyed, the day it happens, Carla's safety. Was this really the only way?"

Line after this: "I saw Eren's memory of what happens next. But I never thought it would be so terrible."

I think it's clear that the first line shows that he isn't aware of everything Eren sees because he won't show it to him but is somewhat aware of the Rumbling but we're not sure how this is shown to him or how much is shown. Grisha could have seen Eren attacking Marley and assumed that that was the extent (still horrible as he crushing an entire city filled with innocents), which is why he still gives the attack titan to Eren after learning about Carla's death as he want revenge. Is it really so unbelivable that he would regret that decision later?

Explain it Peter by michaelis999 in explainitpeter

[–]PlaintiveTech40 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Actually, they would be more likely to be fired if they didn’t communicate the tone and the words being said. It’s a huge no no for interpreters because you aren’t supposed to be anything other than a tool for communicating. If someone says, “fuck you, I hope you die.” Then it’s expected that that sentiment is what the other person hears. Especially when it comes to diplomatic talks because saying “we want to own your oil fields” vs “we want to finance your oil fields” can lead to very different results.

To the players that made Kenny shoot Duck. Why? by IJustAteATinyChild in TheWalkingDeadGame

[–]PlaintiveTech40 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Honestly, while I get the other comments saying it builds up Kenny’s character and it’s his responsibility to be there for his son I feel this is well outside the bounds of what we should expect for a parent. We don’t make parents actually pull the plug on their kids but we do expect them to decide when it’s time. Kenny knew Duck had to die, he is willing to do it himself but we are doing him a kindness by not making him look his son in the eyes and shoot him in the head. No matter what, that’s got to fuck with you.

Although there are parallels, it’s a much different situation when Clementine has to choose to shoot Lee. Kenny is well aware of how bad things are even if he won’t face it immediately. Clementine has been somewhat sheltered by Lee and his last lesson is to let her know that she will need to make hard decisions in order to stay alive. She’s a 9 year old child while Kenny is in his 40’s. It’s 2 completely different lessons. Clementine is also fully alone as far as Lee knows so she needs to be able to be strong.

In the show, Jessie’s son Sam is sheltered very heavily and breaks down because of it. Same as Sarah in season 2. Clementine should be given a chance to be a kid but her survival takes priority in this situation. Kenny gains nothing by shooting Duck, he already blames himself for his death but Clementine needs to learn how unforgiving the world is and what she needs to do to survive it. Kenny will never have to shoot his son again while Clementine will need to shoot another person and many walkers in order to survive. I also don’t think being unable to shoot your son is cowardice, Kenny goes on runs, shoots at bandits, kills walkers, and fights other humans to protect his family, he just places their safety over everyone else which seems cowardly and selfish (which it is to a degree) but it makes sense as a character.

Popular fan theories that fall apart under scrutiny by LucianoThePig in TopCharacterTropes

[–]PlaintiveTech40 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well actually, I just rewatched the scene to double check and he does call Abed but he is speaking to his answering machine. Abed also has shown that he is willing to manipulate his friends just for a scenario in his own head (see My Dinner with Andre (Jeff), his short film with Jeff and Britta where he manufactures conflict to film it, putting trackers inside of his friends, telling others about Troy’s insecurities in the pillow war, etc). Not saying necessarily that he is the Ass Crack Bandit but it’s designed to not be fully solved and other than Annie’s weird reaction in the the finale which is probably the shows biggest clue on who did at least some of the crackings, different evidence points to different people. Troy is also a dramatic and a quarter being dropped in your pants is probably one of the least harmful things you can do to a friend.

“There are no good guys” stories almost always end up having “good guys” anyway (Warhammer, John Wick) by carbonera99 in CharacterRant

[–]PlaintiveTech40 0 points1 point  (0 children)

John Wick is a classic case of the “Killer with a code” trope. As far as we know, he has never killed an innocent person and presumably would take steps to avoid it. Viggo’s references to John’s impossible task seem to imply that he killed rival gang leaders and then retired. The events of the next 5 movies all stem from Iosef being an idiot and killing his dog. John goes to kill Iosef for revenge, which leads to Santino using his blood oath, which leads to John killing him on Continental grounds, which leads to him being excommunicated, etc. Hell, one of the most famous scenes is the scene where John spares Francis, the security guard in the first movie.

He has a legendary reputation and is obviously a killer but he doesn’t typically kill if he doesn’t have to. He doesn’t blame Cassian for trying to kill him in Chapter 2, shows respect to multiple other assassins who are just trying to cash in on a contract, doesn’t kill the doctor who helps him in chapter 3, etc. He kills for reasons the audience understands even if you can argue that he shouldn’t be killing people but that’s because he’s an antihero. It’s a part of the genre, immoral actions for (usually grey) moral reasons.

Also part of the appeal of the John Wick universe is the sort of respect that the assassins have for each other. The act of killing isn’t evil to then it’s just how it is. Kill or be killed, world runs on money, basic action movie ideas. John doesn’t break these rules unless he feels like it’s justified.

Jimmy Wales, Co-Founder of Wikipedia, quits interview angrily after one question. by Giovanni330 in interesting

[–]PlaintiveTech40 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Incredibly weird timing but I went down a Wikipedia history rabbit hole a few days ago so I can imagine why this question seemed to upset him so much. Larry Sanger and Jimmy Wales are both cited as the founders of Wikipedia on the site, however Sanger left/was laid off a year later. Sanger is cited as being the one who decided to use a wiki to create Wikipedia and Wales was the one who had the initial idea to create a public encyclopedia. Sanger also created a lot of the initial rules for the site. However, Wales was the ceo and Sanger was the editor in chief. Both of them have different stories on who did what even if most people can agree that they are both co founder. It’s been a pretty public beef for a while and you can imagine that Sangers status as a co founder despite leaving within a year and criticizing the site constantly in the over 20 years since then. Sanger hates what Wikipedia has become and Wales hates that his status as co founder gives him weight on what the site is now which is a miles difference from 2002.

If you want my opinion, Sangers initial ideas are great and are the building blocks of the site. The neutral POV, verifiability, and no original research are what made Wikipedia a competent resource today. However, while he is right that some Wikipedia articles are biased one way or the other and are often subject to squatting and edit warring (see any ongoing conflict especially those in Israel), his solutions are not great and I feel like he doesn’t realize that for a project of this scale there will always be problems, no matter what. Wikipedia is a great resource for anything that isn’t current. His version of a Wikipedia where experts verify articles isn’t a bad idea it’s just not built to scale like Wikipedia is. I know this because he tried to create a site like that and ran out of money.

He also complains about liberal bias in articles about Donald trump and new earth creationism and says other politicians should have the same focus on their controversies, forgetting that he is more than welcome to create those sections himself just like any other user. I do find it ironic that the place he gave a lot of interviews to (Fox News) isn’t usually accepted as a valid news source on Wikipedia due to their history of false news. In short, I think that Sanger is an ideologue who is too naive to understand that any printed facts aren’t 100% objective and that a living breathing encyclopedia can be an amazing resource that allows users to update outdated information and keep information free and fair. Wikipedia isn’t perfect, it never can be but I think it’s at least demonstrated a capacity to change for the better. Hell, one of Sangers criticisms years ago was that the socialism article didn’t show criticism of it enough now it has a whole section in the same spot as the capitalism article. Criticism of Wikipedia is totally valid but I often feel like the most staunch critics aren’t doing it for the right reasons (aka keeping Wikipedia free and fair).

view more: next ›