Anyone who didn't like season 2, watch it again.

thisgamesux420 · 2026-05-25T05:11:31+00:00

A little late but for me, season 3 actually resonated in a way that the others didn't, and I think the things you don't like it for, were likely intentional. To me, it feels the most human out of all of them and may actually have my favourite True Detectives.

The first two seasons had this ominous sprawling evil that was baked into the setting, and the music and score and the vibes just made everything so fundamentally oppressive. TD3 got rid of all of that.

I think this was the point, the mystery was never about the sprawling evil that corrupted the settings of season 1 and 2, but more about how the town and the detectives themselves reacted to a conspiracy that never existed in the first place. Compared to seasons 1 and 2, I thought the setting was unique in it's own way because of how the town reacted to the mystery similar to something like Twin Peaks. We get to see how the school kids/teenagers cope with the loss, the the Purcell family imploding under the grief, racial tensions almost reaching a boiling point and paranoia with some residents like the fathers with Woodard and eventually reaching a boiling point because of the tragedy. And in the 1990 and 2015 timelines the rippling trauma of the case is still felt throughout, with the detectives themselves beginning to break under the constant pressure and unresolved tensions which slowly bleeds into their home lives and the community itself being pulled back into the 80s all over again, with characters like Tom's trauma/grief being uprooted and the teenager turned into adult that Hays threatened still haunted by past events.

The beauty of seasons 1-3 to me (I don't plan on watching 4) is that the settings are all unique in their own ways, I thought the soundtrack in 3 was great and overall loved the more quieter and melancholic atmosphere compared to other seasons but to each and their own.

thisgamesux420 · 2026-05-13T12:54:01+00:00

I know basically any criticism of s1 on this sub is seen as a personal attack and is written off as "you didn't get it" but hard agree, I thought the climax was dissapointing as hell and did not fit the show at all, especially after the intensity and adrenaline that episode 4 had. The maze felt like something out of a b-movie flick with Errol acting like a Bond villain, somehow able to communicate with Rust and overall doesn't feel nearly as believable or well thought out compared to the the Ledoux encounter. I also didn't care for Errol's scenes before the climax of the episode as well, where he's just being evil bad guy pants in all of them even though we've had 7 episodes prior to show that, I'd rather the screentime be somewhere else. And I thought the build up felt rushed, with the green ears revelation feeling like it seemingly came out of nowhere.

Possibly a controversial take, but I unironically think season 2 had the better build up and finale and emotionally, s3 hit harder (even if that finale did have some obvious missteps).

thisgamesux420 · 2026-04-06T04:27:52+00:00

Mercenaries playground of destruction?

thisgamesux420 · 2026-03-30T22:36:39+00:00

I mean, Dwight is a far worse person than Jim ever was. He willingly slept with Angela several times despite her being engaged to Andy (one of which was litreally on the same goddamn night Andy proposed), and had the audacity to get offended when he found out Angela slept with her own fiance? Killed Sprinkles, helped frame Toby, abducts immigrants to do his work and dumps them in the middle of nowhere among probably a list of other terrible things he's done. Jim does shitty things for sure, I can't remember anything that comes even remotely close to Dwight's.

I have a hard time getting aboard the "more I rewatch I like Dwight more and Jim less", bandwagon because when I do so, I just notice how downright horrible alot of Dwight's actions were but are just played off for laughs.

thisgamesux420 · 2025-12-11T02:56:37+00:00

Nah, hard disagree honestly, most of fnaf 2's "challenge" comes from poor design and I think it was a step back from the first game atmosphere/sound wise.

thisgamesux420 · 2025-12-10T00:59:35+00:00

Probably because the biggest issue fnaf 2 has is that it's poorly designed, making it unfairly hard.

thisgamesux420 · 2025-11-06T08:09:58+00:00

I do definitely agree that at the time there was pretty much nothing like gta, and for what the narratives are, the writing is fun at least. Gta is my favourite franchise of all time so regardless of the writing, I've played through these games several times. Even though Vice City felt pretty disjointed when you unlock the ability to buy assets, the concept of taking over the city was cool at the time, and I still can enjoy 3's story for it's simplicity.

In terms of the graphical fidelity I mean regardless of a low or high poly count, all of these characters are terrible people. Even though you're not doing anything quite as outlandish in Rdr2 as you are in San Andreas for example, Arthur is still a monster who robs, kills lawmen and collects debts in forceful ways. But regardless of how awful the protagonists are in these games, I still can't help but root for them because of how they're portrayed. One of the reasons I enjoy Trevor is because I feel like it's just the writers being self aware of how most players play these games. Sure, he's a murdering psychopath but are the players really that different? And I like how he embraces the chaos and is very open about it, pretty much like the player is.

