Posts made by HeartOfDarkness

I love how Oda has these awesome female designs but somehow manages to pump out Nami face for every major character.

Would definitely love to actually see these designs being given to characters that won't fade into the background.

@desa:

Is the point that one piece was always a story they dislike and they just didnt realize it? Or that its consistent and therefore they should like it?

16 characters of neither.

Except Naruto is garbage..

Why does it have to be anything other than Luffy experiencing awakening and having a blast with it..

It reminds me of how Luffy started dancing after the "nothing happened" moment in Thriller Bark and just finding the thing amusing.

It's interesting how last two chapters brought on the interesting discussion of whether some people actually understood the type of story Oda was writing or they read the story thinking it was one way when Oda was saying it was another way. Like there are actually some people who thought that Luffy, who has always been painted by the narrative as a special person, is now suddenly believed to have been representing average joe and his journey being about a random kid? Especially when Luffy's behavior, views and characteristics were always conveyed to be one-of-a-kind which is also the reason why he got his crew and started this entire narrative in the first place?

I don't get the strong dislike or people making assumptions and then using those assumptions to create even more assumptions about where they think the story is going. Didn't people in this place, in particular, hate that very thing in the New Nakama threads? So what's the difference here?

@Blissed:

What's the Game of Thrones phrase

"A Lannister Always Pays His Debts"

Which seems to be referenced in Hiyori's last dialogue in this chapter.

@Krillin:

then actually say Joy Boy is a term for awakened Nika fruit user which makes them Sun God. All in the span of the last half year is insane.

Where was that stated?

So…..and hear me out on this, doesn't that apply to quite literally everyone else though? Or does that not really apply when you label someone else as insert whatever dumb term you guys use nowadays without any real context, understanding or even wanting to understand them? Like are we going to remove the past few pages from this thread where you AND Greg weren't just bashing some people, when you guys couldn't even properly justify having those views while Greg himself was basically operating on a very ill formed logic and basically had to spell out a scenario where he was painting a very specific narrative? Like people, in this place in particular, should be the last ones to ever bring up this type of point considering the absolute straw-manning daily shit show on this place.

If the point is that people don't know what someone else is going through behind their screens based on their own limited information as well as due to lack of any real personal face-to-face real conversations.....then....no shit? Funny how victimization card is pulled so fast here while the same logic doesn't seem to be applied anywhere else.

No one has to paint that picture of you, you do it yourself just fine on a regular basis.

Thanks.

I would rather have that then get on some high-horse and talk about stuff that I very clearly haven't even demonstrated in my own posts beyond when it's necessary.

"Don't be an asshole…...but it's ok if I'm being an asshole towards someone whose entire views I grasp within 3 sentences and have acquired everything to know about them" sort of logic.

Being consistent and demonstrating that consistency in terms of what you preach and practice isn't really that hard, you know.

Yea, I guess you are right.

I can't really say I understood the actual point of it amidst the topic that was being discussed.

Would love to hear your take on it though.

@Greg:

With this context, I hope you find it **interesting that it sounds **convenient.

Do you find _this **interesting, HoD?

Are you _interested in seeing my medical paperwork, HoD?

Since it sounds so **convenient to you, perhaps you’d be **interested in helping cover what we’ve lost on medical expenses and life plans?

Are you **interested in experiencing the medical tests and procedures I’ve been subjected to that have offered no relief or sign of answers?

Are you _interested in experiencing what it's like to deal with a stalker who lives near you?

Are you interested in opening your mind to the idea that maybe someone isn't lying and really wants to avoid a dangerous situation?********_****

I don't mind. Feel free to send them to me.

And on top of that, I do find it interesting indeed that you somehow wrote that much and touched upon so many things and yet somehow ignored the context, the reason and the actual topic? I guess I'm enlighten by having just spend close to 20 mins and reading your memoir about your struggles and I'm sorry that you have to go through that. And no, I don't know of anyone like that in my life to understand how it feels to live like that.

But, and just to play the devil's advocate, I don't particularly understand the point of it in terms of the topic that was brought up by you? Or did we somehow forget the origin and the discussion?

Not so much into emotional-blackmail. If that was the intention of it then kudos, it succeeded with flying colors.

If your goal was to aim an intentionally pugilistic, insidious, mistrusting, and hurtful narrative at me, you have succeeded.

My guy, I'm just engaging with your own points that you yourself haven't managed to even properly establish in the first place. If you got to take care of your mental-health….then do so. I don't particularly understand the relation of bringing up a topic and then pulling the mental-health card when questioned?

If anything that questions your controversial posts, that are overly complicated than they really need to be, is seen as a "hurtful" narrative then you might as well save your and other's time by not really bringing it up.

Like I'm neither a fan or hater of your stuff. You got some good stuff and I still end up reading your twitter posts now and then. If this is an attempt to paint me as some sort of a hater or as me trying to push some hateful narrative then you failed. Pretty badly, if I may add.

But yes, I apologize if anything I said that offended you. You very clearly don't seem that interested in the actual topic so I'm not gonna bother with it anymore.

@King:

You're literally asking him to post private conversations.

That's basic violation of trust lol. If those people contacted Greg privately, it's because they don't want that stuff public. He would need permission from those accounts to even consider doing that.

But he used them as an example here. Why even disclose anything involving private chats? He did so I'm just asking for more clarification. By your own logic, Greg shouldn't have stated that he had private conversations since mentioning anything breaks the basic violation of trust of that said conversation not leaving that place in any shape, form or means.

Or is that not a thing because reasons?

But ok, sure, he can't do that…..aside from disclosing that the only people who contacted him privately and who all agree with him are....females.(again there seems to be a very specific narrative here) ....But what about the other side?

The "people who disagreed with me were males" or at least the implication of that?

What's the excuse there?

At this point, I'm just expecting someone to come in and call me a "straight white-male" and straw-man the shit outta this thing lol.

