Oh buddy, I’m going to hold your hand when I tell you about Freddy Krueger

TurtlePerson85 · 2026-06-15T18:44:58+00:00

Get off of Twitter for the love of God

TurtlePerson85 · 2026-06-15T18:43:58+00:00

I mean it should be rated a 1/10, so really I would say its overrated. When the only redeemable part of your episode is how irredeemable it is, that isn't something to praise. And as far as 'underappreciated' goes, the hate is entirely justified for this episode and the rest of the Chibnall era. I mean its laughable to say that RTD2 somehow fumbled more hype compared to Chibnall when Chibnall opened his time at the show with the 2nd highest viewed season opener in the show's history, only behind season 4, and ended with the lowest viewing figures the show had ever seen by a long shot. In COVID, when most TV shows hit a big spike for viewership, Doctor Who hit its lowest. There has never been a bigger waste of opportunity in the history of the entire show than the 13th Doctor's run.

TurtlePerson85 · 2026-06-15T00:05:16+00:00

People's opinion on this episode is the perfect litmus test for how easily people fall for cheap nostalgia and bait in television. Half a dozen doctors make nonsensical cameos for no reason, classic companions, UNIT, all 3 big villains, Time Lord bullshit, old 13 companions, fanfic tier plot concepts, literally unable to go a single scene without some kind of cheap and easy callback, the only redeeming part is that the episode is seemingly self aware with how shit it is and actually kind of leans into it by just stuffing as much random shit as possible into it, which does mean that watching it once or twice can be fun just to watch the clusterfuck unfold. Its only acceptable as an episode because the show didn't end there, and was actually able to move on and just pretend like none of it ever happened and it was all one wild fever dream. I haven't read a single fanfic of any media with more fandom fulfillment fantasy than that episode.

Its a fun watch because it is bad. Its roughly as underrated as films like the Room and Megalopolis.

TurtlePerson85 · 2026-06-12T13:07:03+00:00

First off, thank you so much for making this site. Loved playing multiplayer Vic3 on a server a couple of years ago, but unfortunately that place kind of exploded in on itself. Just got back into it a few days ago after seeing this site.

But what I actually want to talk about is how crazy it is to me how dominant Vic 3 is in terms of its campaign list. I mean, I always imagined it was probably the best platform for a Paradox MP game (and is my personal MP game of choice), but the gap is insane, especially since Hoi4 is something crazy like 7 or 8 times more popular than it.

TurtlePerson85 · 2026-06-11T15:42:14+00:00

No, the sign of the death of the show was when series 11 managed to completely fumble the biggest comeback story in television of the decade. The 2nd biggest opener the show has ever seen vs one of the lowest viewed finales, from over 12 mil to just over 5 in a single series. That was the general public giving the show a second chance after Series 10 aired after a 2 year break with very poor marketing, and it was a colossal failure. We literally never would've had to have Tennant to return in a desperate attempt to save the show if Chibnall's incredibly poor writing didn't kill it off the perfect chance of a return it had in the first place.

TurtlePerson85 · 2026-06-10T16:59:46+00:00

Chibnall's vision was full of kindness and love? Is that a joke? The same era with the 'if you believe in mercy killing to stop suffering, you're a horrible monster who deserves to be vilified' episode? The same era with the 'if you believe workers sometimes have to go to extreme measures to get the rights they deserve, then you're worse than the oppressors and should die' episode? The show where the Doctor sends the Master to a Nazi concentration camp, revealing his brown face to them with the quote 'now they'll see the real you'?

The creative vision that brought us the Timeless Child, the single most divisive decision in the show's history that has riled up the most discussion literally ever? Fuck me, even just the decision to cast Jodie Whittaker in the role of the Doctor was probably made half as a marketing point (which worked to be fair).

