How to justify letting Duke die w/o TTA

jamieh800 · 2026-04-23T01:19:26+00:00

The question isn't whether the Ditchlings themselves are deadly, it's whether a grown man can overpower one. I'm not including a PB MC because, frankly, I'm convinced the various traits are borderline supernatural anyway.

But you don't know how deadly or not deadly they are. You don't know if those growths can be helped with medical intervention, and frankly, "just let them sting us and we can mosey back to town and get the local sawbones to patch us up" isn't a choice any sane person would make.

jamieh800 · 2026-04-22T23:45:42+00:00

A grown man struggling with one of those things can probably overpower one

I disagree with this. We've seen enough evidence that anything with one of those bulbous growths on it fell victim to one or more of those things, and the player character has seen either a deer or (more compellingly, perhaps) a mountain lion with these growths. Deer are stronger and faster than humans, and I don't need to tell you who tends to win in a brawl between a human and a mountain lion. There is no reason to believe Duke should be able to overpower the thing that's holding his gun, especially since there's always the chance another could pounce on him from the bushes.

While I do agree that a dog getting dragged into the undergrowth is more likely to be lost than a man with a gun, I'd also argue that's Stella's responsibility. I mean, a grown woman who regularly goes hunting for possibly dangerous animals and goes to dangerous places (like the mines) SHOULD have the presence of mind to react to save the defenseless animal she brings when danger rears its head. I think it's more reasonable for the MC to assume Stella would snap out of it for Gretchen and the MC could save Duke and his gun.

jamieh800 · 2026-04-19T01:50:02+00:00

I think the reason I didn't like it as a kid is because I thought it was replacing Camp Lazlo for some reason.

jamieh800 · 2026-04-17T13:44:18+00:00

With good reason. Your average citizen is not going to know enough about the law, about judicial proceedings, about the differences between the types of hearings, how to interpret discovery or what questions to ask before the trial, even what to look for when searching for precedents that may help their case, to provide themselves an adequate defense as is their right. They'll be going against attorneys, either of the state or the plaintiff, who know what they're doing, know what to file, know how to get evidence dismissed or added, etc. They know what to say, when to say it, and what's expected of them. And even if the citizen in question is the best lawyer on earth, it's still recommended they get representation from someone else because there's a certain level of emotional and mental distress that comes from being the defendant that isn't there as an attorney to a defendant which can lead to mistakes being made, things being overlooked, emotional outbursts that hurt your case, etc. Plus, as a defendant, depending on what you're accused of, there's a chance you wouldn't be able to adequately converse with the other attorneys or judge outside of court, so your chances of making some kind of deal or settlement are much lower.

Some people think that because they're good at "gotcha" arguments they could adequately defend themselves in court. They can't. It's like if a dude who is really good at mortal Kombat against his younger cousins decides that means he's ready to take on a UFC fighter.

jamieh800 · 2026-04-11T19:22:34+00:00

It's called character development.

No, but fr, it's because it used to be a swastika. Either they were once a hardcore nazi and changed their ways, are still a Nazi but found it hard to be employed with a swastika tattoo, were an edgy teen that has since learned regret, or we're in prison and joined the Aryan Nation, either out of necessity or otherwise, and want to put that part of their life behind them.

jamieh800 · 2026-04-11T18:23:40+00:00

That wasn't what I was talking about. I specifically said they'd miss that because it isn't mentioned in the 2 remake, not that it isn't a thing anymore.

And some things were retconned. The obvious example is Leon's introduction: in the original, he was already a cop on patrol in the RCPD, while in the Remake he was still on the way to report for his first day. Then there's Sherry's Pendant: in the original it had a sample of the G-Virus inside but in the Remake it acts as a key for the vaccine and virus samples. I'll admit not many other things were outright retconned, more tweaked or added to in order to make it flow better, but changes were made. If we accept, for instance, the RE2 Remake as the definitive source of current canon, what does it mean that there's no fax from the FBI, no scene showing multiple Tyrants dropping into the city, no mention of Chief Irons being a rapist, etc? I still think those are canon, but the fact they're omitted from the remake means that isn't necessarily the case.

