SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
No bio...
User ID: 225
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
8hr ago
Good post. But I think you're off base when it comes to why people don't like ME3. It isn't because the ending is a dire stakes, Hail Mary play which has a huge cost for the galaxy. No, it's because the ending a) is the culmination of a plot that existed only in ME3 and is retarded anyway, b) it gives you a decision that has nothing at all to do with what came before, and c) it makes no sense with the previous rules of the setting anyway.
First, the Crucible. This partly comes down to that you said about how the writers didn't have a plan for the trilogy (more accurately: they had a tentative plan, but the writer in charge left/got kicked off the project and his ideas got rejected so they threw out the plot threads they had built). But they don't get a pass for that. So the Crucible never gets mentioned until ME3, and players quite reasonably go "wait what" when the plan to stop the Reapers is something they've never heard of before. But even if the writers had brought it up sooner... it's retarded. There is no way in hell that you could have a tech project where every Reaper cycle progresses it a little bit further. The researchers of all these different species wouldn't even be able to understand what came before (remember: Shepard is literally the only one in the galaxy who can speak Prothean, no way a research team is going to be able to decipher Prothean blueprints), not to mention the fact that it's going to be nigh impossible to do tech development while in the midst of a galactic genocide, not to mention that it's going to be nigh impossible to keep it secret every single cycle so that the Reapers never discover it. So even if they had started to build up the Crucible earlier, it's a bad idea.
Then we have the continuity with what came before. Your previous choices don't matter to the Star Child. It's not the natural consequence of the rest of the game's narrative. It's this completely separate thing tacked onto the end which has no relation at all to your adventures with your space homies. People want the ending to come from somewhere, especially in a series which prides itself on being responsive to player choice, and this didn't.
But even if the ending had related to what came before, it would still suck because it disregards the rules of the setting. First of all, the supposed reason that the Reapers kill everyone is... because otherwise organic and inorganic life will kill each other and the Reapers would rather cull the universe every so often than have a dead universe. But that makes no sense. The game shows you, time and again, that organics and inorganics can learn to get along. It's not easy (as with any people who have tension), but it is possible. Legion and Tali learn to get along and respect each other. Joker is banging your ship. It's clearly possible for the two sides to get along, but the game contradicts itself and says "no it's not"without any evidence to support that. Then you have the mass relays blowing up. In the Arrival DLC for ME2, we are told that such an explosion is so violent that it would kill everyone in the system. And yet, at the end your people land on a planet which is pretty close to a mass relay, but they... somehow survive the cataclysmic explosion. The ending is simply not playing by the rules of the setting on multiple levels.
One very common criticism leveled at ME fans at the time ME3 came out was "you just want a happy ending". But that isn't what people really wanted. They wanted an ending that made some semblance of narrative sense, and which cohered with the things that came up to that point in the series. The ME3 ending did neither of those things, which was the real problem.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
18hr ago
A lesbian friend of mine once said the term woman was often meant derogatorily. As in "That woman said..."
I think there's something to this, though I would say that "often" is overstating it. People will sometimes use "woman" as a form of address or even an interjection of frustration ("women!"), which does carry a hint of derogation. Of course, the word "man" sometimes gets used by women in the same way, so it's not a one way phenomenon.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
2d ago
Is the taste of the food the only thing normal people care about at a restaurant?
Not the only thing. But it is 90% of what people care about.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
2d ago
Trust is a binary. While you may not extend trust to a person in all areas, for any given area, you either trust someone or you do not. There's no middle ground.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
2d ago
Trust but verify
That isn't trust. Trust, by definition, means that you believe someone without verifying. "Trust, but verify" is an incoherent expression that would be more accurately stated as "I don't trust you so I verify the claims you make".
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
2d ago
No. A healthy relationship works on "trust". That's it. Not "trust, but verify" (which is in fact a lack of trust), not "trust, but don't you dare verify". Simply trust.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
2d ago
Given the responses from the Male Motte, the most I can say is that male and female intuitions on this topic are just diametrically opposed.