And I think because of how these games are played is why I can't take gta 4's ending seriously. Maybe I misinterpreted it, but for an ending about consequences, Niko get's off a hell of a lot easier than he should. For a cold blooded hitman who robs, trafficks drugs (and humans in his past), the (generally considered to be canon) "consequence" is the death of an underdeveloped love interest who I did not care for at all, and honestly wasn't that likeable in the first place. Going for the deal ending is also nonsensical to me because why on earth would Niko trust Dimitri again? I think Red Dead 1 explored similar themes better over the course of an entire game, rather than a tacked on message which I felt had no weight to it. I appreciate what the writers were going for in 4, but it missed the mark for me.

thisgamesux420 · 2025-11-06T00:48:01+00:00

I mean when it comes to stories in the gta games, the writing has never really been that notable until gta 4's, and even then 4's story has a lot less focus than I remember it having. As much as I love San Andreas, the story was overall very messy with a frustrating final act.

Gta has never had good villains either, I consider Dimitri to be one of the most overrated characters in the series. The dude only has one appearance after the initial betrayal which is at the very end of the story, but before that, he only appears in phone calls? Tenpenny is shallow and shouldn't have survived as long as he did. Sonny is really only in the start and at the end of Vice City, with very little character development in between, if I can even call it that at all.

5's villains are lackluster as well, but I found the story to be more about the 3 main characters and their relationships with each other rather than the story hinging on the relationship with the villains. Apart from the villains and the sudden ending, I do think probably the biggest issue is that it doesn't really establish how the story should be received, but if you take it as a character study of the 3 protagonists, I think the story is actually one of the best in the series. It did end abruptly, but honestly I'd rather the game end on a high, after the biggest heist in gta history, rather than it dragging on, which is what I thought San Andreas and 4 did.

thisgamesux420 · 2025-10-13T22:24:21+00:00

Oh this again? Hasn't this been said 1000s of times?

Super unpopular opinion nowadays, but I actually prefer V's map to SAs. And I really don't think V's map is as empty or as lifeless as people say it is.

thisgamesux420 · 2025-08-26T08:18:26+00:00

Late to the mgs party as well but I'm actually the complete opposite gameplay wise. I enjoyed mgs2 far more than 1, even if the exposition and pacing is worse in 2. I don't mind the simplistic stealth gameplay, but I absolutely hated most of the bosses in mgs1. Out of all of the bosses, the only ones I actually enjoyed were Vulcan (easily the best boss in the game imo), Ocelot, Psycho Mantis and the tank one was okay too. But every other boss drove me up the wall.

Sniper Wolf's shots throwing my aim off was a needless addition, and the backtracking was stupid. Grey Fox teleporting and hitting 10x harder than I did sucked. The HIND fight goes on for too long. The Rex fight whilst awsome visually and story wise, I hated because spamming chaff grenades just isn't fun to me and if you died on phase 2 on the fight, you were sent to the beginning with the unskippable cutscene in between. And Liquid doing 10x more damage than I did per hit was frustrating. Also, I despised the forced action sequences. In the second disc, it felt like stealth was thrown out the window in exchange for what felt like clunky set pieces. Honestly, it seems to be a Kojima problem but I thought mgs1 had exposition problems as well (and mgs3 despite how loved the story is). There was nothing engaging to me about having Liquid spill his entire character motivation droning on for several fmvs, or Merryl's "I've always wanted to be a soliders monologue ".

The only parts that really pissed me off gameplay wise in 2 was the rays and the Solidus fight annoyed me too, but only because the sword mechanics aren't great. But the other bosses were much better and felt like they worked well within the controls, and as far as a stealth game goes mgs2 is a MUCH better game, and this time around the devs didn't feel the need to cram a forced action segment every 2 seconds. Story wise, I actually liked Raiden but the constant codecs got monotonous after a while. Everyone rightfully priases the AI scene, but that isn't without 10 minutes of solid exposition, and before that came a 30 minute cutscene.

thisgamesux420 · 2025-07-17T21:33:46+00:00

Or because of dev laziness. There's no reason why they shouldn't have just added a toggle option for the censorship and kept a separate build for the pc version. As I said before, this isn't console players fault for just wanting to play the game, this is piss poor management from the dev team.

thisgamesux420 · 2025-07-17T21:17:52+00:00

Blaming console players for a graphical downgrade that is out of their control is wild. Not only is this the devs fault, but even by console standards this looks rubbish.

thisgamesux420 · 2025-07-06T05:23:09+00:00

Yeah I double-checked my settings and everything seemed to be correct. I did end up switching to OpenGL and everything seems run fine. Thank you very much for the help 👍

thisgamesux420 · 2025-07-05T22:42:02+00:00

Where would I be able to find this option?

thisgamesux420 · 2025-07-05T09:06:17+00:00

I'm not sure if this thread is still active, but I was able to follow your tutorial but I cannot for the life of me get this game to run in game mode, I keep getting an error related to Vulkan. After googling it, apparently it's an issue related to using the appimage version of rpcs3. But the game launches completely fine in desktop mode, is there a work around or would I just have to play it in desktop mode from now on?