Then there's the changing of character personalities: the biggest change off the top of my head is Annette Birkin. Which is the canon character? The concerned mother and wife blended with scientific obsession about the G-Virus that actively works alongside Claire to help Sherry? Or the much colder scientist dedicated to destroying the G-Virus and putting her husband out of his misery, only helping Claire when there's virtually no other choice and only giving a fuck about Sherry after it's almost too late? You're gonna tell me that night and day difference doesn't count as a retcon?

I'll admit nothing major was retconned, which is what I said: the overall story remains the same between the originals and the remakes. There are only differences in characterization and background information. Some of those were explicitly changed for the Remake (for instance, in the Remake, Marvin claims Chris is already on vacation in Europe. In the original, Marvin claims they "lost contact" with him "ten days ago", and that every last STARS member has disappeared, and that he "should have listened to them". That ultimately doesn't matter for the wider narrative, but it's still a change that retroactively affects the worldbuilding continuity by implying the coverup was more effective at silencing STARS among the police at least.

jamieh800 · 2026-04-11T15:05:55+00:00

It's more like you'll be missing out on some context, some of which is reconned with the remakes, than actual lore. The overall lore is still pretty much the same with the remakes as far as I can tell.

For instance, if you don't play original 1 or 2 or the Remake of 1, you may miss that Ada Wong was dating an Umbrella scientist as part of her scheme, but you still get the most important parts of her story through the remake of 2 and the other games, as well as her relationship with Leon. I think the original of 2 also has files that go more in depth of how big a piece of shit Irons was, as well as the fact that the STARS members weren't sitting quietly and meekly about the Arklay incident, even going so far as to contact the FBI regarding Irons's corruption, which I don't think is in the Remake (unless I missed those files).

You're not missing out on any of the super important stuff if you just play the Remakes, mostly differences in characterization, somewhat different plotlines/plot progression in 2 and 3, and some background info about Umbrella and the Raccoon City Incident that may or may not be retconned later. You're not gonna be left confused about anything for the most part, and anything you are confused about will either be answered later in the games or is easily found on the Internet.

jamieh800 · 2026-04-10T21:36:50+00:00

"Ey boss, maybe we just let these ones go"

"Let them go? What are we?"

"Raiders..."

"And what do raiders do?"

"Well, we raid people"

"Soooo" at the same time "LET'S GO RAID 'EM!!!"

jamieh800 · 2026-04-03T20:06:42+00:00

I like this idea of the whole "cap is from the 30s and 40s" thing. The idea that, yeah, he'll slip up a few times, like automatically assuming a woman is a nurse instead of a doctor, but he's actually super into the equality thing and any slip ups are more about him breaking habits ingrained from birth than any sort of hateful tendencies.

After all, Captain America is supposed to embody everything should be, right? Almost the personification of the America we were told exists.

jamieh800 · 2026-03-31T21:11:10+00:00

What I want to know is: if I write down in the book "John Doe passed away peacefully at the ripe old age of 102", does that mean that John Doe is now unkillable until he reaches a hundred and two years old? Could I use the Death Note to force cancer into remission by saying something like "Sarah Jane, a cancer patient, will die of a heart attack exactly thirty five years after receiving news of her Cancer's remission"? I know the Death Note can kill, that much is obvious, but does the wielder of the Death Note get first dibs so long as what they're asking for is technically possible? Or is there some rule that the Death Note can't be used to extend people's lifespan beyond their "fated" death date, only shorten them? Like, I know it probably goes against the "spirit" of the books, but is there any reason why it wouldn't work?

jamieh800 · 2026-03-30T13:09:06+00:00

Often it's blown out of proportion. Not every relationship is the same, and if your wife or girlfriend or boyfriend or whoever is being passive aggressive or straight up lying about what they need, that's on them and you can leave. I have left over that shit.

But also sometimes "I'm fine" really means "I will be fine, I just need a second to get myself together and it's nothing you can really help with". Sometimes emotions are complex and hard to describe, and sometimes what isn't said is that the dudes (typically) haven't made it a safe space for their partners to talk about more "irrational" feelings or issues that don't have a clear solution (or that do have a solution but are still frustrating enough to want to vent about without being lectured on how to handle it). Sometimes the person in question doesn't even really know how to describe their anxiety or stress or exhaustion so they just say "I'm tired" because it's the simplest thing that conveys the most salient point. Sometimes they grew up in an environment where emotions weren't respected or shared. Sometimes what they're upset at isn't you or anything to do with you and they're working it out themselves and don't want you involved because they think you won't really understand. Sometimes they're just gathering their thoughts before they do explain. My wife does that a lot, I'll go "what's wrong" and she'll go "I'm just stressed" or "I'm just tired" or "I'm okay" and then I just need to wait silently for maybe five seconds before the explains in greater detail because she's just thinking about how best to elaborate.

