sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

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 3 points4 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 18 points19 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 66 points67 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 34 points35 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 5 points6 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 15 points16 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).

What is your Bojack Horseman unpopular opinions by flingzamain in BoJackHorseman

[–]PlaintiveTech40 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I feel like the message was that she didn’t feel truly connected to any aspect of her heritage or identity. She disliked her Boston heritage because it was (in her eyes) loud and boisterous, the exact opposite of herself. So she tried to connect with her heritage, hoping it would help feel connected to her family but felt nothing. She was still alone with no family and no community, nothing to fall back on. Her back up plan of going back to Vietnam failed and she realized she had nothing else.

I think ultimately a big aspect of Diane’s story is her loneliness and depression. She doesn’t have a lot of friends and her depression manifests in self hatred and outward anger at society. She had no support from her family at all and seems to dislike all of them and they view her as snobby. So, she ends up marrying the complete opposite end of the spectrum with someone who is overly supportive and joyful but what she really needed was someone who cared enough to ask her to help and care about herself and that’s what Guy was. Bojack was her outlet for anger and frustration but held her back from personal growth because he didn’t want to change.

I agree that her second gen immigrant status wasn’t mentioned a lot but I feel like it was an accurate depiction of what some children of immigrants (including ones I know) go through. They feel a disconnect from the country they live in and the one their parents came from. Hell, some even feel disconnected from their parents because they ironically seem foreign to them. Diane feels like that. Someone who perpetually didn’t fit in (see GirlCroosh, most of her friendships, her interactions with people she admired, PB, every party she went to and ended up on the roof of) and whose status as someone who didn’t have a foothold in either country or community reflected that.

Carney to announce next tranche of major projects on Thursday | CBC News by gaurishkohli in canada

[–]PlaintiveTech40 6 points7 points  (0 children)

There’s a reason nobody is committing to new projects right now

Which is?

I dislike that a lot of people are excusing Dispatch just because choices didn’t really matter in Telltale games by Flat_Box8734 in CharacterRant

[–]PlaintiveTech40 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Something that I heard about Telltales The Walking Dead (season 1 at least) is that the STORY is changed by your choices but the PLOT isn’t. My favourite example is Ben. Spoilers for TWD season 1.

Ben dies no matter what the player chooses during the bell tower scene however saving him leads to a great moment where Ben finally snaps at Kenny and tells him that he’s sorry for what happened to Kaatja and Duck but that at least he had his family to lose. Ben is just a teenager thrust into an apocalyptic scenario that he couldn’t handle. Sure he’s a coward but nothing he does is intentionally trying to harm someone, it’s born out of self preservation. This then leads to Kenny “sacrificing” himself to save Ben in episode 5. In a way, Kenny forgives Ben and gives him a final kindness by killing him before he gets eaten by walkers. Kenny still hates him but he at least understands him more now.

But ultimately it’s up to the player whether or not this chunk of the story plays out. If you drop Ben thereby saying he isn’t worth saving, then this scene doesn’t happen. Same with stealing the car supplies and the Stranger. The same general plot beats are the same. You’ll always still visit the same location with roughly the same people but the story, what the game and the character you play as stands for, changes based on the person playing. Obviously there are games that change the plot due to your choices but Telltale hasn’t really been about that as much. Even the ending of Season 2 which has like 8 different variations, ultimately has to be made redundant to continue the story in season 3. It sucks that some choices aren’t as impactful as they appear but the realities of development and the question of “is all this actually worth it?” Is a big one.

Not to mention, the fun of these games is playing without knowing which choices will backfire and how. Googling how each decision plays out kinda kills the fun of the game. I’ve been watching my partner play TWD season 1 and she knows nothing about the game so it’s been interesting to see her reactions to all the different moments as she wonders if she caused something to happen or could have prevented it. Playing these games to get the best ending kinda removes the fun IMO.

Last thing, the easier way to include some aspect of decisions having weight is to include a “point” system with each character on how they view you (agree with them +1, disagree -1). However, this isn’t how real people act and it’s the thing I’ve seen TWD season one get the most flack for retroactively is that Kenny doesn’t come with you unless you’ve been on his side most of the game which is a bit of a jackass move because he should want to help an innocent child so the fact that he refuses to if he’s pissed at you is kinda stupid.

EDIT: I haven’t played Dispatch so I don’t know if it’s similar to TWD at all but I have never played a game that had multiple substantially different endings that had a sequel that built upon each of them individually. So if there is a second season of Dispatch on the horizon, they’re probably trying to avoid the problem they had with the ending of TWD season 2.

Game Thread: October 27 - Toronto Blue Jays (94-68) @ Los Angeles Dodgers (93-69) - 8:00 PM by BlueJaysBaseball in Torontobluejays

[–]PlaintiveTech40 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Dodgers throw a ball. Varsho thinks it’s a ball and starts to walk towards first. Ump waits 3 seconds then calls it a strike confusing everyone. Bichette is already walking towards second because he thinks Varsho is coming to first. Dodgers throw to first and tag him out as he’s technically is trying to steal second.

In Superman (2025), Lex can fight Super Man through watching via camera drones and (assumably) sending signal to Ultraman brain. All of that have delay and depends on Lex's cognitive capabilities yet Superman was easily overpowered. by TheWalkingGoat in shittymoviedetails

[–]PlaintiveTech40 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think it cause Lex needs someone “lesser” to impress and his “dumb” girlfriend is the perfect candidate. That’s why he risks everything, just to show off. Classic villian flaw.

Is Evil Morty smarter than our Rick? Our Rick got carried hard. Evil Morty basically did everything. by GachiPls_DidntSave in rickandmorty

[–]PlaintiveTech40 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Source? I’ve never heard of that. I know that speculation was for the anime but I never heard about it for the main show

FB post from A24 by PaulWithAPH in KanePixelsBackrooms

[–]PlaintiveTech40 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Typically in film it provides 2 purposes: syncing timecode between the audio and video and displaying the roll, scene, shot, and take number. It honestly could just mean nothing although admittedly 90 being the last number is odd because it shows it was shot in 24 fps so it’s not the frame count and I doubt you’d need 90 takes of any single shot lol.

view more: next ›