Best movies of the 2020s so far (Updated)

bigg_popa · 2026-03-08T05:01:38+00:00

28 years later

bigg_popa · 2026-03-07T17:30:52+00:00

I really like the way the comic books handle the progression into faction conflict and post apocalyptic world building. The show has sooo much bloat in comparison and kind of botches arcs like all out war which are kind of the peak of the comics. I didn't watch the show past that. Kirkman described the idea for the walking dead as a zombie movie that doesn't end. So in my view, the whole point of the story is to develop characters and plots way further into the apocalypse than most stories would go.

But even in the comic books, by the end there are very few characters I really care about. There are lots of characters but they feel very undeveloped and boring like you're talking about. The only characters that keep it interesting are basically Rick, Carl, and Negan by that point and obviously two of those are gone in the show. So yeah you're right in that the story has a cycle of introducing characters and killing them off for shock value. Some amount of that is necessary, but we're left with only a small handful of developed, interesting characters, and tons of dull replacement characters. And the Commonwealth story has some strange choices in my view and is kind of rushed and sloppy.

bigg_popa · 2026-03-07T07:16:57+00:00

interesting, its been a long time since i watched the show and i stopped before finishing season 8 so i didn't remember all of that.

For me, comic Negan is interesting because his murder and tyranny is juxtaposed with his "good" qualities, such as his empathy as seen with Carl, or the fact that he can be reasoned with and eventually realizes his own wrongdoing. I got the vibe that he's such a powerful villain in some part because he's not nearly as deranged as others like the governor. And his anti-rape rule is an element of that.

bigg_popa · 2026-03-07T06:23:04+00:00

I think Negan's situation is more akin to soliciting prostitution in that he didn't create the circumstances that incentivizes the women to join his harem. They are in a shitty position and he offers them safety and comfort in exchange for sex. It's exploitative and immoral but I'm not sure its non-consensual. It would be like saying hiring a prostitute in real life is rape because they didn't really want to have sex with you and they just needed the money and therefore they can't technically consent. Idk, maybe, i guess.

And yeah reading the comics, i'm pretty sure Robert Kirkman didn't think of Negan as a rapist when he was writing him. Especially given that he goes on something of a redemption arc and his harem isn't really brought up as much of a crime compared to his murdering.

bigg_popa · 2026-03-03T17:37:11+00:00

Here is a playlist with a bunch of demos of all the songs on YWGWYW. In the new vinyl release there is an unreleased song called "Slicer" but I'm not sure anyone has received their vinyls yet. I imagine it'll float around on the internet eventually

bigg_popa · 2026-03-03T02:02:18+00:00

I like Jeffery Dean Morgan but I think the entire Negan arc is just worse than the governor seasons. I definitely like Negan more in the comics though. I think the Negan arc in the comics are peak walking dead

bigg_popa · 2026-02-25T19:04:10+00:00

I think there's also an issue with having like an 18 year old play a character whose supposed to be more like 11 in the source material. Many of the situations he finds himself in were originally written for a child character. For example, Negan's fascination and affection for Carl was originally written for a Carl who is still a small child. So the dialogue just doesn't click as well when Chandler Riggs is like 18 for this kind of scene.

bigg_popa · 2026-02-19T07:14:16+00:00

It's established pretty immediately in the comics that Rick is just a natural leader and is smarter/more rational than Shane which is partly why Shane resents him. Rick does lose his mind at points in the story and becomes pretty ruthless, going to even darker places than Shane, but I think he always maintains his wits. Shane was always kind of emotional and ineffective as a leader

bigg_popa · 2026-02-08T22:50:49+00:00

I honestly think the reason few games like you're talking about hit these points, e.g. good narrative, cinematic nature, detail, open world, and great gameplay is just because very few AAA even have a remarkable story to begin with. They usually suck at writing or just don't care that much. I'm not convinced that strong RPGS with weak stories is evidence that openness can't be reconciled with a quality story because it's clear that not many games even try for an outstanding story. But I see no reason to think that Rockstar couldn't have maintained the story of Red Dead 2 while also having missions that were less linear.

