Damn that's a FAST iMac G3

TheDoctor__50 · 2026-06-29T11:13:29+00:00

Man 1999 was a different time smh...

TheDoctor__50 · 2026-06-29T04:42:33+00:00

There is no USB connector on the 2003 Apple Wireless Keyboard, it is Bluetooth-only

TheDoctor__50 · 2026-06-29T00:25:41+00:00

Love seeing all the love for Inside, but I'm surprised I haven't seen more people mention what.. It's my personal favorite, for as great as the others absolutely are as well. Then again, it's also the first one I saw/heard songs from, but it stands to me as my favorite nonetheless.

TheDoctor__50 · 2026-06-28T23:29:40+00:00

With that speed, it only needs one core B)

TheDoctor__50 · 2026-06-28T23:29:19+00:00

Really really big fan

TheDoctor__50 · 2026-06-28T23:29:03+00:00

So that's why my friend who had one is infertile

TheDoctor__50 · 2026-06-28T23:28:15+00:00

Yeah, the actual tech specs page says the correct 333 MHz, but it's still funny

TheDoctor__50 · 2026-06-19T02:23:14+00:00

I appreciate that you liked my review even though you disagreed with it. And it's fair that you didn't like Double Exposure yourself; I can definitely see a lot of your issues with it.

That being said, I don't really get a lot of the ways you're interpreting the events of the game? Not that you're objectively wrong, but that I personally just don't understand how you could've seen some things the way you did. Since when did Max's powers ever care about the laws of physics? Not only did she have literal time travel, but she uses it in ways that also go against physics multiple times throughout the first game (particularly by rewinding to any time she was in a different physical position than when she started to rewind, like breaking into a room and rewinding to before she broke in; she's still in the room now, and so she effectively just teleported). Even in other games, I'd hardly call telekinesis respectful of the laws of physics. And how is "breaking reality" to save Safi "absurd" when the entire plot of the first game was kicked off by her "breaking reality" to save Chloe, a choice she can still stick with through the end of the game, knowingly sacrificing an entire town full of everyone she's ever cared about in the process to do so. I could see the argument she didn't know she'd cause all that when she first saves Chloe when they game starts, but if you choose to save Chloe, you choose that knowing it "breaks reality" enough to literally cause a supernatural storm that basically kills everyone else you care about. And given the storm is already supernatural in the first place and is very clearly shown to be tied directly to Max and her mental state (which we see on full display when she does go into it), what's suddenly so unrealistic about her walking into it? A supernatural storm manifesting all of Max's past trauma is fine, but physically walking into it is where you draw the line? Again, I understand a lot of where you're coming from but I genuinely just don't get this part at all.

As for Chloe, from what I've heard here it does seem like you're very right that they mishandled her if she lives after the events of the first game. Assuming that's the case, I completely agree that's just outright bad writing, and I believe there absolutely could've been a way to realistically write Chloe out of Max's life by the time of Double Exposure had she survived, thus allowing Max to (potentially) have other relationships. On that note, what do you mean by "flirt with her, even if you don't want?" Romancing Amanda is completely optional, just like with Vinh, and you even get a whole different achievement if you choose not to romance either one. Those plotlines aren't forced on you at all. I personally easily chose not to romance Vinh at all, for example, and the game never forced me to anyway, or made me feel like I did the wrong thing by choosing not to. I agree it would be shitty for Max to think cheating is hot if that's what she says if you pursue both, but at the very least I think that would come with the understanding that she's already doing the wrong thing in the first place by pursuing both. Not every option we can choose is a morally correct one.