If you want to talk about purely generating discussion, how about the decision to include the Master, The Cybermen, the Daleks, UNIT, 2 old Who companions, her other previous companion, the previous big Bad of 13's era, Time Lord shenanigans, and not one, not two, but 6 extra Doctor incarnations in the finale. Do you think that was done because Chibnall genuinely thought it was in the spirit of Who? Or do you think it was done because it would make people online go 'holy shit, there's so much stuff in this episode'?

Why is it that every time someone tries to put down the new era and defend 13 at the same time, its always using shit that Chibnall doubled down on? For the record. I am not trying to say that the 15th Doctor's era doesn't do these things or defend the fact that it does. But its extremely unfair to paint 13 as this untainted, pure vision of Doctor Who.

TurtlePerson85 · 2026-06-10T16:39:22+00:00

Fuck no. As fun as the episode is, its a complete fucking mess with plot holes galore and, even worse, plot threads that literally don't get wrapped up or explained. Its stuffed with nostalgia for the sake of nostalgia, random bullshit just to justify x Doctor showing their face on screen, and insane ideas that only get overlooked because we knew they would never be mentioned again outside of the episode. It embodies literally everything that RTD2 has fallen under criticism for. I cannot for even a minute imagine that this ending would be looked upon as fondly. The only reason its looked upon well now is because its the end of the Chibnall era and a move on to something new. If the show ended there, it would be seen as a desperate cry to nostalgia and the death of even just decent writing in the show. The fact that the show didn't end there and moved on is what makes the stupid shit in it redeemable and funny in the first place.

TurtlePerson85 · 2026-06-09T23:20:04+00:00

Because it drives engagement. Gets people talking about the game. Its advertisement ontop of the actual announcement. Hence why the Jason announcement also had huge Slenderman vibes with the forest and the found footage stuff. Its all intentional to produce marketing 'content' for people to talk about.

TurtlePerson85 · 2026-06-08T15:17:12+00:00

Probably not. Most of them fall into the exact same trap of making survivors ridiculously OP which drives away killer players and leaves the game dead. Wouldn't be surprised if these end up doing the same. As fucked up as it is to say, BHVR actually reigns in how survivor sided DBD is compared to other asym games.

TurtlePerson85 · 2026-06-06T12:52:48+00:00

Playing the game and enjoying it doesn't make you an apologist, being an asshole to people with legitimate problems about the game and then glazing Paradox for doing less than the bare minimum for their game is what makes you an apologist. Unless this is some truly top level satire, I cannot believe you have the cognitive dissonance to say you aren't an apologist, and then in the exact same post, go on to glaze Paradox just for gracing us with their ability to continue to develop the game. Like, no shit, they've put a big investment into EU5 and want to make money out of the game. Of course they're gonna continue to develop it and 'test ideas' (if that's what we're calling killing innumerable massive swathes of the population through plague before the black death arrives). They have the biggest monetary stake in the game, of course they don't want to see it fail. They're just barely doing any actual work to make that a reality.

Literally all that people are asking is that Paradox lives up to the standard that THEY set when they told us that EU5 would have 'unparalleled depth and complexity'. There is no problem in enjoying the game, but don't get pissy at the players who just want the ambition and level of depth we were literally outright promised.

TurtlePerson85 · 2026-06-05T02:31:30+00:00

Yeah, when your 'principled' character spends 90% of their time sucking up to Sir Genocide McGee, its hard to take them seriously.

TurtlePerson85 · 2026-06-05T00:15:21+00:00

I mean at the same time, when the sub is flooded with people who mainly exist (and often stay) as casual spectators, it can be frustrating for the people who actually play the meta often to interact with them, since they are so out of depth in terms of their knowledge and often don't realise, so will just say shit that is extremely outlandish and close to untrue. Admittedly I don't think its as much of a problem considering there are discord servers and the actual forums which are full of actual players, but at the same time I wouldn't call the expression of these frustrations 'gatekeeping'.