I think it's more that people who were in an unhealthy relationship have a warped sense of what is acceptable. Like you, I would be very upset if my wife demanded a proof of fidelity out of nowhere (say if she wanted to randomly inspect my phone to make sure I didn't have any untoward text messages on it). That isn't something which should happen in a healthy marriage, and if it comes up at all, the marriage has problems.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
2d ago
That is not remotely emotional blackmail. It's perfectly normal to be upset when your spouse doesn't trust you and demands to check up on your behavior just in case you're up to something.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
2d ago
See also: "goblins in Harry Potter are anti-Semitic, because the grotesque, hooked-nose race who runs the bank is clearly meant to portray Jews". It's remarkable that people are willing to make that claim with a straight face and apparently without awareness of how it reflects on them.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
2d ago
Yeah I agree. I don't think she does have bedroom eyes, just was clarifying what the term means.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
2d ago
A look in the eyes which indicates a desire for sex, like you might see in the bedroom with your partner.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
3d ago
Yeah the character in question looks nothing like an adult.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
3d ago
Perhaps. But they were in business for years and years with the lunch special, so I have a hard time envisioning that it was that which did them in.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
3d ago
I mean, there aren't that many threads which get posted. I think it's ok to have more than one weekly thread on a given day.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
3d ago
This post is one giant strawman. Nobody said that it's immoral to have sex for pleasure, people said that sex is "the pregnant-making thing". Which it is.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
4d ago
At any rate, I love biryani lol. Without peas. We used to have a great biryani place here in town - if you went for lunch you could get biryani, the curry of the day, some boneless chicken appetizer, naan, and gulab jamun, all for only $12 or so. Truly the restaurant of the gods. Unfortunately they went out of business, and I've yet to find anything on their level since. Probably good for my body, but less good for my soul.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
4d ago
Biryani shouldn't really be like fried rice. The texture is different (biryani rice is less likely to stick together than fried rice), and of course the flavors are very different. What they have around me (I'm in Denver) is mostly Hyderabad style biryani, which is spicy and has a delicious fragrance that fried rice never really would have. My general advice on where to find good biryani is to see if there's anywhere that tends to have lots of Indian immigrants eating there. It might not be the best on the planet, but immigrants tend to eat at restaurants that are doing the cuisine correctly in my experience.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
4d ago
That looks like some pretty legit biryani. Could I trouble you to write up a recipe?
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
4d ago
Man... who the fuck serves biryani with peas? I'm not even Indian and I know that's a food crime. It reminds me of the SNL black jeopardy skit where they talk about a white woman making potato salad, and say "she probably put something unnecessary in, like raisins". You have my sympathies.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
4d ago
It doesn't require a shred of Christian belief to recognize that sex is the pregnant making thing. That is basic biological fact. We enjoy sex because it was advantageous (from an evolutionary POV) for us to do so, but that is not the primary purpose. The primary purpose is to reproduce.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
4d ago
Also, complaining that someone's post was recognized as a QC when you don't think it deserved to be is churlish. Disagree privately and move on. I certainly don't think every QC is quality, but you don't see me complaining about them.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
5d ago
I do think that the lack of the Scouring of the Shire is a major weakness in the Peter Jackson adaptations. Yeah it takes time, but it's an essential part of the story. Without that, we never get to see the heroes come home, changed by their adventures in the wider world, finding that their home is a bit smaller than they remembered it being. I definitely think that it should've been in the extended edition of ROTK even if it got cut from the theatrical version.
The biggest weakness, though, was his willingness to flat out ignore Tolkien's story themes in an attempt to drum up cheap drama (as you mentioned). I remember once watching the commentary on The Two Towers, and someone (I think Fran Walsh) said that they had the whole Faramir detour because Tolkien's account of the character undercut the story they were trying to emphasize of how potent the Ring is, and how much of a threat it is. Which, to me, sounds like they missed Tolkien's point entirely. Yes, the Ring is powerful, and yes, it's a threat. But it can be resisted, and there are virtues in the world which are stronger than the temptation that the Ring offers. This is seen most clearly with the Frodo/Sam changes in ROTK: in the book, the Ring tempts Frodo but the deep friendship he and Sam share is enough to overpower the Ring's influence. But in the movie, Jackson had to have a dramatic moment, so he guts one of the major themes of the book in order to gin up conflict. It really rubs me the wrong way.
I have long been of the opinion that, whatever their virtues as movies (and to be fair, I think they are excellent in their own right as movies), the Peter Jackson LOTR movies are pretty flawed adaptations of the source material. It's a real shame, because we are unlikely to ever see better than that, as people consider them definitive. C'est la vie.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
5d ago
I was trying to make a joke, since you said you defer to the RCTs as correct over your own experience. But whatevs, joke didn't land I guess.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
5d ago
I don't think it did anything for me, but defer to RCTs over the anecdotes of a very lazy man
To be fair, it could both do nothing for you and also be very effective for the average person. Now you can claim hipster points for not being like the great unwashed masses.
Yeah, it seems like some game devs like to treat the player as a sucker for... playing the game that they bought. When the player is railroaded (as he basically always in video games, with varying degrees of success in hiding the rails), and you shove the player's face in "haha look how awful it is when you did the things we forced you to", the player is going to resent that.
More options
Context Copy link