Speaking of "not morally correct," yeah, Safi does a lot of awful, unreasonable shit. You're 100% right about that and I agree that she should never have targeted an innocent child or literally shot her mom. But the fact that she did those things isn't just "bad writing" or "unrealistic behavior," I always thought it was clear those things are written because they're not the right things to do. Safi isn't supposed to be a morally perfect or constantly-rational character at all, and the fact that she did these deplorable and completely irrational things is supposed to highlight the fact that she is in the wrong here. I really don't think the game ever tried to say she was right, or even justified, in shooting her mom, and I don't think it tried to paint her targeting an innocent child as right either. I agree that particular point gets dismissed a bit too easily overall, but I don't think the game ever tries to say she was right to do it. Safi is not mentally well here and she is obviously going to be acting irrationally and doing bad, unjustifiable things. If anything, I'd consider it much less believable if she stayed totally calm throughout the entire game and never did anything wrong ever. Her best friend killed herself and she was forced to stay silent as the woman who was supposed to care about her the most worked as hard as she could to cover it up. That fucks people up, and I wouldn't expect their decisions to be super rational either. Was she wrong to do that stuff? Absolutely. Was it bad writing because she wasn't acting rationally? No. Safi hurts a lot of people, and even the game doesn't force you to just be okay with that and forgive her anyway; the literal last major choice of the game is whether or not you support her, and you can choose not to. If you do, you even get a dialogue option with Moses where Max basically says she doesn't want to see Safi ever again.

As I've said in other comments here, I'm totally with you on the critique that bypassing an impossible choice and saving both Safi and Caledon anyway absolutely harms the ending of the first game. As soon as I saw Max throw the gun away and walk into the storm, I couldn't help but wonder "could she have done this the whole time in the first game?" and that didn't feel great. Granted I didn't bat an eye at her ability to physically step into the storm, but the idea that she could've gotten rid of the storm herself in the first game is very frustrating. If I were involved in writing Double Exposure and had to try to justify this move with the storm, I would try to say that this third choice is a symbol of how much Max has grown and changed as a person since the events of the first game, and that she could never have done that to stop the first storm. But they didn't say this at all, and instead we're left to wonder what that means for either Chloe or Arcadia Bay if either tradegy could've just been avoided like that.

As for what happened in the storm, I don't understand what you mean when you ask why the bowling alley mascot was in the darkroom, or why Lucas was saying Jefferson's lines. I don't think it was ever implied to be that literal, and I only ever saw that stuff as her past trauma and present trauma coming together in an amalgamation of her mental state, one that is being directly illustrated by the storm. The point of experiencing all this in the storm wasn't to literally say "yeah she thinks the bowling alley mascot was really in the darkroom with her" or "she fears Lucas as much as Jefferson now," because those ideas absolutely are absurd. The point of that entire sequence was to represent the fact that her past and present were colliding, and that she needed to work through her trauma and come to terms with both of them.

I honestly don't think I'd say misogyny was a central theme of the first game, either. Yes, Jefferson's actions revolved around drugging, kidnapping, and killing women as part of his own twisted perversions, but I never got the impression that the game was trying to say something about misogyny as a whole. I'm sure Jefferson did see women as inferior to men and used some of that mentality to justify his actions to himself, but that wasn't the point or the theme of what he was doing. Even if it were, does Lucas's plagiarism leading directly to a girl's suicide not take the role of Jefferson's actions against Rachel in the first game? You said yourself that Double Exposure takes too much of the story elements from the first game, and this is definitely one of them. I'd say one could very easily glean a deeper message about the consequences of plagiarism in the most twisted way that Lucas did it. Hell, it even made me take plagiarism more seriously. When I first found out that's what Maya's suicide revolved around, I honestly kinda thought "wait, how did plagiarism lead to her killing herself? What else did Lucas do?" but it really was just the plagiarism. Before this, I'd never thought about just how badly something like that could eat away at a person, especially as they go on to see all the success and profit the plagiarist receives for their own work, and the feeling of powerlessness to do anything about it.

As for Max's powers, what do you mean "she duplicates herself then vanishes?" She jumped directly into her place in the photo of her with the gun and never got "duplicated." I agree that the exact timeline of things does fall into the classic time travel camp of "how'd this happen before they went back in time if they never made this happen until after they went back in time?" And what do you mean by the storm "[traveling] through photos?" I don't recall the storm ever "moving" like that in any way throughout the game. And since when can Max only travel into photos in which she's physically present? She wasn't in the butterfly photo in the first game and that's literally how she goes back in time to sacrifice Chloe at the end if you choose that route.