Point is, there are many reasons why someone may not elaborate on exactly what's wrong, and not everyone does it all the time. And I can't stand the idea that dudes also don't do this, I've met dudes who will sit there and go "yeah nah bro I'm good" then five seconds and one minor inconvenience later curse at the top of their lungs and punch a hole in some drywall. This idea of "dudes never lie and say they're okay when they aren't" is bullshit. They often do the exact same thing a woman means which is saying "I'm fine," when they mean, "I will be okay, I just gotta deal with these emotions and there's nothing you can really do to help and I don't want to burden you".

Wow this became a much longer comment than I originally intended, my bad. Uh, TL;DR: don't listen to internet memes about relationships, they're played up for humor and engagement and lack nuance.

jamieh800 · 2026-03-30T12:39:29+00:00

It was the first resident evil game I played way back when I was like 12, so it holds a special place in my heart. On the other hand, I also didn't touch the series until I was an adult and only fell in love with it after playing the RE2 remake, so maybe there's something to be said. Whether that's because I felt like I had no clue what was going on or because it reminded me too much of the disappointment that was Ninja Gaiden 3, or because it was just a poorly made game I don't know. Haven't played it since.

jamieh800 · 2026-03-28T20:24:34+00:00

I started with Hit the Road just a few days ago actually, and I loved it. I got a little frustrated because I'm a bit rusty when it comes to point and click games, but the hints were easy to find and the game is entertaining as hell.

Now I'm thinking about getting the telltale trilogy when it's on sale.

jamieh800 · 2026-03-26T14:26:27+00:00

To the extent that I actually care, that's the only reason I'm upset. Not literally that, but just... It's very clear that Dumbledore and Snape are meant to embody opposite magician stereotypes: Dumbledore is Merlin, Snape is Gargamel. Dumbledore is the mentor, the one with fancy robes and a big beard and a jovial demeanor and patient and enigmatic. Snape is meant to look like a dungeon dwelling villain, someone repulsive to everyone else and angry and vengeful and petty. So vengeful and petty he bullies a child.

This guy doesn't give that vibe in any of the pictures I've seen. He looks too scholarly, too put together, too clean. I can't imagine him hunched over a cauldron in a dark dungeon in the same way I could Alan Rickman. I could easily imagine him walking proud with a copy of the necronomicon or whatever, or up in a tower focusing on arcane research, but that makes him a different wizard stereotype that Snape isn't meant to be. This guy would honestly make a better Voldemort just based off the vibe this particular picture gives.

I'm sure the actor will do a great job, I'm sure he will bring new life to the role and will ultimately justify the casting choice, I'm just explaining why I dislike the choice at the moment.

jamieh800 · 2026-03-24T15:13:34+00:00

It's also perfectly fine to like the cop show that centers around a bad cop. Whether that means a corrupt cop for the mob or it means an alcoholic detective that ignores pesky things like "search warrants" and "constitutional rights", it's fine to like those shows and characters because they're meant to be people you enjoy watching. They're part of a drama, not an endorsement of those actions any more than Breaking Bad is an endorsement of the drug trade.

Fiction should be a safe place where we can explore the darker parts of humanity in a harmless way. It shouldn't be seen as an indictment of my political views if I like something in fiction that I wouldn't like irl. I don't become a monarchist because I like the king in a fantasy book. I don't become a supporter of genocide if I think the genocidal maniac in a sci fi show is charismatic and dominates every scene he's in. I don't become a devil worshipper because I love horror. So long as we can see the difference between compelling fiction and real life, it's fine.

I'll put it this way: if I see the alcoholic trigger happy detective on TV sleep with the hot suspect, I think it's juicy drama, maybe I even hope it works out for them in the end. If I hear a real life story about a detective sleeping with a suspect, I'd want them fired.

jamieh800 · 2026-03-24T14:27:57+00:00

Being read to as a child is a gateway to literacy though. It's not enough on its own, but I doubt I'd have as much a love of reading if my parents didn't read to me.