Greg doesn't need to expose anything. You're doing that yourself.

But that's not what he said;

Is it wrong to say those people exist? I don't feel that it is. Is it wrong to point it out as something not to aim towards as a fan? I also don't feel that's wrong either.

I just find it curious that someone can spend paragraphs upon paragraphs of writing about a said topic instead of simply using some examples to demonstrate their point while also making them much much stronger.

But ah yes, I'm an insenstive asshole….for trying to engage with the very points that Greg brought up.

I guess, as long as you don't particularly ask anything or try to clarify it then it's ok. Otherwise, you are an asshole.

So...um feel free to respond when you have something better to say.

--- Update From New Post Merge ---

Also, I'm fairly sure that Greg is an adult and can speak for himself.

@Greg:

You'll find the attitudes sprinkled throughout the threads, RTs, comments on RTs, etc. You'll also find them in unrelated discussions.

If I did find them, I wouldn't really be asking about them.

I'm not delving back into that toxicity for my own mental health or would you deny me that?

Sounds very convenient.

I guess, you wanted to reach wider audience by exposing a certain part of the fanbase….without much of anything to show for it. But ok, I guess.

It was, simply put the ideal spot for Oda to explore new potential with her. Potential that doesn't make her physically powerful, but a threat to an unbeatable enemy.

And Oda didn't use that potential for whatever reason.

On its most vile level, it stems from this mindset, "If a woman can't beat someone because of strength, she can't win."

That comment completely disregards any of the many other capabilities and talents a woman has. It relegates a woman's potential entirely to strength alone and that is the attitude I outlined as 'the worst'.

That's where you are losing me.

I haven't seen anyone argue whatever you are even imply here based on what I've read across this website, lot of posts in your twitter, and reddit spoiler/chapter thread, and even some Youtube videos.

The worst part is the fact that you yourself are even acknowledging the points that lots of people bring up while also talking about how Oda didn't fully take advantage on trying to explore Nami's way of fighting against Ulti.

Like maybe it's just me but there is a HUGE jump in your logic that ultimately doesn't make sense given what I've seen so far.

But well, I don't suppose I'm going to get anything out of this.

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

@Cockycent:

It is what it is. Whether I called it or not, many of you are tagging yourself with the label by putting your head out the window when no one named you. Basically telling on yourself, then getting pissed about it. Not my problem.

Thanks for those middle-school lessons of psychology.

They seem….very ...ah interesting lol.

@King:

And it's not hard to see Nami's victory as mysogynistic either

And yet even Greg already said that he wasn't even referring to Oda or the series with that.

He was referring to the actual fanbase. And that's what I'm talking about too.

You really shouldn't ask people to reveal private conversations, censored or not. Massive violation of trust (that's why they're private).

I mean, when those private conversations are being used as a way to bring forth a very specific and very convenient narrative then it requires a bit more than….words.

Just try not to be an asshole and actually speak up for people that actually need it

….Do you even know what I'm asking or even referring to?

I have no reason or even gave a shit about defending the series or whatever. The series isn't even that relevant to the point as well as what I was asking for/am interested in.

The people who came at me gnashing their teeth and jumping on the train for the lulz (I actually have a screenshot of a dude who said, "I didn't read anything he wrote, I just saw everyone jumping on him lol") were mostly late-teen to 20-something men.

Interestingly enough, the people who didn't come at me in poor faith, mostly walked away understanding my point if not in agreement.

And perhaps most interestingly, 100% of the people who contacted me publicly or privately and thanked me for including it….

…are women. And of the ones who mentioned their support publicly? They were ignored by the white knights.

So…..can I see some citations for those supposed comments and things like that? Just curious since that is a very specific narrative that you are painting here...

And I don't really get how you can take "Nami can't beat Ulti in terms of pure strength" to "Nami cannot ever beat Ulti because she is a woman and therefore weak". And from the sounds of it, from Greg's own twitter post, he seems to agree that Nami can't beat Ulti in terms of pure strength, while also acknowledging that Nami has never been a physical fighter and uses tricks and his own way to win the battles. And I'm assuming that the former idea is what is bringing the "misogyny", while the latter part is what is being seen as a more accurate reading of Nami's character...even though both of them don't really contradict anything.

And yes, you can definitely criticize the way this entire fight played out at the end.

But what I'm super interested is the "misogyny" part of this entire thing. I don't even care about the actual fight nor have any real strong feelings on it one way or another but the thing that actually got me interested is that particular aspect. Would be definitely interested in reading, blacked out and user's info removed of course, those comments.

I don't really get where the "misogyny" even came in. It's referring to what, like, 0.0001 of the fanbase? I can't even recall seeing anything like that in over a decade of being in this fanbase.

And even the context in itself is wrong. Who was even trying to make the point that you are trying to make here? It just sounds like being controversial for the sake of controversial. Especially when the comments below your original twitter post already spell out the point in the most simplest terms?

You could've easily just said that people misunderstand Nami's way of fighting and that would've made the entire point and didn't need to be controversial. Melodrama seems to get worst and worst in this fandom.

Who is Manabe? Never seen that name come up in any forum I have been to.

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

@Captain:

I haven't read anything beyond the first volume of Conan (and even then, _read_​ is a stretch), but isn't it even worse than One Piece in terms of prospective length? Like, we can kinda see the path to the finish line after the current arc, but I heard Conan's made next to no progress toward it's central mysteries in a long time.

I guess it just never got big enough in the west for people to think about it like they do One Piece. There's not enough investment for the complaints to surface.

I read 40 volumes of it (because I love mystery stories and can read even the most mediocre ones) and Conan has a "plot" if you want to call it but yes, there have been very little to no progress in the main plot while the focus of the series is murder mysteries or crime mysteries and stuff like that with lots of them being "short" while there are ones that are a bit longer like maybe a volume or half a volume long.