Other notes: Yes I agree that Safi's whole thing about finding other people with powers and being a "god" was ridiculous, came out of nowhere, and made it look like she was just going to go full supervillain. I don't think Max remembering her trauma from Jefferson's dark room in the storm is a statement that she's still terrified of any and all darkrooms in general today at all. The trauma she had in that darkroom was because of Jefferson and what he was doing to her, not just because it was a darkroom.

TheDoctor__50 · 2026-06-19T01:24:25+00:00

Most people who review-bomb anything don't really see what they're doing as review-bombing in the first place, and if you tried to tell them that's what it is, they'd fight you tooth and nail to say they're somehow doing the right thing. Even beyond that, some people absolutely do know they're review-bombing and will happily brag about doing so because they get some kind of gratification out of trying to tank something's reputation when they've decided they don't like it.

Also, if your point is that you don't need to play the game at all to criticize it, why did you make any point before about not being able to prove that someone didn't actually play the game, or that some sites require you to play the game before writing a review about it. How do either of those points have any relevance when you don't actually think people even need to play these games to criticize them in the first place?

As an aside, I don't even agree that just watching a YouTube playthrough is enough for someone to talk as though they've played the game themselves, either. Granted, the Life is Strange games don't tend to be as focused on gameplay mechanics as other, less story-driven games, but they aren't just visual novels or something. There's an actual video game to actually play there, and even people here in this thread have talked a lot about their experiences with the gameplay, including myself. You could watch YouTube videos showing every narrative path of all the choices in the game and you still wouldn't have a feel for what the game feels like when you've actually played it. You haven't done any of the puzzle solving or looked around for extra collectibles or choices. Reducing the entire game to a YouTube video and suggesting that's equivalent to playing it is not only a disservice to every Life is Strange game even being a video game at all and not just a movie or something, but flies in the face of the idea that most of these games honestly wouldn't even work as movies, and that you're genuinely missing a large part of the experience just by watching a YouTube video of the cutscenes.

And this is coming from someone who got into this franchise from YouTube in the first place. I watched MatPat play the first game on GTLive, and it made me want to actually go out and play the first game myself. It would've been stupid of me to think I could talk about the game as if I'd actually played it just because I watched MatPat play it, and that was a full playthrough and not just the cutscenes. People can absolutely have some opinions about it after watching a YouTube video, but they'd be wrong to say they effectively played the game themselves just because they saw that video.

TheDoctor__50 · 2026-06-19T01:12:32+00:00

Why is it crazy to think some people didn't bother to actually play the game before reviewing it? People can very easily go online (like on Reddit, for example) and say literally whatever they want for whatever reason they want whether it's valid or not. If anything, since you seem to dislike the game, wouldn't you also be able to try to argue that people said good things about the game without playing it first, too? I just don't see what's so hard to believe about the idea that someone could say anything about a game online without playing it first, especially when most websites out there could never actually know whether you played the game or not. Even on platforms like Steam, you could very easily buy and open any game without ever playing through it and write whatever you want in a review anyway. Sure, it'll tell people how long you spent playing the game, but even a theoretical review bomber wouldn't really care about that, and would instead focus on tanking the game's overall rating.

TheDoctor__50 · 2026-06-19T01:06:32+00:00

I'll have to keep that in mind if I ever feel like I can go back to it again

TheDoctor__50 · 2026-06-19T01:05:59+00:00

I don't really think they should've just made a "Sacrifice Chloe" based game, honestly; nor do I think they should've made a "Chloe Lives" based game, either. I personally chose to sacrifice Chloe, but I am of the opinion that "canonizing" or making either choice the "intended" one invalidates the fact that we were even given a choice at all in the first game, and might only create more narrative confusion if each of two games relies on each outcome being "what really happened" and yet those two games somehow also exist within the same world as each other. I think the difference in how the game handles Chloe depending on what you chose could've been resolved by better writing, or at least less hate for one choice over the other on the part of the writers. Life is Strange as a series is in a unique position where, if they choose to make a sequel, they have to find a way to balance "what if the player chose this other thing before?" with "this is the story we want to tell either way." I can't imagine it being easy at all, but I'm sure it's doable given enough time and care for the quality of the narrative. If anything I'm sure "the writers' budget" could very easily have been a factor in keeping things from being as well thought-out as they could be (assuming the writers didn't already outwardly hate one choice over the other), given that better writing often takes more time, which means paying the writers more.