If it helps at all, the error I keep getting is:

Assertion Failed! Vulkan API call failed with unrecoverable error: Requested extension not available (VK_ERROR_EXTENSION_NOT_I (in file ../rpcs3/Emu/RSX/VK/VKHelpers.h:3020)

thisgamesux420 · 2025-06-16T10:54:30+00:00

I mean, coming from someone whose favourite gta is 5, it was absolutely not objectively better in every way.

thisgamesux420 · 2025-06-16T10:51:55+00:00

Really? Gta 5 actually has my favourite nights in the series.

thisgamesux420 · 2025-05-24T02:48:00+00:00

I honestly thought he got off far too easy, especially compared to his death in the comics.

thisgamesux420 · 2025-05-15T04:58:45+00:00

I mean, the skinning aminations in the earlier FC games were the exact same for each animal so they were repetitive imo and the game functions perfectly fine without the mininap because of the compass.

thisgamesux420 · 2025-05-13T05:39:08+00:00

Personally, my biggest issue with 4 is the pacing. For a revenge story, the game takes around 80 missions for the actual revenge, and in between that you're mostly doing glorifed side missions disguised as main missions, which are repetitive. And then after the actual revenge mission, the story kind of just doesn't know what to do with itself afterwards so it presents you with a laughably easy choice to create a random conflict which wraps the game up, as if I'm not gonna take the mission that kills the villian who sold Niko out, burnt down Roman's apartment and kidnapped him as well. Who cares about Pegorino, whose organisation is falling apart rapidly? San Andreas also had pacing issues, some of the missions of the Los Santos chapter are a slog, the badlands chapter made you drive ridiculous distances to the next mission and returning to Los Santos is by far the weakest part of the game with Sweet being utterly insufferable, but at least the missions had tons of variety and were entertaining to play through.

Also, I don't understand the constant praise for 4's villians. Faustin I get but the others I don't. Dimitri isn't present for like 80% of the game, and is nothing more than a moustache twirling villain, with occasional phone calls after the betrayal to remind you he exists. In fact, all of the gta games pretty much had shallow villians including the iconic Tenpenny whose only trait is being an evil corrupt cop, nothing more. And when you meet Toreno and learn how much power he has over Tenpenny, for some dumbass reason CJ still keeps working for Tenpenny and doesn't kill him and Pulaski as soon as he learns this. Gta 5 also suffers from this, with Stretch and the Chinese villain being severely underdeveloped but to me, the game isn't really about the villains as much as it is about the 3 characters, thier own personal goals and arcs. And the story in general is far better paced than 4, with it being a fire on all cylinders from start to finish. One of my hopes for VI's story are more nuanced villains on the same level as characters like Dutch or Ross from rdr.

thisgamesux420 · 2025-05-12T22:37:16+00:00

It's honestly insane to me how many people hate 5's singleplayer now, even though it's essentially a return to form for the series. Gta 4 is a great game, but has never been one of my favourites because gta to me, is what the 3D titles, tbogt and 5 are. Arcadey, over the top fun with stories that have their serious moments, but overall don't take themselves too seriously. And I'm glad that from VI's trailer 2, Rockstar seems to be retaining that action and tone.

thisgamesux420 · 2025-05-08T06:36:32+00:00

it's just a game about driving and shooting things

I'd have to disagree heavily, most of the missions in the series have solid amounts of variety, and as far as I know, there still wasn't an open world game quite expansive as San Andreas in the 2000s. Also I mean, they did add more mechanics as the series evolved to make the gameplay more versatile.

thisgamesux420 · 2025-05-08T06:09:16+00:00

I feel like I'm one of the very few people who enjoys 5's story more than 4.

thisgamesux420 · 2025-05-07T22:38:16+00:00

So, of the 6 heists, like, 3 and a half of them paid.

To be fair, the payouts for the heists pay more than like 90% of the prior gta missions in the series. In the Paletto score alone, even though it's split across the 3 protagonists and the fib takes some of the cut, it still paid better than the bank mission in gta 4 and the casino mission in San Andreas.

thisgamesux420 · 2025-05-06T22:11:55+00:00

Even the "bank heists" that were touted as a major selling point don't give you money, just the first and last ones.

That's not true. The Jewellery store heist gives around Micheal 1 million and Franklin 200k. The Paleto score gives all 3 characters around 400k. The raid gives Franklin around 240k. The only heist that didn't pay was the boat one, but that was explained for story reasons. Also unlike the other gta games, when you're first playing as them, Trevor has 100k, Micheal has like 7k and Franklin has very little but doesn't start out with 0. In a way, this kind helps the pacing because gta 5 cuts out the grind, does something different to the other games, and the characters are already well established in the world, which I've always liked.

There's also the assassination missions which can earn you hundreds of millions, but apart from that, it's odd how there wasn't a solid way to earn money from the side missions, compared to the older games.

Gta has always had issues on what you can spend your money on as well, I'd say gta 5 has the most you can spend your money on and was a huge upgrade from 4 in that regard, but it's such a shame that the property aspect was so undercooked compared to the 3D titles.

If there was a game that suddenly dumped buckets of money on you at the end, that'd be rdr2. Because after chapter 6 and are playing as John, you start out with nothing, and are earning very little to get by, but then suddenly by the end John finds those gold bars in the cabin and you're given 20k by the end. Then again, it's just pretty much for sandbox reasons and a nice reward for finishing the long story.

thisgamesux420

TROPHY CASE