CoC was never stated or hinted to be like something that anyone can acquire though. In story, it was considered that only one in a million would have that ability and unlike the other two, CoC cannot be trained as it grows stronger with the person. Unless I missed something.

The arc that anime covers is great.

But the next arc is not the same. The writer takes a different approach and settles down to explore the ideas that have been foreshadowed by Thors.

With that said, yes it's absolutely worth reading if you like brilliant character stuff. It's the arc that elevates the entire series and makes Thorfinn into such an interesting and awesome character.

@Lord:

there is absolutely nothing wrong with unplanned sequels, especially when they're as different as TLOU2.

Whether it's right or wrong, the sequel is still going to be made for anything remotely successful.

The problem is that TLOU1 wasn't supposed to be expanded upon and it shows more than anything in TLOU2 when the game itself drops the major plot thread of part 1.

@baby-boo:

That's not a fair criticism. Everyone makes sequels, and this is the second in the franchise,

That's not an excuse.

And TLOU1 was plainly and purely intended to be a standalone experience even with the ending that essentially just wanted to leave the audience with some ambiguity that nobody argued, debated or theorized for years to come. It was a fun little thing at the end that really didn't matter.

TLOU1 was first and foremost developed as a father-daughter story with all the cure for humanity, zombies, fireflies etc…. added in, in order for the story to have stakes and be dramatic. Go watch the director's commentary of the first game and look at exactly what the director and the writer is essentially focusing on and highlighting with their own commentary as well as the game itself. Even the ending scene with Joel killing the fireflies members wasn't supposed to be some thing that you were supposed to question when even the director himself basically agreed and was like "Joel is trying to save his daughter. He will kill any mofo that tries to hurt his daughter" or something like that.

The game itself was NEVER supposed to make you question those actions because it was super clear why he did it and the narrative never explored fireflies and their "plan" to really give it any weight. In fact, if you pay attention then Fireflies are portrayed to be really incompetent and their "cure" was never really an option.

and there is no milking here.

There is a remake for TLOU1 in development.

There is a tv-show for TLOU being made.

There will be a TLOU3.

All for a franchise that was NEVER supposed to be anything other than a simple father-daughter story with zombies.

I'm sorry but that is the pure definition of taking something that doesn't have any real potential for stories and trying to milk it as far as they can. That's why the writers had to kill Joel because ultimately if they kept with the premise of the first game then there will be no room for sequels or anything like that.

TLOU2 would've been extremely great if it had kept up with part 1 and focused on the Joel and Ellie conflict that slowly would crumble their relationship and then rebuild again. The moments with Joel and Ellie in part 2 are the ONLY moments in the game with ANY level of writing that doesn't suck ass. Those moments were literally the only moments that had any level of writing, characterization, actual emotions, impactful scenes, dialogue etc… Which is ironic since ND also tried to kill the very thing that made the first game a success in order to shove in garbage one-note characters whose only job was to be killed to prove an irrelevant point. Aside from Abby because god knows that her replacing Joel didn't just outright kill any level of potential that the series might've had in the future.

Was it clear is that Joel killed lot of people in that hospital

I mean Joel also killed lots of people outside of the hospital lol.

Godfather 2 was made (which it did not need to)

Godfather 2 is a movie that expands upon the backstory of Vito and shows his rise to power while showing the fall of Michael. It adds to the first movie.

TLOU2 retcons the first game, drops the major plot-thread of first game, replaces the cast with bunch of one-notes that you are now supposed to care about, etc…. all in favor of delivering the most cliche revenge tale while conveying the most simple point.

--- Update From New Post Merge ---

@Sakonosolo:

Quite a few of MGSV's mechanics were simplified or changed for the worse from earlier games too to be fair.

MGSV wasn't created to be like the previous games.

It was meant to innovate the game-design approach and evolve the series as far as it can go.

The result? It's currently the best third person action game with mechanical depth that still puts all the major titles to shame. And is the ultimate MGS experience.

I have very shits to give about MGS community or how MGS fans view the game because of their own nostalgia but the game is fundamentally miles above any other MGS game. It has the most gameplay options. It's the smoothest character movement with lots of mobility. It has the best min-to-min gameplay.

Anyone can play the games back to back and see for themselves. That is, if they aren't stuck in the past and simply want to replay the same thing as their favorite title.

I mean, if you like torture porn that's fine.

But torture porn is still torture porn.

And I don't know which Rambo movie you watched because none of them were as in-your-face as this game.

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

@Robby:

Why are you replying to posts from over a month ago?

To tell me that a game, that I clearly didn't like, wasn't good.

Thanks for the insight.

I said its graphics were good and that's why it got so many awards, the pure technical level of the visuals. That's it.

My bad.

The thread took me to that particular page so I assumed these were recent posts.

@Robby:

LoU2, on a purely technical level, is great.

Lol no, it's not great by any means.

Visually, the game looks great. But when you hold the controller and start interacting with it then you will see how shallow the game actually is. You can tell that ND wasted so much time on trying to be "realistic" that they ultimately failed to use that realism for anything other than it being….just there. The rope physics, for example, is cool....but it is just that; cool little side thing. Since ND controls the game so much, the rope in itself becomes a scripted thing that you just have to do in order to go along with ND's classic heavy-gunplay followed by slow and tedious puzzles.

And that type of limitation extends to many other stuff such as which object you can climb or not climb, which you can "punch" or not punch, or which thing you can "break" and not break. It's full of inconsistent logic all over the place where ND started heavily scripting and controlling shit ton of gameplay stuff that ultimately leave the game feeling empty and shallow.

Aside from that, the shooting, combat encounters as well as the level design in this game is worst than the first game by far. It's hard to explain if you haven't played the game but shooting, due to realism, can cause some really awkward moments in the gameplay. Due to the gun's slow and tedious nature, you are better off trying to use the hand-to-hand combat which is where the gameplay of TLOU2 ultimately shines.