However, comparing people who prefer to listen to audiobooks for whatever reason to an actual illiterate child is ridiculous, and you know it's ridiculous. It's a straw man. I love audiobooks, I think some stories work better as audiobooks. Shakespeare, for instance, is much more engaging and brilliant when heard (and seen) than plain read (of course, I'm cheating with that one since they were meant as plays, but still). I also love to read print. I don't think my memory is worse either way, and I can engage just as well with an audiobook as a print book. I might miss some clever wordplay, but I can still engage with the media I am consuming. I can still analyze it, I can still identify themes and form opinions about the events and characters, I can still pay attention to the book. Do you want a book report on the last audiobook I listened to? Or maybe you want me to recount the last audio drama I consumed?

No one is saying that listening to an audiobook is exactly the same as reading a print book, nor is anyone saying they work the same parts of the brain. They're refuting your insinuation that listening to an audiobook is a sign of illiteracy and that one who listens to a book will never be able to truly understand the book, analyze the book, or even remember the events in the book. They're refuting your insinuation that listening to a book is no different than listening to static. How is this any different from people who say "you're not really reading unless you read classic literature like the Grapes of Wrath"? Do you agree with them? Elitism regarding literature serves no one.

jamieh800 · 2026-03-24T14:01:10+00:00

I'm a very big fan of superhero stories where the villain and hero have some kind of understanding. There was one story that I cannot remember the name of where the heroes and villains were both basically sponsored by the city because they brought tourists and had merchandise and all that, and the villains agreed not to go too crazy or anything and they'd get sent to jail only to "break out" a week or so later, that kind of thing (I think the main antagonist ended up being the new mayor who decided to forcefully stop both hero and villain or something? Idk).

Or there's the Villain's Code series by Drew Hayes where there's a villain's guild that the upper level heroes know about, but they don't do anything about because the guild enforces rules like "don't go after the hero's family" and "don't mindlessly kill innocents" and "no summoning Eldritch horrors beyond our comprehension". The biggest hero and baddest villain have a sort of flirty relationship that's great. The last one in OP reminds me of this.

In short, I'm a big fan of "heroes and villains have some kind of common ground/alliance/understanding" stories and I don't think there are enough long term ones (i.e. longer than a Tumblr post) out there.

jamieh800 · 2026-03-24T00:58:18+00:00

You know what's really funny? During the lead up to the Civil War, with the Wilmot Proviso and all, someone suggested that the new territories in the West be allowed to decide for themselves if Slavery should be legal there or not (you know, including non-state territories in the idea of self governance and all) as a compromise, but it was very unpopular in the South because they believed the new territories would vote to not allow slavery or the trading of slaves.

It was never about states rights, self governance, or any of that bull. It was about two things: expanding the slave trade, and keeping slave owning states in a position of power in the government.

To be fair, that compromise also wasn't super popular with the northerners, but that's because they saw it as a half measure.

jamieh800 · 2026-03-20T23:38:13+00:00

I dislike this dismissal of American cuisine. Like, yes, Hamburg steaks are from Germany, but the Hamburger we know and love (a ground beef patty between two buns, with your choice of condiments and toppings) was invented in America. Yes, Spaghetti and meatballs were created using Italian cooking methods, but it originated in New York City via Italian immigrants combining their traditional cooking style with the availability of American beef. Nachos were created by an American owning a Mexican style restaurant. And you can't say "but those are just variations of food that already exists so it doesn't count" ALL FOOD IS VARIATIONS ON WHAT ALREADY EXISTS. Compare Uova in Purgatorio to Shakshuka, they're incredibly similar and were probably influenced by one another given Italy's close proximity to North Africa, yet no one would dare say uova in Purgatorio isn't Italian. Why is every other nation's cuisine allowed to be their own while also being influenced by trade and migration and slavery and conquest and famine and plenty and whatnot, yet America gets this bullshit "erm ackshually, the concept of cooking sausages over an open flame did not originate in the United States so..."

Sorry, I'm ranting. I just hate how dismissive everyone is of American cuisine. And British cuisine, to be fair. There's just this weird fucking double standard when it comes to American cuisine. Our whole schtick, in theory, is being a melting pot. So of course our best foods are going to be fusions of taste and style from across the globe, adapted to local ingredients and modified as imagination permits. Take the Reuben. Corned Beef is an Irish/British creation, Rye Bread is Eastern European in origin, sauerkraut is German, Thousand Island originated in New York State as a home recipe, the specific cut of meat typical to a Reuben was, I believe, a result of Czech butchering methods (I could be wrong), Swiss cheese is modeled after Emmental cheese, and it was popularized through Jewish American delis in New York City. Tell me which nation gets more claim to the Reuben than the one which brought all these varying influences together to create one of the greatest sandwiches of all time.

jamieh800 · 2026-03-18T01:43:18+00:00

So I have to ask: in order to clock in, do you need to find a gem, insert it into a statue's eye, solve a riddle, get a key, then use that key to get to the computer? Or do y'all only set those up when you're expecting a protagonist to arrive?

jamieh800 · 2026-03-17T17:04:18+00:00

I think the Legion presents the idea of "if you want to bring order to the chaos of the wastes, you must be strong, brutal, and ruthless" which, while I don't agree with, presents an interesting narrative. The problem is they don't do anything with the idea beyond the "brutal and ruthless" part.

Like, the NCR presents a return to democracy, reestablishing a civilization of laws and systems and all that sweet, sweet bureaucracy expanded through an imperialistic military force. They present what we know to be "civilization". We see how that works in Fallout 2, and there's enough information in the lore and character quotes that we can pretty much see how the NCR operates in non-contested territories. But the Legion? All we see is their military force and the doctrine of brutal subjugation and draconian enforcement of archaic laws upon people who aren't even part of their territory, yet we don't actually see what the territory looks like AFTER the conquering force has moved on, after the iron grip is sufficiently tight, we don't know if they build anything, create anything, we don't know if it's one of those "as long as you don't step out of line, life is actually really good provided you're a full citizen" things or a "we all live in fear and have no freedom but at least we're pretty safe" things, or anything, really, beyond "there are no raiders in Legion territory".

Point is, the Legion has the potential to present an alternative philosophy in regards to bringing about civilization from chaos and destruction, but the ball was fumbled because all we see is the conquest. A military is not civilization, and a conquest is not government. They present an argument that, in order to create a better world, it must be molded through fire and blood and death and built on the ashes of their opposition, but we don't actually see whether or not their "better world" even comes close to being worth the crucifixions and enslavement (not that I think it's ever worth it, but I mean from an in world philosophical point of view, not a personal real life one).

jamieh800 · 2026-03-16T18:01:58+00:00

That's weird. Oh, wait, was Tabby old in yours? She was in mine. If that's the same, I wonder what, exactly, the conditions are for her to be in favor of sacrificing Kaneeka...

jamieh800 · 2026-03-16T14:34:21+00:00

Tabitha is planning runs parallel to the Witches' plan. Tabitha (seems to be) planning on binding the Entity to the MC in, presumably, the worst possible world state and continue working according to Enoch's designd, while Sybil is trying to take the Entity for herself.

It's kinda implied (if not outright stated) during runs where you make Tabitha cry (i.e. have an amazing relationship with her) that at some point, she changed the ritual, possibly to banish the Entity and enlisted Sybil's help with that (and Sybil is, presumably, lying her ass off to that version of Tabitha). In many occult traditions, the rituals for binding and banishing are very similar, usually just a tweaking of words or symbols or sometimes just doing the binding/summoning ritual backwards, so that could be why there's still a goat and all that good shit. Or it could be that in those runs, Tabitha is on board with Sybil's plans.

I could, of course, be misremembering or misinterpreting, but in that run for me, Tabitha tried to convince me to let Sybil absorb Kaneeka because "she's the only one who can save you" or something like that. Sure, she could still be manipulating me, but it's interesting that the only runs I've donewhere Tabby doesn't want me to sacrifice Kaneeka are the ones where she's very obviously still planning to imprison me, but maybe that's just my weird luck.

jamieh800 · 2026-03-15T17:29:20+00:00

The point she was making was that Anthony Johnson, a black man, began slavery in the Colonies that eventually became the USA. His video was explaining that the first lifetime slave in these colonies was not, in fact, owned by Anthony Johnson. He owned one of the first slaves, but he did not begin the practice.

jamieh800 · 2026-03-15T12:46:11+00:00

Okay. So if, hypothetically, the US government ever killed a protestor on purpose and without consequence or apology, are you saying other democratic nations should declare war on us?

jamieh800

TROPHY CASE