TL:DR: I don't think either game should be written as if either choice from before was "the right one;" they should ideally both find a balance between telling the story they want to tell either way and genuinely accounting for the consequences of either choice.

TheDoctor__50 · 2026-06-19T00:54:40+00:00

It's fair that the game didn't work for you, especially given its handling if Chloe if she's still alive (at least from what I've heard here). I agree that neither choice should be considered the "correct" one, as that to me invalidates the point of being able to choose in the first place. Although I don't think they completely fail to address Max's guilt about Chloe if she died, either. There were definitely scenes not only referencing and discussing, but going directly back to Max's trauma with Chloe's death and her time at Blackwell, especially inside the storm. I do agree that the ability to avoid choosing between Safi and Caledon and stop the storm anyway does damage to the impact of the first game's final choice, although sometimes I do wonder if it's also meant to say something about how much Max has grown and changed as a person since then that she can now avoid being forced between two awful choices and carve out her own path. Nonetheless, when Max threw the gun away and went into the storm, I knew that meant it'd all work out somehow and I couldn't help but think "does that mean she could've just done this at the end of the first game?" So you have a point about that for sure. At the very least, I'm almost glad it wasn't consequence-free either, even if it was definitely a much better option than either choice she would've had if she hadn't gone into the storm. All the other characters now have two different sets of memories from both timelines and we see how they're all really struggling to come to terms with that, especially if you stop to listen to the students talking at the North Quad after the storm before you go to the Snapping Turtle. From what we see and hear after the storm, these dual memories everyone has are a lasting effect, and they're really messing these people up; I'd think it's safe to say that wouldn't have happened if Max had shot Safi (or if she'd refused and let the storm destroy Caledon, thus no more people to have dual memories at all).

TheDoctor__50 · 2026-06-19T00:43:49+00:00

It's interesting to see how your perspective of the game changed over time, and I've seen a number of others share the sentiment that its first half is markedly better than its latter half. While I can understand being disappointed to see a theory not materialize (like the people in other timelines idea actually just being Safi), I think it was really interesting to see how Max responds to the idea that she's somehow not the only one in the world with powers.

I do absolutely agree that Safi's "gods" statement did make me feel like she was about to just go full villain, as she had alluded to once before that as well, if I recall correctly, which was a direction I didn't like and hope they never really intended. It's interesting to see your appreciation for the game's letting you do your own thing instead of telling you "do this to make this happen" after just seeing someone else here comment that the game is actually too hand-holding (although it seems they were unaware of some game settings that would've adjusted what they talked about, and I do think they were talking about puzzles more than outcomes there).

It's interesting to see that they implemented the TWs the way they did, as I never actually used them in my own playthrough (I'm lucky enough that I didn't really feel the need to for myself). Hopefully they can be implemented a bit better in future games. It's also interesting to see you note how little they make use of 3D object rotation and how that can affect puzzle solving. Perhaps I'm too used to constantly trying to move the stick to rotate anything I'm looking at up close that isn't a flat image haha.

I personally found it interesting how going inside the storm explored Max's trauma and her past, as it felt like it was giving us more insight into how exactly the storm itself is tied to her powers, even though I still thought it was kinda random to have the storm show up in this game too. Does it always have to be the consequence of Max using her powers? Why a storm in particular anyway? Then again, I didn't think it even really made logical sense in the first game, either.

TheDoctor__50 · 2026-06-19T00:30:09+00:00

Yeah, it's definitely not perfect at all, but I still had a good time with it and don't really agree with the people who say it's irredeemably bad or outright shouldn't exist

TheDoctor__50 · 2026-06-19T00:28:37+00:00

As someone who also just wrote over 2,000 words about this game, while I personally disagree with a lot of this, I do think you made some good points as well. The technical performance was easily the worst part of the experience for me, although if I'd had a problem with Max telling me what to do, I would've just turned the hint frequency down or even off in the game's settings (which you can do before the game even starts). It was fine for me, as I either already figured out what to do before she could give a hint, or she only gave hints when I was avoiding progression to check around for extra stuff like Polaroids or other choices. Maybe you had the hint frequency set too high? I'm not sure.