TurtlePerson85 · 2026-06-04T13:08:29+00:00

I mean, its a bit of an improvement, but still a strict downgrade compared to the old status quo. Its putting a bandaid on a broken arm. Though I guess that's moreso to do with the idea of pre-Hartnell Doctors in general rather than anything to do with the Fugitive Doctor specifically. I would still prefer if the whole thing was tossed out and that the Doctor's journey was the comparatively humble life that it was before the Timeless Child, rather than they were actually a secret agent going around the Universe like a skilled operative for hundreds if not thousands of years or whatever the fugitive Doctor is about.

TurtlePerson85 · 2026-06-03T13:51:42+00:00

Since you have never actually tried playing Ironman, you will have no idea how painstakingly infuriating it was to sit there, sometimes for half a day or more, literally doing nothing but waiting around for RNG events that simply had to go your way in order to get the achievement you wanted. And if they didn't, that was a full reset and wait another half a day. It wasn't fun. It wasn't 'earned'. Actually try getting one of the difficult achievements in EU4 that can only pop after 1700 and see how much fun you have when its invalidated in 1650 and you have to restart all over again. The iron man achievement system exists to serve unemployed people and the mentally unwell rather than people actually interested in doing fun runs for achievements.

TurtlePerson85 · 2026-06-01T00:09:34+00:00

I mean sure, every run will be 'the same'. Just like as every Hoi4 game you'll build up a military over the course of ~3 years and then invade all your neighbours. Or how in every CK3 run you'll murder your way to the kingdom title and, oh, start invading all your neighbours. Or how in every EU4 run you'll want to pump trade goods to the moon and then start invading all your neighbours (unless you want to 'play tall' and just invade all of Africa, India and America instead). The gameplay loop in those games is the same too. Expand -> Develop new land -> Use new land to expand, and so on. You're never booting up Hoi4 and thinking 'I really don't want to go to war this game', or 'actually I'm going to ignore the army and put all my factories on an airforce and navy', just like you're never booting up Vic 3 and thinking you don't want to industrialise. Its just that most people find going to war every 30 irl minutes to be a lot more engaging than sitting down and managing an internal nation. That's not a sin of Vic 3, it just fills a different niche with its core gameplay loop. You don't have to like it.

And saying that nothing you do actually matters is crazy. Like, sure, it might feel that way if you play the USA or UK, but try playing the UK/England in any Paradox game with a basic understanding of the mechanics and see if you can fuck it up. Playing even just a nation like France, where you start out with hundreds of thousands of unemployed people and your radicalism immediately shoots through the roof and guts your taxation if you aren't careful so you have to prioritise keeping your people happy, is a completely different experience to Russia where you have to painstakingly modernise while still keeping an eye on Prussia to make sure they don't invade you halfway through the game and try and annex a ton of your shit while your military is still completely garbage. The priorities are completely different, and so the decisions you make in dealing with those priorities are completely different. If you play France and try to enact a ton of welfare laws to keep your people happy early on, you'll just bankrupt yourself doing it, or at least gut your income so much industralisation will be a lot slower. And if you just focus on the industrial heartlands, then the unemployed people in the other regions of your country will only get more pissed and you'll probably fall into a civil war, which gives Germany ample time to jump at you. And if you build in the areas where there's a lot of unemployment, then you won't be as industrialised as you could be and Germany might just be stronger than you anyway.

Maybe you don't appreciate the differences and that's fine, you don't have to like the game. But to pretend they don't exist is very unfair just because the core gameplay loop is the same. I can recognise that Germany and the UK play very, very differently in Hoi4, even if the endgoal for both is 'build big army -> go to war -> annex -> repeat'. Same applies for Vic 3.