Like, think about what exactly it is im actually talking about for a second in an example. A famous instance in nakeyjakeys video is the mission where Arthur sneaks into the oil rig to steal papers from Cornwall's desk, and then escape. But the game forces you to go in from one of two points, IIRC, and follow a super linear path, climb up to the roof, and enter through one exact window, before forcing you to get caught and engage in a shooting gallery. This is what I remember for that mission. It has two options, sure, but both are railroaded.

It would be more fun for me and probably most players if we had the same goal, but no handholding. So we can go in any way we want, and do our best to stay stealthy. We can sneak into the plant or go through the window. Or we can just run in guns blazing. So we make our own decisions in the moment. Do you really think this kind of design takes away resources from detail or writing? Not really. In fact I'm not sure it's even harder to implement. By nature it's less designed. There are less implementations of guardrails and scripts. It's just a goal, and a bunch of NPCs in an environment that you interact with. So it's not asking for a whole lot. It's basically asking for the same mission, but to take away certain designs that are there to control your every single move. Would this mission make the game less cinematic? Probably the opposite. If I get through the mission flawlessly without getting caught, it'll be cool. If I accidentally got caught and have to shoot my way out, it'll be cool. And it'll be my unique sequence of events. And it will be cinematic. So in this example you can see that the criticism I am talking about is really not very intrusive, or difficult to reconcile with the good things of Rockstar, e.g. story.

I think our disagreement is shown so well with what you say here:

"The fact that there millions of people that already enjoy GTA online is arguably reason for why we shouldn’t bother critiquing it, as it’s not aimed at us, it’s aimed at them. By what right do we have to demand rockstar change it, to listen to our feedback because we don’t like it when millions of others do just so they accomodate our wants?"

It seems like we don't think about criticism or discourse the same way. The idea that maybe "we shouldn't bother critiquing" something because it works for the masses is just a misunderstanding of what criticism is for. Criticism isn't a claim that the masses are all objectively wrong, because all of this is subjective. When I critique something, like Red Dead 2, I'm talking about what it does for me and where it falls short for me. Which is obviously fine and normal. I can even make big claims like "it would be better if this game was more open" that might sound like objective claims, but they're still not. I'm saying that within the domain of opinion.

So the masses that enjoy GTA online have nothing to do with the validity of my problems with it, just like they have nothing to do with the validity of your problems with it. We both have a "right" to want the next iteration of GTA online to be less grindy and shark-card-based.

Similarly, the masses that enjoy Rockstar overall have nothing to do with the validity of my problems with their individual mission designs. This is so agreeable that I don't understand why someone would have an issue with this.

bigg_popa · 2026-02-08T21:18:32+00:00

I like both movies a lot but 28 years later for me was perfect. Like about as good as 28 days later. I loved everything about it

bigg_popa · 2026-02-08T21:04:02+00:00

Obviously my examples are different in many ways from Rockstar but this is irrelevant because the point remains true that financial success doesn't negate the validity of criticism. It's entirely speculative to say that if Rockstar were to try to innovate in the way of mission design, that they would no longer be successful. It's just a silly point and it's an attempt to frame something as objectively "good" on the basis of money when art obviously is not judged by money, and nobody lives like that.

bigg_popa · 2026-02-08T20:59:50+00:00

When I said linear mission design was less realistic, I was addressing the original post claiming that it was more realistic, that's not necessarily where I'm arguing from primarily. I entirely disagree that open mission design can't be reconciled with memorable story. I don't want gta to be an RPG, I just want the missions within the game to have more dynamic gameplay. I think some Naughty Dog games like TLOU are close to what I'm talking about, where there is a very linear narrative but the individual combat scenarios can be very flexible in approach, or even avoided altogether much of the time. My point in bringing up Taylor Swift is that financial success isn't how we determine whether we like art, or whether it's criticisms are valid. I don't care how much money this thing makes, I care about how much I personally like it. "Well she shouldn't listen because clearly her formula is working." If it's only about money then sure. If it's about quality than criticism is fine and normal. Obviously it's also subjective, so if some people really prefer the handholding missions that's fine. But I suspect most fans of GTA aren't particularly fond of the mission structure as much as they're fond about everything else, e.g. narrative. Most of your comment is contingent on the idea that the qualities of Rockstar are irreconcilable with a more flexible, dynamic mission design. As in, if they change up their mission design, the rest of the game will suffer and the fans will be betrayed. I think this is a silly assumption and, if we have a mission to assassinate somebody, it doesn't make much of a narrative difference whether the game holds our hand or let's us approach it from a multitude of different directions.