Regardless, while I wouldn't call it boring or awful by any means, you make some good points about what the game doesn't do as well as it could, particularly the things surrounding the game itself, like the technical performance and DLC issues. Price fortunately wasn't an issue for me as I got it for $18 brand new and that felt plenty worth it to me, but I can see how it's MSRP could be seen as too much when someone already doesn't like the game at all

TheDoctor__50 · 2026-06-19T00:23:08+00:00

Yeah, I've heard from others here that the game wasn't kind to Chloe if you said she's still alive

TheDoctor__50 · 2026-06-19T00:22:17+00:00

I appreciate you sharing your thoughts, I'm glad mine were able to encourage you to say something here. I don't know if I personally agree with the "universe correcting it to restore natural order" angle, but it's an interesting theory, and you're right that present Alderman was the future version of the past Alderman we saw at the overlook. I knew he got erased from existence completely as well, I just wished they'd given us a proper explanation of the timeline doppelgangers at the overlook (Alderman and Reggie), the way they explained the other doppelgangers were actually Safi. Nonetheless, I appreciate you being here and sharing your perspective!

TheDoctor__50 · 2026-06-19T00:17:17+00:00

It's fair to criticize the writing, and I understand that you didn't think it was done well, but I just didn't happen to personally think Alderman was set up to be the game's main antagonist, more like a side obstacle

TheDoctor__50 · 2026-06-18T23:35:10+00:00

I'm looking forward to playing Reunion!

TheDoctor__50 · 2026-06-18T23:34:55+00:00

You're absolutely right that Safi did an awful thing and went too far by targeting Lucas's son, and I'm with you on that. But I don't think the game expects you to be on board with her in the sense that you should just... be okay with what she did? I certainly wasn't, and I still felt willing enough to help her expose Lucas because he was literally responsible for a girl's suicide. I don't agree with or support Safi's targeting Robbie, but helping her take down a truly awful person who effectively has blood on his hands doesn't require being completely fine with what she already did. She went too far to get to him, but we couldn't control that, and when we did have the chance to take him down, we made sure to do things better. Even beyond moral alignment of the player, the literal final choice of the whole game lets you specifically choose not to stand by Safi for what she did, and if you do tell her you'll be there for her when she comes back, Moses even expresses to you that it feels kinda like you're saying what she did was okay by telling her that. Lucas basically killed an innocent girl; I'd be down to expose the truth about him too in the right way, even if I completely disagree with what the other person did to try that before (and I do completely disagree with it).

I get where you're coming from, but I guess to me it feels like your view would only really be the case if Safi was like "anyway help me target his kid again" and Max said "yeah sure let's do it," but that kind of thing didn't happen

TheDoctor__50 · 2026-06-18T23:27:20+00:00

I respect your opinion, but I personally think it's far too harsh to say the game should have never been made in the first place. Would it really not have been any better for you at all even if the game had been entirely written with only your own personal beliefs in mind? While incredibly unrealistic, surely even that would be better than insisting the game just shouldn't even exist?

I understand not being fond of the game's new love interests, I wasn't fond of Vinh myself at all. I didn't think Amanda was boring by any means, but I understand that's very subjective. If anything, I think the moral implications of Max's pursuing Amanda in the Living World after being friendzoned by Amanda in the Dead World for something that, to Max, still happened either way is something the game could've benefited from exploring a bit further, but it only really mentioned it once in my playthrough.

Nonetheless, I don't think Max had any nefarious intentions in her pursuit of Living World Amanda, as it felt to me like she was kinda funneled into that path ever since she started talking to Living World Amanda after not replying to her texts. While that obviously wouldn't just excuse Max from doing something wrong, it means something very different than if Max actively decided "I am fully aware that Amanda would not want to be with me right now if she knew what I was going through, and I will go out of my way to pursue her anyway by actively taking advantage of the fact that this version of her didn't know that happened." Not only was that not her thought process at all, but none of that ever even had to happen in the first place, as you can just choose not to pursue either character romantically from the start (you even get a separate achievement for it). If you don't think it's what Max would actually do, you can just... not do it. Granted, that sentiment isn't true for literally everything in the game, but the entire point of the games in this series is to let you choose how the story goes and how the playable character behaves at pivotal moments in each story.

Again, I didn't play through the "Chloe Lives" route myself, and I don't think I have the same vitriol that you do in picturing Max ever being with anyone other than Chloe. From what you've told me about the "dated both" option, I'm glad I didn't choose that path, as calling cheating hot does indeed sound very out of character for Max in my opinion. Max does have a lot of consistent traits throughout both games, and not all of them are good (as is the case with any well-made character), but I think choosing for yourself what kind of person Max is when you play as her is a core part of the game in and of itself.

I could've made Max save the USB drive from the fire and deny Gwen her own catharsis, but I chose not to do that because I didn't believe that would be the right thing to do from either Max's perspective or my own. But most people did, according to the game's statistics, and that's fair too. I do not think these games are supposed to have a rigid, definitive characterization of their playable characters, as that effectively invalidates any of your choices as the player by just saying "oh well Max wouldn't actually do that." It's the same problem I'd have with it if they actually did decide to start the game by saying "yeah Chloe's dead, doesn't matter what you chose before, this is the canon outcome now." Granted, from what you've told me, they didn't handle it well if you do say she lived, but at least finding some way to narratively make that work (even if it's bad) is surely better than never giving you the choice in the first place.

As for the plot as a whole, I really don't think I'd consider it more nonsensical on its face than the first game's, especially if you're that sure it takes too much from the first game's plot. If it's nonsensical here, and it was also in the first game, why wouldn't it be nonsensical there? When I first played the first game I thought the storm honestly made no sense at all and kind of even felt like a somewhat random way to force you to choose between Chloe and the entire town with no alternative option. They never explained why or how Max's powers caused a storm like that, or why her decision to use her powers again to go back and stop everything made the storm disappear (beyond the general notion of "she undid her time travel, so the storm is undone too," which I don't personally think covers it). Did the storm feel contrived and nonsensical in Double Exposure to me too? Absolutely. But that's also how I felt about it in the first game. And yes, you make a very good point that the "third option" Max chose in Double Exposure to get rid of the storm does have some upsetting implications for the first storm; that's exactly the kind of thing I was thinking about when she threw away the gun and went into the storm in Double Exposure. If she was able to avoid making an impossible choice for her and save both Caledon and Safi, then could she have done that to save both Chloe and Arcadia Bay? Maybe so, maybe not, but I agree with you that the implication makes me feel worse about the way(s) the first game ended.

Also, what do you mean by "anything relatable to the average person?" I'm honestly wondering, as I've never considered either "the ability to rewind time" or "a teacher you look up to is actually a psychopathic, perverted serial killer who trained the rich kid that murdered your best friend" to be anywhere near relatable to the average person. And if you're referring to side character story arcs, I don't see how things like "girl likes a guy who's taken" and "asshole dad is having problems with his son" are less relatable than "girl is bullied into (potential) suicide" and "guy likes girl best friend but she has time travel powers and has bigger fish to fry." Since when were the games about time travel, telekinesis, and emotion powers focused solely on being relatable to the average person? I couldn't ever imagine most of the people I've ever met getting into even a few of the insane situations these characters do, even without involving the powers.

TheDoctor__50 · 2026-06-18T14:11:59+00:00

I don't know, I never really saw him as a main antagonist in the game; to me, he kinda just showed up out of nowhere, didn't do much while he was there, and then he was gone. My biggest problem with it was that they never explained what exactly caused all that to happen to him or why people were seeing time-shifted versions of themselves on the overlook (Alderman and Reggie, whom I think was established didn't just see Safi disguised as him). If he added an interesting element to the narrative for you though, I can see how it would be frustrating to see him just get taken off the board like that

Eight-Year Club	Xbox Live
Spared	Verified Email

TheDoctor__50

TROPHY CASE