TLOU2 had the budget, resources, and time to be something much better but it instead wasted it on trying to be pretty. It's worst then part 1 in many regards.

Try playing MGSV and TLOU2 back to back and you will see how utterly outdated TLOU2 actually is past the visuals.

--- Update From New Post Merge ---

@Lord:

what's with this trend of calling anything slightly edgier than disney "torture porn"

Did you even play the game?

Because the game is not "slightly" ediger than Disney, unless you are visiting some kinky sites and referring to those as "disney", it is MUCH MUCH more edgier and is perfectly described as "torture porn".

As far as I know, the employees of ND had to watch/research actual human decapitation in order to create the "realistic" gore it wanted to portrayed.

I sure as hell haven't heard of Disney or its employees having to do the same for their movies.

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

@starlalilymoon:

What made the story so horrible about The Last of Us 2 compared to the first one?

Because TLOU1 was very clearly meant to be a stand-alone father-daughter story that wasn't supposed to get a sequel. But due to the success of the first game, ND HAD to create a part 2 because ND aren't exactly creative and love to milk their current franchise. So naturally, when they were greenlit to create part 2, ND had to quickly think about what to do for part 2 since part 1 basically ended simple-story that they wanted to tell and that's where they decided that going in the direction that every generic zombie story goes into would be a very interesting idea while also covering the most basic and generic idea of a storyline which is "revenge".

And that's where the failure of part 2 comes in; it fundamentally tries to retcon a lot of stuff from the first game. Kills off the most/the only interesting character in order to gave way for the more boring paper-thin characters to start their CW-teen-emo-drama and spends close to 20 hours by trying to make a very simple point that they themselves haven't really thought about for more than 2 seconds.

It's full of fifth-grader level of stupid writing, downright moronic decisions, obvious emotional-blackmail techniques, uses the garbage newly introduced character Abby to replace Joel because it was 2020 and every Western writer was trying to pass garbage writing by masking it with more trendy stuff, introduces EVEN MORE shitty characters whose entire purpose is to get killed because that's somehow "realistic" and makes people think it's a very mature piece of work when it's just dumb, etc….

TLOU2 is a game where the more you think about it, the stupider the game becomes.

@gyuukarubi:

Attack on Titan is a story about the protagonist’s descent into darkness after a major tragedy.

That he himself created for some reason…....A character that so far in the entire series has been established as someone that always has a reason for doing what he does.....ends up causing the death of his own mother...because.....reasons.

This is true in the real world, too

That does not solve the issues of the ending nor the very clear inconsistency between the rest of 138 chapters and the last chapter.

Mikasa being somehow the most "important" character, Ymir "loving" Karl, Ymir being like Mikasa, Eren "loving" Mikasa when it's literally the least explored aspect of the entire story etc….. are some of the biggest problems. Hell, even Isayama just lazily shoved in the "titan" aspect in the follow-up/extended last chapter when he introduced that few volumes ago, and then just dropped it during the final chapters.

Just saying that it's "realistic" is by far the biggest and laziest argument. Anyone, without even thinking or going into these pretentious tantum about how war/violence leads to more war/violence, would've naturally been super confused by the last chapter due to how obvious it's inconsistencies are.

And guess what? Hayao Miyazaki's Nausicaa manga has nihilism as one of the biggest, if not the biggest, theme in the manga. And it has an actual point to convey with that beyond just repeating what a fifth-grader sees as a cool and "deep" message. Maybe try reading that manga and see that nihilism could be used to explore/convey something other than "it's all pointless".

--- Update From New Post Merge ---

@gyuukarubi:

Fans who feel that they have a better understanding of the characters and story unfortunately were mistaken… and other fans approached the series with less delusion.

I can literally post videos upon videos of people breaking down the ending and how it fundamentally goes against the things established in the series and ruins lots of great character moments.

While the people who praise the ending either seems to fall to the same cliche of "it's realistic" and ignores how the writing choices, earlier established things or in general cherry pick moments without the proper context and what not.

Do you want me to post some examples? Because I think THAT would be great and I personally would be interested to see if you can tackle any of the issues beyond "guy it's realistic and nihilistic and it doesn't matter so it's good".

Here is one:

Let's see a bit more discussion then "its realistic".

I would argue that astute readers could have predicted Eren’s character arc from the moment the story revealed that he could turn into a Titan

I didn't particularly see anyone talk about Eren being destined and following the path laid in order for him to commit genocide and lead Mikasa to Ymir.

Or that Ymir was in "love" with Karl and that would be the reason why Ymir couldn't break the cycle and the one that would "help" her do it wouldn't be the main character….It would be some generic character.....whose relationship with Eren is somehow supposed to be paralleled with Ymir and Karl.....because clearly Mikasa is in a abusive relationship.....

I would be interested to see who predicted that.....

Z and movie 6 are the only One Piece movies worth a damn.

Everything else is just…..meh and very forgettable. Strong World, in particular, has cool animation but everything else is just average at best.

I would prefer if they brought some other director, similar to movie 6, and let them do their own thing. Because right now, the movies are just becoming more and more average and a waste of time with each entry with Stampede being probably the single most boring One piece related media I have seen in recent memory.

@Daz:

You may have missed it, but you're in luck, because theres been an absolute crap-ton of Indie Games that they like, and have been vocal about for years and years.

That was not even the point lol.

The point was that she seems to hold back when talking about popular games and sort of downplaying the actual problems while that same logic doesn't really apply to how they look at some indie titles or games that aren't made by untouchable gaming companies.

Days Gone and Death Stranding are the ones that come to mind.

And that's not just a Sterling problem. It's a problem with almost every channel that is big when it comes to covering games (not talking about the generic reaction and shitty walkthrough ones).

Sterling's Red Dead 2 and TLOU2 coverage, for example, has multiple videos and yet all of them…feel like they are really trying to talk about it while also ignoring lots of the actual problems.

almost entirely big publishers such as Ubisoft, Activision or Konami.

Those are easily the most targeted and the most talked about publishers. That is practically a meme at this point.

What about Naughty Dog? Or Rockstar? Or hell, if we are talking about lack of innovation then Fromsoft?

My problem with Sterling isn't that she is talking about the business practices. The problem is that type of content is super repetitive and has channels upon channels already covering it.

Not to mention that it also ignores a part of the reason why big publishers even do what they do which is; the gamers. Publishers end goal is always profit and they look at the demand to meet that demand. Gamers are also a big reason why games are the same nowadays with actual creative and innovative games going under the radar because of the triple A garbage.

Sterling created a video about the Rockstars obsession with detail…..but didn't really talk about how Rockstars was also just keeping up with how they are perceived in the gaming community. It's the reason why open-world games tend to include pointless activities and bloat when the gamers are the ones raging about how open-world games could only be good if they feature endless side quests and endless NPC's.

I have no idea why videos that tend to talk about the "state" of the industry fundamentally ignores the biggest reason why it is what it is which is gamers.

has also absolutely torn into Rockstars wasteful and harmful practices in general, something they got a lot of pushback for.

I'll wait to see how much they actually accomplishes and means when Rockstars releases GTA 6.

I'm of the belief that videos like these are entirely pointless if gamers still go and support whichever company they are talking about particularly in regards to crunch and terrible management.

Reports about the crunch during Red Dead 2 came out before the game. And lots of people were angry. Then the game came out and most people forgot about it. And eventually it just faded. Red Dead 2 went on to become a critical and commercial success. Rockstar sees the success, not the empty words of gamers, and will repeat the same thing with GTA 6 and the same situation will repeat itself.

Same thing happened with TLOU2. Crunch report come out, people get mad, game comes outta, the crunch is mostly forgotten. The game becomes a critical and commercial success. Company sees that and will repeat the same thing.

Gamers like to get angry but don't particularly like to vote or show that through their actions.

Again, interested to see what ND releases another title (even though Uncharted 4 also had reported crunch and developmental issues but TLOU2 still followed it with critical and commercial success) or Rockstar releases GTA 6 and these types of things….actually have tangibility.

I'll hazard a guess that you're not exactly up-to date on their material?

I barely keep up with their major reviews.

But no, I don't watch every video they ever put out. Especially since the start of 2020.

And just for the sake of it, I went and casually scrolled through their videos since maybe the TLOU2 coverage (around may of last year) and a lot of the content seems repetitive and hardly anything….that they didn't already cover few years back.

If you watched them then let me know exactly how any of that differs from their previous content. I would be interested to see that.

how AAA games exploit unambiguously political stances and imagery for their own benefit, and then try and claim

That's one side of it.

The other side is developers inserting politics to be controversial and relying on controversies as a way to push ideology and market the game towards a certain crowd of people.

It's interesting that Sterling never really touched upon this aspect of say TLOU2. Feel free to point me to the video if I'm mistaken where she indeed talked about this aspect. It's also interesting to note that the creative director of TLOU2 talked about his past and how when he was a kid, he saw some Palestine people kill some Israeli soldiers and he wanted to kill those Palestine people…..ignoring the level of absolute abuse, harassments and downright barbaric nature of Israeli towards Palestine people....And that type of dumb childish mentality is also rooted in the game given how it wants to comment on violence but then ends up saying that violence against people you don't like is cool while violence against people you like is not cool. And then there is also the lazy and downright garbage characters like Lev or Dina whose entire characters revolves around being gay or trans.....and somehow that isn't worthy of criticism and discussion of lazy political pandering.

Again, going after Ubisoft or developers for not being confident about their political message when gamers are so insecure, and weak that they fundamentally would literally cancel you if you say or do anything that isn't according to the popular beliefs?

That is an actual issue. Just looking at it without the context of the industry and how it can lead to a shitstorm coming to the developers real life and involve families is just....dumb. Are we really shocked that devs aren't going to come out and state that the thing they are creating is an observation of the current political situation?

Sterling content is also very lackluster and clearly relies on clickbait and general negativity about the industry to make the headlines. And youtube is already full of garbage clickbait or controversies since channel like these thrive on controversies more than actual meaningful content. So Sterling's video are just another generic shit in the cesspool of generic shit.

While also not really talking about much of anything beyond generic video game "analysis" that barely have any real critique if its a triple AAA and all-out assault if its an indie title or a studio that isn't well known.

There is plenty you can point out or breakdown when it comes to triple A titles nowadays. Such as the pandering to political ideologies, conventionally outdated game-design, resources being used on shit that doesn't matter at all (Red Dead 2 should be a BIG BIG case-study for that alone and yet Sterling never made an attempt since well it's Rockstars and she wouldn't want to actually try starting an actual conversation about the industry that doesn't include the obvious crap), etcc… But again, Sterling never really said anything on that......That obviously doesn't have anything to do with their own identity lol.

SO why is the viewership/subscribers being down, in a platform that is known for having these weird ass behaviors, is being blamed on the whole trans thing? Especially since Sterling's viewership wasn't built on their personal identity and was build upon the video game related content.

I guess fuck anyone that isn't interested in that aspect of the channel and finds the content to be boring and has probably found another channel, since there are shit ton of channels with the same repetitive generic content as Sterling, to cover the same thing?

Seems like a rather big jump in logic.

@gyuukarubi:

I posted my take on the previous page. Personally, I can’t think of a more fitting end.

I think a lot of readers’ expectations were set by the anime, but this FEELS like the perfect way to conclude the manga. Wit Studio’s adaptation was too hopeful and they realized it too late.

You can't think of a better ending other than the one that makes the entire series basically pointless and meaningless? The one that destroys the character arc of the main character? That fundamentally brings out ideas that were never build up and throws other stuff out the window? Not to mention how it fundamentally tries to make the most useless and boring character like Mikasa into like an important plot relevant character when her character has been nothing more than a generic killing machine that wants senpai to notice her.

I usually don't care about fans creating their own ending when they are dissatisfied with the actual ending but this is one of the rare moments where the ending created by the fans has a better grasp of the previous story stuff then the actual writer. Where they actually respect the story, themes and characters compare to the writer who seems like someone that literally forgot what he established in the first place.

This is some serious teenage edgelord material.

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

Accurate.

As long as it isn't as shitty as Stampede and actually has a villain that isn't a one-note dumb muscle dude, I'm ok with anything.

And yes, the fan service with popular cameo's has become just ridiculous.

I thought someone was trolling on reddit when I saw it on the front page. Couldn't believe it.

RIP Kentaro. You were an absolute legend and easily one of the greatest mangaka.

Just waiting for someone to come in and go on about how brilliant this otherwise meaningless ending seems to be.

I'm open for different interpretations and being able to look at this stuff from a different point of view but so far, the ending is just awkward, and outta nowhere nonsense and this new addition doesn't really help. All of this needed more time to bake in the oven.

! Everything repeats is what I gather.
! Some time in the future after Eren's death, Paradise is attacked and destroyed. I assume it's either Marleyan people or some other nation that decided to attack them and destoryed Paradise or at least the place where Eren's body was buried.
! The place where Eren was buried is becoming like the tree where Ymir first got the hallucigenia-type creature and became the titan so I take it that the kid, who is assumed to be Mikasa's kid, will find the creature, become a titan and then the entire conflict will repeat itself or something.
! As for what this actually means and what it wants to convey, I don't personally get it. There was a much more compelling way to fold this type of scenario while also bringing in the timeloop stuff that people heavily theorized.
! Edit: Actually that kid could be Mikasa's grandson or great grandson. The panel where we see Mikasa and Jean with their kid is followed by another panel with who I assumed is an really old Mikasa and Jean and then we see old Mikasa who has passed on or at least that's what it looks like to me. I assume the time jump is fairly big.

@Lord:

they're not just cartoon monsters .

I'm sorry but did we read the same story?

Isayama was pretty damn obvious in terms of framing paradise people in sympathetic light while Marleyans as the ultimate baddies. We hardly get any real point of view of actual Marleyans people. Majority, if not all, pov of characters that we get are Eldians, not Marleyans. It's on the same level as Ohara and its citizens being killed by Akainu for no real reason.

That's as basic of a narrative framing of Marleyans being portrayed as the ultimate evil as you can get. Nothing is nuanced about this.

you don't need to read any fictional story to understand an abstract concept

I mean, just because you read fictional stories for the sake of mindless entertainment doesn't really mean everyone else does too.

Every work of fiction has something to convey whether it be just entertaining the audience, exploring certain topics, showing certain emotions/feelings etc….AoT itself seems to have something to convey since the obvious imagery, metaphors, symbolism, references etc... point to something specific and have an intent rather than it being something thrown in a vacuum and manufactured.

You are wrong.

There are no "but" or "if". Watch the show then come back. Or dont. Nobody cares.

I mean you dont need to read a shone series 30 something volumes long to see and understand.

Thats some TLOU2 level of "no shit, sherlock" when it makes the most obvious point.

And Marleian people are portrayed to be evil. Thats it. The entire argument with Gabbi and that girl that Sasha saved perfectly spells out how the narrative is framing Marleian people. I have no idea why AoT fanbase has a very large trackrecord of trying to pretend that the series is somehow nuanced and "deep" because it offers no real solutions or even properly raise the questions.

I love this series but man, people sure love to make the series sound like something its not. It has a cool plot but nothimg nuanced or complex to explore these themes in a meaningful way.

Lol there is no nuanced behind AOT subject matter.

AoT is a shonen series with lots of cool story choices but thematically, its pretty simple. Nobody would read the second half and not want Marleian people to be killed due to how evil they were.

This shit isnt Nausicaa. I already have a hard time understanding the purpose of the last chapter when it falls back to the most simple and cliched trope of how "world's problems didnt magically solve themselves" even though the scenario itself could easily have been written differently.

I got no idea what the fuck is actually going on anymore now.

If the leaks are true then everything feels pointless.

@FolhaS:

you are a terrible gate-keeper.

Expecting someone to be familiar with the actual source material before they take that source material and use it as an example to make a point isn't gate-keeping, kid.

It's the most basic thing that someone needs to have before they try commenting on anything whatsoever.

The fact that you basically skipped over the "author lied" aspect in this otherwise paragraphs filled with nothing but your own farts says a LOT.

Either provide citations and things that illustrate your non-existent points about a show that you barely even know or piss-off. Ignorance is one thing but being ignorant and then trying to act like you actually aren't ignorant or you somehow even know what the fuck Lost is even about past the few random episodes you watched casually is just laughable as hell.

not this other part of the show I didn't really care about

I think it would be much better if you have someone by your side and read other people's comment and explain them to you.

Because you are quite literally not comprehending what has been said already.

I even went as far as to mention some of my favorite examples of little details in the show to painfully illustrate that Lost is NOT a one-trick-pony and that it's a show with combination of things that give it its appeal and charm and changing ANY of it will change Lost.

You are the only one here trying to talk outta your ass and keep going all over the place because you yourself know that you stopped saying anything of substance by the time you mentioned Lost the second time.

You like the show because of A, B, and C, and some folks didn't because of X, Y, and Z. All of those letters are part of the alphabet, all of those elements were part of the show, no one is wrong or wright just because they engage with different parts of the series.

Then you need to go back to school and learn the concept of "brevity". You don't have to write paragraphs filled with nonsense that says very little and then falls back on "EVERYONE HAS THEIR OPINION.

No shit, sherlock.

The fact that it took you literally countless posts to make a rather simple point unrelated to Lost in a Lost thread is just fucking brilliant.

Nothing demonstrates your weak reading and writing comprehension more than that.

I don't have the right to talk about something just because I didn't have the same experience as you

This really isn't hard, kid.

You don't pretend to talk about a show that you barely watched or even know a thing or two about it. You can't really talk about your experience because….you don't really have the experience of watching the actual show from beginning to the end, like the way it was meant to be watched.

Reading about it on wiki does not mean you experienced the show since....the creators told the story in a show-format rather than wiki-format.

you are a terrible gate-keeper. You might as well be going around harassing "fake gamer girls".

Lol.

Having the humility and admitting that you were factually wrong about the things you tried to claim based on some garbage article you read long ago.

But nah, let's pretend that there is some gate-keeping shit going on here and escape having to learn a thing or two.

That's brilliant.

@FolhaS:

….

I'm sorry but your entire logic and "opinion" are all over the place at this point.

You yourself have stated that you only jumped in during season 2 and haven't watched the entire thing so it's hard to take your opinion seriously but instead of simply acknowledging that maybe you don't have the full information/have seen the show enough to try and comment on specific fan reception, you are now trying to argue a point that you don't particularly seem to understand.

This is what you said if you wanted a bit more clarification:

I only watched Lost season 2 (yes, weird viewing habit I know) but wasn't the problem with the afterlife ending that people were lied to?
From what I recall, there were people guessing the island was some sort of limbo or purgatory right from the first or second season and the writters straight up said No, that's not it, we have deeper mysteries!
People expected scientific explanations because the authors told them it wasn't a religious/spiritual thing.
.

First of all; where is this "the authors lied" or "People expected scientific explanations because the authors told them it wasn't a religious/spiritual thing" coming from? Can I get a source/citation on that? Because you keep bringing this sort of stuff where you are saying that the authors lied to the audience when they really didn't do such a thing? Like how the audience started digging deeper into the whole "4, 8,15,16,23,42" number thing when the writers meant that to be a thing that Hurley was blaming for all his issues and THEN it was addressed in the show after the audience kept on asking for it which ended up being the candidate thing in the cave.

Second, the island wasn't a purgatory. The writers did not lie about that at all. Which makes me thing that you are confusing the flashsideways/the ending part as them being in purgatory but they aren't the same thing.

The flashsideways, at least the way the audience watch it the first time, is supposed to be an alternative timeline where the plane 815 doesn't crash and lands in LA like it was supposed to. That timeline is supposed to be caused by Juliet detonating a nuke on the island in the past.

It's then revealed in the ending that the characters created "that" place in order for them to reconnect, remember their life and move on with each other.

because something that was presented ended up not being as cool as I was hoping for. It's like if after a while Luffy decided/realized that building his family and crew was more important than reaching Raftel

…...Again, due to your lack of actual experience with the series or being downright confused. you are thinking that the show "switched" from plot to character, when it was always character-driven while still having a plot. In fact, the second half of the series has more narratively going on then the first half.

I too read the "DON'T TELL ME WHAT I CAN'T DO!" in Locke's voice, because that's what left an impression on me.

I don't think you understand which scene we are referring to.

While John Locke says this line all the time, it is the moment during the fourth episode of the first season where we get this line and the context behind it. It's not something I can describe as that episode is just special and cannot be understood without watching all the prior episodes and understanding what it subtly hints at and then reveals.

I was always trying to engage with some other aspects of the show and felt let down by those.

How can you be engaged and then let down when you didn't even watch the first season? Like yea, if you jump in the middle, see the cool stuff and then get disappointed that the show isn't really about the cool stuff, then that is your fault. Not really the fault of the writers or the show.

Season 1 of the series is the slowest because that's where it does lot of the heavy lifting for the character-drama. There are some plot-related stuff and thrills and what not but the characters are explored in each and every episode as every single episode is based on a specific character whose thoughts, feelings etc… are explored greatly through flashbacks and present day events that slowly, in some way or shape/form, connect to it.

"well, it may be a different experience on a weekly basis"

It is a different experience.

But it's not a different series.

In fact, watching the show on a weekly basis and then seeing individual episodes being about the character drama while having A and B plot would reinforce the character-driven nature of the series more than anything.

And again, Lost answered most, if not all, questions and mysteries. Whether the audience liked them is another thing but the answers were given. Same with the character-drama and the ending, that thematically fit the series as a whole. Whether the audience like it is another thing but the writers kept the show as thematically consistent as possible.

This discussion would be much more interesting and relevant if you actually watched the show. Right now, you are operating on nothing more than your own incomplete viewing experience as well as what the reception of Lost has become since its finale aired.

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

@Kaiolino:

For anyone who enjoyed LOST: The Leftovers is an even better version of it.

The Leftovers is a better series, for sure.

But it doesn't have the same charm as Lost. It's also far more serious, depressing and more consistent in its tone which is why you can't really watch the show unless you are in a specific mood.

That's the funny thing about Lost and its discussion.

Character-stuff is the focus but that doesn't mean Lost is a one trick pony. The mysteries and the little details in the show are still unmatched by any Western show I have seen in recent history. The way little things connected in the background was fucking awesome. Finding out that Roger the "workman" and the car that Hurley found in season 3 was later revealed to be in fact Ben's father who was killed by the poison gas and dumped inside the car somewhere.

Or how in one of Sayid's episode, we see him come across Kate's father and the person named Kelvin who would later go on to become Desmond's partner in the hatch which would later led to Kelvin and Desmond's conflict which then went on to become the reason why the plane crashed in the first place.

These small things, eastern eggs and nods that keeps thing as consistent as possible was fucking amazing. It felt like Oda-level of paying attention and having the universe or setting filled with small details.

Even after watching the show 6 times, I still find new stuff or understand the show a bit more each time.

That is fucking impressive.

Being able to nail the smaller character moments while also creating some of the most iconic big-picture and thrilling moments is not an easy feat. Which is why Lost stands out. Even more than a decade later.

With that said, Kate and Claire are the worst fucking aspect of the show by miles. Juliet was a far better character that sadly had to be killed off when killing off Kate and Claire and exploring Juliet would've been far more interesting and better.

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

@JulieYBM:

LOST told us exactly what it was without question in Season One Episode #4 "Walkabout" when we learned that Locke was a wheelchair user trying to mask his self-hatred and shame behind both calm and anger. That, I feel, more than anything else defined what LOST was and I find it a shame that discouse always falls back onto the silly mysteries (many of which I loved) instead of how the central conceit of the series was the character drama.

Yea, I think the episode "walkabout" basically established the core focus of the show and was just overall a fantastic character-piece. That was the moment that made me feel like Lost was going to be something special. Especially when Locke's condition is revealed while he utters his trademark line "don't tell me what I can't do. DON'T TELL ME WHAT I CAN'T DO" while the Locke theme plays was just…...Uhhh so great.

You didn't even watched the show properly so why are you trying to talk abouy stuff that you clearly dont understand.

Lost's universe is insanely detailed with some seriously awesome stuff happening subtly in the background. I guess you are trying to take the popular fan-reception after season 6 as a way to try and comment on season 1-5.

There is a reason why Lost received bad reception after the finale. Not beforehand. What you are trying to claim with them dragging out the "mysteries" is something that kept people constantly coming back to it. In fact Lost ending at season 6 was shocking as the series could've gone on for more but the writers had already planned season 6 to be the ending with them already deciding the final plot for the last three seasons by the end of season 3.

Lost is character driven though.

I have no idea why you keep talking about the plot as if it was the main focus.

Also JJ had literally nothing to do with Lost other than working on first few episodes. Damon Lindeloff and Carl are the actual creative people behind the show.

@Mr.:

has a couple of still shots of the plane wreckage on the island, with no one in sight.

I don't have the source right now but Damon Lindeloff talked about this and said that it wasn't their decision to include the plane wreckage, it was the Network and the higher ups that made the decision.

Starts at 17:02 with the wreckage part.

I recommend the entire video though. It's pretty awesome.

The character-stuff alone is worth the re-watch and holds up far better than any other American show I have ever watched.

It's funny that Lost is remembered for the mystery and the shitty ending and yet the character-stuff is easily the highlight and one of the finest achievements in Western media as far as I'm concerned. It's nice to see emotional complexities of a character being portrayed and explored rather than the emotionally-brain-dead approach that many many Western writers tend to take when writing their characters. It has more in-common with Eastern-storytelling style than the typical Western approach.

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

@Riddler:

Everything in the flashsideways is really, really well done and it actually gets more emotionally poignant after you learn what it is in the finale.
.

My favorite part about that was seeing Ben, in a different situation, being presented with similar choices as season 4 but him choosing Alex over his lust for power was just brilliant. Though the writers changing the father-daughter dynamic into a teacher-student was just….creepy. Alex definitely didn't need to be Ben's student in that reality.

But other than that, the flashsideways has some of the most amazing character payoffs and moments that otherwise wouldn't work if not for what the writers already did in the beginning/throughout the series.

@wolfwood:

That middle school thing had me reminiscing. Like remember way back when where you read a text and you had those simple quiz/tests to follow up? Like imagine one of those where the question read

Question: What type of pronouns does Yams use?

Answer: Yams uses male pronouns.

Then you would get a checkmark because you have retained what you have read. And if you wrote that Yams uses female pronouns you would get a red X and a little note about paying more attention. Mrs Johansson from elementary school would have had so many frowny face stickers to give out to ya'll

Hahahahahhaahahahah!!!!!!

Thats a good one.

In the manga, Yamato has also stated, Luffy-like manner, wanting to be Oden, not a man.

It's also part of the same manga and same character that seems to get ignored. I wonder why…..

@Coookie:

Haters gonna hate and attack other people, complaining about strawmen arguments, victimizing themselves as having things shoved down their throats when it was already explained that no one will be forced to use certain pronouns or has to be corrected.

Right, that's what I thought.

Not sure why I even wrote that post when the typical system-automated answer to it was already very- well expected.

@Coookie:

Honestly this gender debate is absolutely pointless .

I love how this is being portrayed as a thing that anyone is actively pursuing.

And not a thing that plenty of mods and others are trying to shove down other people's throat just because they aren't exactly drinking some trendy koolaid.

Like if you guys want to be mature and have a discussion then cool. But the piss-poor attempt at trying to downplay an aspect that has been left fairly ambiguous is just laughably bad and downright fifth-grader logic at its finest.

If you guys have secret notes from Oda in terms of what the character is actually supposed to be beyond an already established major aspect of Yamato (which is wanting to be ODEN) then feel free to share.

Otherwise, this is one becoming a one-side argument where one-side is very clearly waiting and saying that other people can call Yamato "he" while they call Yamato "she", while the other side pisses themselves over the fact that someone else is having a different interpretation to a thing that is open to interpretation.

And seriously stop bringing strawman arguments with real trans people. They aren't relevant to the discussion about Yamato, a fictional character created by Oda for One Piece. If you claim to have some secret insight into Yamato's character then again feel free to share with the rest of the class with actual and factual evidence that isn't coincidentally ignoring major character trait and then focusing on the small details.

Jesus, this is seriously like Middle-school kids trying to gang up on someone for not repeating whatever they want them to repeat.

Good luck trying to reason with Joy Boy.

@Zik:

Almost every arc or every other arc is a save the princess or prince/beat the evil king story and some arcs that are not are really just a preamble to that same story

You're gonna have to rely on some serious semantics and fan-fictions in order to even pretend that the series or the arc's didn't always have that element.

it still switched up the story.

Every arc had that element. Some more important then others but that's basically looking at One Piece's arc structure and trying to pretend that this just started post-timeskip.