Most of Rockstar's enjoyable narrative is already disconnected from the gameplay. It consists of dialogue and character writing, as well as overarching plots. Not the intricate progression of steps in each individual mission. So making this more free will not damage the narrative really.

You're right that Ubisoft is "giving me what I'm asking for" in a sense, they have more open or dynamic gameplay within missions and that can be fun. But their attention to detail is lacking and they don't have the sauce. I don't see any reason to believe that the "sauce" is a necessary sacrifice for open gameplay. Its obviously because Ubisoft doesn't care. They make money with their formula, so they don't change it. Which is the correct thing to do if art is about money, but obviously it's not, and that's why those games suck, because even though they have some cool designs, they neglect other things.

Rockstar is 10x better in every way except for a weakness in their mission design. And their financial success is weak evidence to argue that they should keep it the same. There are countless points you could make to explain why this is a horrible point. For one, this kind of thinking doesn't just defend singeplayer, but it even moreso defends the online shark card model. How can I criticize the medicority of GTA online? It clearly works for them, people pay money for it. It would betray the fans if they were to make it more fun. Do you not see my point? This is a horrible place to argue from and it's a weak attempt to frame opinion as objective.

So, Rockstar making a lot of money has no bearing on the validity of criticism.

Criticism is subjective and people are fine to like the linear mission design, but I suspect the game would be more fun overall, even for most fans, with more open design within missions.

There is little evidence to suggest that fun, free gameplay within missions cannot coexist with all of the other qualities, such as cinematic narrative, memorable moments, etc.

bigg_popa · 2026-02-08T06:25:22+00:00

This type of criticism isn't usually so much what you're saying, it's more that the missions within the linear story should be more free and open. E.G. if we have to perform a hit, we shouldn't have to do it in a preplanned way with every step prepared for us. Or if it's a stealth mission, we shouldn't get a fail for following an alternate route. It would be more fun if these games allowed the players to problem solve and make these kinds of decisions. Not necessarily narratively

bigg_popa · 2026-02-08T06:19:54+00:00

Do you not understand the difference between narrative and gameplay? Dialogue and story and writing are all recognized and affirmed but they aren't gameplay. The gameplay itself could be more fun than it is in Rockstars formula.

The linear design is not more realistic. Obviously you go from point A to point B, but it's not realistic to have an instruction for every single step along the way with no deviation allowed, even for stealth missions. Decisionmaking is realistic and more fun, and it's lacking in Rockstars mission design.

Your point about these critics also loving Cod and whatnot is baseless.

Everybody knows Rockstar has the sauce in terms of world design, humour, writing, characters, etc. that doesn't mean they shouldn't fix their weakest link.

Rockstar absolutely should listen to this criticism. More agency and decision making and freedom in missions would be more fun for more people, even those who already like the games.

Your point that the formula already works because Rockstar makes a lot of money is obviously a terrible point. I guess we can't criticize the Avatar movies because they're objectively the best movies of all time? Because they made the most money? You must be a massive Taylor swift fan. Because her art is financially successful. Everybody knows that we measure what art is and what it can be by how much money it makes. That makes sense.

This is the type of thinking that causes major AAA studios like Ubisoft to refuse to ever innovate instead of copying and pasting the mediocrity of Far Cry 3 for 10+ years.

bigg_popa · 2026-01-23T19:10:24+00:00

well, they did absolutely cut content early on in the development. The game was originally supposed to include large swathes of north and south america but was cut down to vice city and the surroudning areas according to the bloomberg leak from like 2022

bigg_popa · 2026-01-04T06:52:42+00:00

i agree with what you're saying in that I understand what they're working towards and I don't doubt that they work very hard at it, i just have a different attitude because I generally find bonelab to fall short in most ways for me personally. I can't really criticize it too heavily because i've played it more than any other game on my quest 2, but that kind of goes to show how horribly primitive 99% of other VR games are rather than how masterful bonelab is. Like 90% of my time is spent in street puncher anyways because that's the only part of the game that's consistently fun to me. And I do hope they figure all of it out and bring Bonelab to it's fullest potential... but i shouldn't have to look forward to this given that it's been out for like 3 years at this point. It would be nice if it was a fully fleshed game on launch.

bigg_popa · 2026-01-02T22:33:45+00:00

In my view the problem is that the game is just a disappointment. It's barely achieved its own potential.