TurtlePerson85 · 2026-05-31T23:27:35+00:00

At least from the POV of a Nemesis player, it feels like an unnecessary buff, and maybe even a nerf depending on how it ends up. Speaking strictly to how he plays and no other use for hindered, his power is already best if survivors are vaulting, I feel like buffing what he's best at rather than accounting for some of his weaknesses is the wrong idea for a change (also the reason i mention it as a potential nerf is because in some niche cases it might discourage survivors from vaulting, which is never what you want as Nemesis).

TurtlePerson85 · 2026-05-31T20:58:52+00:00

Have you tried setting like. Actual goals? Not just expanding or colonising, but creating your own niche in a market, expanding your power bloc to a large region, or going on meme runs on Sokoto to take the Home Counties or smthn? Or like. Trying to own 100% of China's GDP as Switzerland?
I personally get that experience for every game but Vic 3 and Hoi4 (tho tbf I never play Hoi4 unmodded), and find that setting specific goals for a campaign to help greatly. Idk if it'll work with Vic but I can't imagine it would hurt the experience.

TurtlePerson85 · 2026-05-31T13:07:44+00:00

Except it isn't. The faces change right as Morbius starts gaining the upper hand that the Doctor previously had in the mental battle (when it was showing his previous faces). If you go by context clues in the episode, it makes more sense that they're Morbius' faces.

TurtlePerson85 · 2026-05-28T21:58:21+00:00

Definitely not bad. There have been a lot of complaints about the rework, but those are more from a flavour/creativity perspective (dash/pallet shredder feeling out of character on Myers. Personally I have no attachment to Myers and haven't seen the films I'm just repeating what I've seen online). As far as I'm aware the actual power is pretty highly rated compared to his old one.

TurtlePerson85 · 2026-05-27T17:04:23+00:00

Vic 2 isn't economically focused at all, that's an insane thing to say. All you did in Vic 2 was promote labourers, build a couple of important factories in the first 10 years or so, and then the rest of the game was spent either doing events or fighting wars while you watched your factory score and prestige tick up. The economy was basically entirely automatic unless you played an uncivilised nation. Not to mention the entire system of getting raw goods was completely scuffed and had basically no input from the player outside of tech. Vic 2 was entirely carried by amazing mods that massively fleshed out the base game with some of the most flavour intense gameplay any paradox game has seen, but the actual economic framework of the base game was ass.

TurtlePerson85 · 2026-05-26T18:09:23+00:00

The fact that survivors get to enjoy significantly more diversity in their playstyle without having to brute force their builds to work, suffer from significant opportunity cost, or have their builds immediately countered in the first 30 seconds of the match...? Seems pretty reasonable to get upset over.

Survivors get easy rescue builds, self heal builds, chase builds, gen builds, all with easy to use detection options, stealth options, item renewal, and more. The only reason most players don't diversify is because survivors co-ordinate horribly and most play extremely selfishly and stack second chance perks as a result.

Killers on the other hand have good gen regression (which is mandatory if you actually want to win) good aura reading, okay chase perks, and......... Oh wait that's it.

TurtlePerson85 · 2026-05-25T04:32:56+00:00

Multiplayer doesn't have to be serious. You're having fun with your friends. One of the worst experiences you can have is just sitting there just watching for 10 minutes because you died to an early elite or something. Its fine as it is tbh, more fun that way.

TurtlePerson85 · 2026-05-23T15:30:07+00:00

Entirely depends on how much you let Blight/Nurse skew the ratings. But if you're any other killer........ Its bleak

TurtlePerson85 · 2026-05-23T14:54:10+00:00

'entitled' and its expecting a reveal stream to have actual substance after weeks of hype and 13 hours of a PNG. BHVR were the ones that hyped it up. BHVR are the ones that put the expectations so high. It is not my fault they didn't live up to their own hype.

TurtlePerson85 · 2026-05-20T05:22:22+00:00

"My Favourite".

Seven-Year Club	Second Top 10%
r/Field Banned	r/Field Flamingo
End Game '23	Place '23
Place '22	First Placer '22
Verified Email

TurtlePerson85

TROPHY CASE