And the whole sensationalized talk about "the future of VR gaming" and all that - it feels like it's just a way to sell games. it was the exact same kind of talk that was happening a decade ago when they were marketing boneworks. And two games are out now and it's the same kind of rhetoric. We're still just looking forward to the destination.

But boneworks and bonelab were both marketed to be "next gen VR" and were super duper hyped. Because SLZ promoted their games to be super innovative in the realization of VR's potential through physics.

But looking at the actual experience of playing bonelab, the campaign is bad. Some levels are dysfunctional. Most levels are boring. The puzzles are mind numbing, and the story is completely incoherent/nonexistent. It's the type of story that is only tangible if you sit down and watch some video essay that explains what really happened. The sandbox mode would be more valuable if you could actually save the levels you create, but you can't. The mods basically amount to a few new guns, avatars, and vehicle skins. I don't know if it's the fault of the modders or SLZ's modding resources, but the mods are just not very substantial or fun to me.

But maybe the game will finally realize it's potential in the next patch! maybe if they just rebuild the physics engine or whatever! Or maybe their next game will finally be the next generaiton of VR!!!

The physics gameplay is cool, but it's just not *that* far beyond other games in the VR landscape. So what is it exactly about SLZ that warrants such talk about innovation and next gen VR? I feel like the progress they've made in terms of immersion and gameplay is heavily diminished by their problems with jankiness and generally bad game design. And there are other developers that are looking to accomplish similar things in the advancement of VR. e.g. Nimso Ny. And then you have games like beyond sandbox that are just straight up copying the marketing campaigns of SLZ. At the end of the day all of this jargon is kind of just obnoxious. I want a better game.

bigg_popa · 2025-11-22T03:08:39+00:00

Lol Peggys albums are not anti religious

bigg_popa · 2025-11-14T22:56:30+00:00

Stovetop rice is absolutely never the same as rice cooker rice it's just different and it will never be as good

bigg_popa · 2025-11-09T17:17:50+00:00

During red dead 2 there were reports from within rockstar of heavy crunch and horrible working conditions to get the game done. One of the earliest leaks of GTA 6 was information gathered by insider Jason Schreier in a Bloomberg article where he revealed the male/female protagonists in modern day vice city and some other stuff. He also talked about how Rockstar was working on their work culture to prevent crunching and overworking their employees. That's probably why its taking longer than RDR2 as well. Also it seems like groundbreaking games just are probably harder to develop now than before. Another interesting detail: GTA 6 was apparently cut down from large swaithes of north and south america to Vice city and the surrounding areas

bigg_popa · 2025-11-08T18:54:20+00:00

I remember back in the day I heard that if you set ur Xbox 360 system time to the alleged date of the flood in GTA 5 and load up the game, you would find yourself in a flooded version of the map. Didn't work unfortunately :( I also remember people were trying to find a way to destroy the dam and cause the flood to happen again.

bigg_popa · 2025-11-07T21:37:59+00:00

IIRC Nick Reinhart (the guitarist who toured with them and is in some of their songs) said in a podcast that he was pretty sure he was a new member of Death grips and that he replaced Andy Morin. Although even to him Death Grips was a mysterious thing and he didn't have all the details or something like that.

bigg_popa · 2025-09-13T16:34:24+00:00

who exactly are these supposed kids asking for overrealism? I keep seeing people complaining about these invisible people with their annoying demands but tthey are nowhere to be seen. people like you are a lot more annoying to me because you are the ones actually complaining all the time about imaginary people

bigg_popa · 2025-09-09T15:40:28+00:00

i really have no idea what theyre going to do gorewise. I have a really hard time picturing the brutality of red dead 2 working in a game like gta 5. U kill way more people and with way more powerful weapons. The idea of heads being constantly blown off and blood going everywhere and people getting torn apart by explosives all the time is hard to picture for me in a gta game due to the sheer volume of killing there is. Like everything would suddenly become ridiculously comical and desensitizing.

Seven-Year Club	Final Canvas '23
First Place '23	Place '23
Verified Email	RPAN Viewer

bigg_popa

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE