Posts made by HeartOfDarkness

@Mr.:

The people sending hateful messages shouldn't send them to her

I'm sorry but this is by far the most naive thing I have ever read.

People shouldn't send hateful messages? No shit. Are you under the impression that saying so will somehow get the trolls to stop? Like really?

You see racism going on in front of you. You do nothing. You came up with no solutions to that. You then go to online forums and say "STOP IT. RACISM BAD"? That is the extend of the thought process here.

She shouldn't have to be the one who has to readjust her choices.

Ah, so your solution to an abusive relationship is that the person being abused shouldn't really do anything or try to change/take herself outta that situation and just wait until magically something changes one day.

Am I correctly understanding your logic and the way you see victims?

I mean, I thought victims had some power and can also make the changes to improve their situations. But i guess victims are just supposed to sit and hope something changes some day instead of taking the initiate to try and change it.

I work at a victim service agency to address issues of violence and abuse against victims.

Just curious; when someone comes to you and your organization, do you bitch to them about how the abuse/violence shouldn't happen rather than acknowledge the current situation and then move forward with how to help the person being abused?

You should really clarify this because your posts are very inconsistent. You are trying to say one thing but end up saying something else entirely with the way you are approaching this. You are spending far too much time talking about "WHAT IF THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN" even though it clearly did and there is literally no point in talking about this like some Highschool classroom. She DID get hateful messages. She DID get death threats. Maybe focus on the now and how she can deal with it NOW instead of you know the past.

Well, that's just how this world is. shrug She should take precautions and not expose herself on Twitter.

Feel free to provide examples of how this isn't just another day on the internet. Countless examples of cyber-bullying would prove time and time again that people do this shit petty reasons or simply no reasons other than they can. That isn't rocket science. Just putting the ego aside and actually paying attention for more than 2 seconds will reveal how this IS the internet.

But clearly you have made some special observations so feel free to share them with the rest of the class.

Just curious; do you know how to read? Does it look like I'm blaming the victim or is it about me stating that the victim ALSO has the POWER to IGNORE the trolls and FOCUS on her OWN well-being? Are we REALLY at the point where the victim is just a powerless person that is being forced by everyone and everything to BE on twitter, LISTEN to trolls and TAKE THEM SERIOUSLY? Like, IDK if "victim" in modern western societies are just brain-dead people who basically needs everyone around them to do stuff for them, which to me is a greater insult towards the "victim" then anything. The "victim" in this case can ALSO take the INITIATIVE to stop the entire situation from getting worst and by taking a break from the online. Because SHE IS A PERSON. AND SHIT LIKE THAT TENDS TO EFFECT PEOPLE MENTALLY.

But here; let me ask you this instead, what is the most practical solution here? Is yelling and "ranting" about the "trolls" going to solve the issue for her? Is it going to make the death threats disappear? If not, then why are you guys passionate about it? Why not DO something about it? Instead of posting some seriously empty words that mean nothing to anyone aside from the online mob whose entire ideology revolves around whining and bitching instead of doing anything about it to make an actual difference, why not come up with an actual practical approach. IDK who you are kidding with this flowery language. We KNOW this shit will disappear. And will happen and everyone will be back to post their empty rants until it disappears too.

Hana Kimura situation happened in May. Did anything change? No. Just that a person a dead and plenty of people have posted empty rants and words. Nothing really changed. Policies didn't change. People moved on from that. Because YES as disgusting and as stupid as that sounds, that is EXACTLY what happens.

Maybe instead of living in the basement, come out to the real world and take the time to understand the situations and present things that can be done? Or is that too much of an task compare to posting lazy rants?

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

@Daz:

Two parties? What the hell are you on about? This is straight up victim blaming, full stop. Ending your rant with "Treat Cyberbullying with some goddamn respect"? Well, you certainly don't seem to offer any to the person who got subjected to DEATH THREATS for inane reasons because she had the gall to check her twitter feed. If someone threatened the life of my daughter on facebook, I am as much in the wrong because I could just not have facebook!

Ah, so if your daughter got threatened like that then you would argue with those people in question on Facebook instead of you know making sure that A.) your daughter isn't scarred for life, B.) take precautions, C.) stop your daughter from getting on that particular site (because hey Facebook isn't needed for human survival) and multiple other things you can do to make sure that your daughter is safe and that the situation in itself doesn't get worst.

You see, this is what being an "adult" is like. Being able to step back, leave the platform, focusing on mental health, taking safety precautions, getting authority involved if need be and being able to remove yourself from that mental torture and negativity etc…. Self-awareness is a pretty huge thing. I know that it's 2020 and self-awareness is basically non-existent but still.

I sure as hell hope you are never put in that situation because I can totally imagine the total disregard for the actual "victim" while you play and argue some irrelevant point.

You think you care but actually you don't. Otherwise, you wouldn't be on APforums ranting about it. You would be doing something about it. This is in a way like witnessing racism against your co-workers but instead of doing anything in the moment or in the workplace, you come to online forum to try and make it seem like you care. You don't. No amount of yelling is going to make that more obvious. Again, a novel concept in 2020 because everyone is now designed to throw empty words and not enough action to try and maybe prevent stuff like that from getting worst. But still.

Will always be fascinated by the total disregard people have for self-awareness and self-responsibility. Just like I chose to open up my browser and come to APforums, the "victim" chose to stay on a platform where people are after her.

And yes, ignore my words and just boil it down to victim blaming. In either-case, WHAT are you going to do about it? Let's see the actual thought-process and not the generic lazy statements that amount to nothing in the end.

@Daz:

Stuff

There are two parties here. The person being harassed and the people doing the harassment.

Both of them have a choice. Implying that somehow one side is forcing the other to open up their laptop/computer/cellphone, navigate to twitter, login to their account and THEN being forced, at a gunpoint, to listen to them is pretty damn stupid.

I'm guessing that because it's 2020, people shouldn't have any level of self-awareness and responsibility and the situation can be just blamed on those stupid bullies.

thats just how the internet works, nothing to be done, better to stay off it then if you don't wants death threats, her being on twitter at all must mean the company put her there intentionally to draw out trolls

That's the way it is.

Like there is nothing more retarded than having to read through this level of bullshit from people who can't/haven't done jack shit when it comes to situations like these but are the first ones to yell about it like any of it matters. It doesn't. The internet is EXACTLY like this. Calling it bad and using stupid narrow-minded observations isn't going to help. You aren't doing anyone a favor because the death threats STILL exist.

This shit will disappear in few weeks and everyone will be back to playing their games until it happens again, get pissed off for few mins in order to feel good and then once again let it disappear.

Nothing is worst then people treating this like some philosophical debate in a class instead of actually proposing practical measures that can be taken to prevent this shit. Focus on that; the actual problem. With the very step being for the harassed person to MAYBE take a break from online and maybe stop giving the trolls the attention and IF THEIR LIFE'S ARE IN DANGER THAN TAKE PRECAUTIONS!

Cyberbullying is a very serious topic. Treat it with some goddamn respect.

I'm still baffled by how someone who hasn't played the game is trying very hard to express a point that ultimately he doesn't even understand in the slightest.

Nobody cares what GoW does. Nobody cares what other games do.

This discussion is about TLOU2. Not other games. Being actually familiar with the context and the content of the product is required here. Robby didn't play the game but is familiar with it and knows the context and the content of it and that's why he can come up with examples. You can't.

I checked the trailer for Pathological 2

…...Maybe check out the gameplay videos and more deeper analysis of the game? Because "feeling good" is literally the opposite of what that game is about. Your fundamental understanding of "gameplay" and their scenarios is flawed as hell and seems like you haven't played or looked much into it beyond playing mainstream titles where the gameplay only exist as a way to give the players quick cathartic moments.

Pathologic 2 is a survival game at its finest. Not a cheap RE with simple and restricted gameplay systems but where the difficulty puts the player in very realistic survival choices and has real consequences. I have not seen a single person describe that game as being "feel good". Because, again, that would require you to be actually familiar with it and look into it for more than 2 seconds.

The more you comment, the more you are exposing yourself as being someone who simply wants to make some irrelevant point that ultimately can be destroyed just by looking into games that aren't mainstream. Shadow of the Collosus, one of the most influential game of all time, is a game that avoids "feel good" game-play. Fumito Ueda's other titles, such as Ico and the Last Guardian, are the same. Silent Hill series, for another example, are also games that avoid "feel good" gameplay.

Get educated, kid. And come back when you have manage to understand what the video game medium is really about.

--- Update From New Post Merge ---

@zeltrax225:

which did everything right? I

Can you elaborate?

While I personally think TLOU2 story is basically a shitty teen CW show level of stupidly dramatic writing that don't have much to offer, I don't really see how TLOU1 is that different.

TLOU2 is just longer and that's why the flawed writing is just more obvious but it's not really like TLOU1 didn't use the same exact techniques. It was just much shorter and much more clever to hide the fact that you were ultimately witnessing the same generic Zombie story with characters that were neither properly explored or developed.

Eh, my point was more about how it doesn't really go anywhere plot-wise. Especially considering how important it was for the first game but then here, it's only mentioned at the beginning when Joel, mentioned during Dina scenes and shown again during the flashback scenes but plot-wise it doesn't really go anywhere. Nothing comes outta it aside from writers bringing it up and then lazily shoving it under the rug.

I don't think it's a game problem as much as it's ND problem.

In all their modern titles, Uncharted 1-4 + Lost Legacy and now TLOU1&2, they always have to rely upon typical third-person shooter mechanics that ultimately only resolves with the player having to kill crap ton of enemies whether human or zombie. The argument that lots of people are making is that all the killing in part 2 is intentional and that you are supposed to question it but I just don't really see it. Their entire modern library of games all showcase/demonstrate that there isn't much thought put into the gameplay side of things and how it connects with the narrative and thematics. The struggle within TLOU2 in regards to thematic point and the gameplay doesn't feel different from any other struggle within ND title. It's just that TLOU2 is the only game that wants to comment on violence while the gameplay is just stupidly fun to play and kill people.

It feels like A.) ND doesn't really have the ability to pull off a game that doesn't force you to kill or B.) they have to stick with the triple A formula and not deviate from it.

Coming off from something like Death Stranding where the game comments on the over-reliance of murder/killing/violence in major video game titles and then creates gameplay systems that fundamentally don't resolve around killing (i played over 80 hours of the game without killing anyone) seemed a lot more creative of a approach. It has a point and it makes that point by offering something that doesn't revolve around killing and shows that gameplay mechanics can still be engaging so long as you are willing to actually put the effort and try new things.

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

@KageKageKing:

I always thought the main point of this game/franchise was fungi-infected zombies instead of how many people you kill along the way.

Fungi-zombies in TLOU2 only exist for those cheap Resident Evil-type horror gameplay. Aside from that, their role is pretty much non-existent. They occasionally pop up in favor of boss battles and what not. Even the bite on Ellie's arm is dropped and isn't brought up aside from some Joel and Ellie moments in flashback.

The main conflict of this game take place between the humans and different factions. It's just going for the more traditional "humans were the biggest monsters all along".

You can replace any of the names from TLOU2 in that quote and I'm still making the same point.

Ah, you aren't familiar at all with the titles.

But somehow you are making a point.

For titles that you haven't played.

Makes sense.

I don't care about your opinion on them

So why are you even responding to me again?

Just to prove some point while utterly exposing yourself as someone who doesn't know shit about the medium being discussed here? Who also haven't even played the games but is trying to talk about the thematic point of them? Who is using very limited story-driven games that aren't even doing the same thing as an example?

In real life

Please stop bringing irrelevant shit to the discussion here.

Go play games, understand the very medium and then attempt to comment on something.

Right now, it comes across as you talking outta your ass for the sake of proving some irrelevant point that EVEN THE DIRECTOR HIMSELF has already destroyed by plainly stating the game's thematic and game-design philosophy and what they wanted to convey. You wouldn't know this because A.) you haven't played them B.) aren't familiar with Neil's work at all and C.) are clueless about the difference between a Video Game Narrative and a novel/tv-show/movie narrative.

Learn the difference and come back.

Gameplay needs to leave you with a sense of acomplishment

Nibba, go look at Pathologic 2 and see your "game" definition crumble before your eyes. This is what happens when people play the big triple A titles and ignore the indies and every other game that fundamentally doesn't stick with one definition of game-design.

Your definition of gameplay fundamentally showcases your lack of any real understanding beyond playing some popular mainstream shit.

Image a scary movie

If we are comparing it like that then TLOU2 would be your typical found-footage film that exists purely to scare you through cheap jump scare devices and means and has nothing to convey beyond cheap scares.

Yes, it might scare you but that doesn't mean there is some talent or skill behind the scare. Anyone can be scared with jump scares.

Just like how anyone can chuckle or laugh at a joke about piss or shit. Not because the joke is good but because it's fundamentally catered towards the lowest common denominator.

And that my friend is what TLOU2 is. A scary movie about pure jump scares. A comedy movie about fart and piss. While the director thinks it's Taxi Driver or Apocalypse Now. So to speak.

Also on a side-note; GoW is far far superior to both TLOU1 and TLOU2. It's basically similar premise but without cutting any corners and taking the time to establish and explore character relationships and arcs. Atreus is a much much better child character that actually goes through actual character development whose character isn't just limited to saying "FUCK YOU" like Ellie 90% of the time.

@FolhaS:

So haven't played this game, nor the first,

So why are you even trying to comment on something that you clearly haven't even played, know about or even understand?

Like shouldn't you be familiar with the source material to even start the discussion? But let's ignore that for a second.

it doesn't mean you are her or that you have to make decissions for her

Yes.

Because a story about petty revenge shouldn't at least attempt to show the character descending into madness through natural progression rather than forced "MUH REVENGE" where the character goes from 0% to 100% in the matter of minutes. You know how you would portray an complex topic like cycle of violence? Through the use of complexity. Through the means of making the gameplay be approachable from multiple means and give player choices thus ALLOWING PLAYERS to witness how bad violence can be and THEN giving them the option to try something else instead.

And yes, that would require the game developers to approach the story and game-design with much more open mind. And that is just one of the ways that you can actually begin to tackle the issue. Creating a very linear movie-like story with very clear shortcuts and cliched approach doesn't exactly work for the game.

The narrative and the gameplay here are intertwined. They are not separate entities but rather the driving force behind what the game wants to really convey.

This is what you get when people spend more time watching games on Youtube rather than playing it themselves and even understanding WHY the gameplay sections exist. Which, if you don't realize, is more insulting to the game developers because their aim here was to portray/explore the cycle of violence by making it the driving force behind every enemy encounter.

you are more than free to have your opinion in how well or how poorly that was handled

I have an opinion from playing both games.

You don't.

So….......

So from a narrative stand-point it makes sense you spend the sequel killing everyone

You did that in the first game regardless anyway.

Ellie already killed many people in the first game. Same with Joel. Yet NOW is when the game wants to bring those actions through a super lazy plot-device.

And THEN uses one major character as another plot-device for the sake of kick starting the entire cliched revenge plot AND THEN once again uses that as a plot-device to just resolve it.

If you're reading a book

This is not a book. This is not a tv-show. This is not a movie.

Trying to apply the rules of those particular medium is completely irrelevant here. Video games are interactive medium that are capable of conveying variety of complex topics through different means and approach because they aren't limited by anything aside from the creator's own imagination.

Try playing games that actually use the form properly and doesn't just exist as a filler.

Starting point: MGS series. A series that has been dealing with similar themes with much more creative approach, means and execution.

funnest away to acomplish them

Maybe you are under the impression that gameplay only exists to be fun.

But it's not. Every game, when the developer has really thought about it, will have different things to convey with the gameplay. And yes, there are games that fundamentally don't care and only make the gameplay side of things to be fun. Yakuza is a pretty big example of a series where the gameplay and the story are fundamentally separated and the devs don't care. And it works for them.

It doesn't work for TLOU2 because the entire gameplay is designed around portraying violence and brutality of it going as far as to have you kill dogs in order to make the point more and more obvious. While at the same time, the gameplay isn't really that hard, or conveys a true sense of violence. It makes the gameplay fun. Not real or brutal or exhausting but fun. The game WANTS me to care about each individual NPC and question my actions as a player and Ellie as a character. But then turns around and says "beating the shit outta people is fun, isn't it? Here kill everyone :)"

And then there is the fact that you are already doing the same exact thing you did back in the first game. Joel and Ellie already killed crap ton of people in the first game.

It's not like the first game had the player making different choices and THEN used the sequel to put these characters into different situations and showing how bad violence can be in contrast to the first game.

But here; in the first game, character's first logical choice is to kill everyone. And then in the second part; the character's first logical choice once again is to kill everyone again. There is no contrast. No highlighting one method or choice over the other and using that as a way to comment on the whole thing.

And that's why director's interviews and words are important because this is what they were hoping to accompolish with this game. They WANTED you to question Ellie. They WANTED you to question yourself and your actions. But you can't because it's literally the same shit you have been doing since the first game. You can't expect people to take it seriously and question shit when you mindlessly throw NPC's for the player to kill.

It doesn't need to give you an option to play the game without killing everyone

Spec Ops the line already did this much much better and more organically. Hell, it uses lots of the same techniques but with much greater understanding and execution.

You know why? Because the game's fundamental plot resolves around a Black Ops squad heading to Dubai on a investigation/rescue mission and then slowly by slowly start getting involved in the conflict with other people and then start committing atrocities as the toll of the causalities become huge for the main cast. It doesn't rely on cheap revenge tale. But rather showing how a squad of Black Ops group lose their minds as they descent deeper and deeper into the conflict in Dubai.

The entire game is setup to be a commentary on how other military shooters use real warfare type scenarios but never have a correct representation of the war experience, or express the psychological changes that some combatants experience after participating in a war. And the commentary of gamers that "enjoy" playing war games or first person shooters where you are made out to be the hero.

And here is the big big thing that separates the approach of Spec Ops and TLOU2; Spec Ops never makes the gameplay sections "fun" or use excessive amount of violence to get the message across. Instead, the gameplay is repetitive, raw, dull and doesn't glorify the act of killing someone. It becomes mindless as the game goes along and the focal point of the gameplay in latter sections isn't what you are doing but rather how the characters respond as their language, vocal performance and their character models become more and more aggressive on the verge of losing their shit.

Look at this gif here just to show the transformation of the main protag's model:

!

And that is what TLOU2 is fundamentally missing. It knows that it wants to be serious and wants to comment on violence but then also wants it to be "fun". Spec Ops The Line is committed to it's premise and its intentions and doesn't compromises that for the sake of being "fun". It's not fun. It sticks with that game-design philosophy. That, to me, is more gutsy then anything I have seen from TLOU2.

TLOU2 wants to be mature but also wants to pander to casual gamers that just want to shoot the shit. No amount of blood, or gore is going to make me take it seriously when the devs themselves don't. "Violence is bad but it's ok when it's fun" is what I got out of the game if I'm analyzing both narrative and gameplay together.

The worst thing about it? It's gonna sell really well, gather shit ton of accolades and awards and Neil practically will be upheld as some ballsy director that broke new grounds. Instead of a director that clearly wanted to be like Zack Synder with fancy storytelling and edgy style but no substance whatsoever. The entire thing comes across as a really shitty CW teen drama. And yet Neil will be given awards for the writing.

I hate it when honest and actual ground breaking game developers get overshadowed by mainstream mediocre developers that still after a decade of being in the industry have learned nothing aside from polishing turds and pumping out gameplay systems that would make PS2 games look decades ahead and then being praised for it.

Yep, you haven't played the game.

Expecting the game to go along with its own tone, thematic and narrative point isn't really meta commentary or whatever the hell you are on about.

The game wants to be a serious take on violence and wants to explore the cycle of violence. Go read the director's interviews and the videos where they clearly talk about what they wanted to convey with the game. This isn't even debatable. The creator (Neil) plainly states that he wanted to explore the cycle of violence and that's why the game is about revenge and is dark, edgy and brutal and he wanted to convey that with the gameplay sections too alongside giving NPC's random names or having the owner of the dog call out to the dog when its dead etc….

The problem WITH that is the killing in terms of gameplay isn't really horrible or attempts to convey anything. The game simply wants to catch you with the killing and the blood but there is no other way of playing the game thus creating this absolutely massive inconsistency between what the game wants to be in terms of gameplay (cartoony violence/gore) vs the narrative that tries its hardest to be seen as a serious commentary of the nature of violence. The two simply don't mesh or flow with each other. This is like combing Fairytail's stupid shit with Berserk's serious tone all in one package that the writer wants the audience to really take it seriously.

Again, I'm genuinely asking if you interacted with the game at all or did you watch it on Youtube? Because literally spending more than 2 hours with the gameplay, you can tell how utterly disconnected the core narrative and core mechanics are. That, from my experience, isn't anything new for ND games. But it is by far the biggest disconnect I have seen from them.

EDIT: It feels like MiyamotoMushashi decided to step away from the conversation the moment anything from the game was brought in and not just blind wankery. Seems like a rather big trend with ND fans nowadays.....

You.Control.Ellie.

I think you haven't played the game at all and watched it on Youtube. I refuse to believe someone missed the very obvious point of the gameplay here.

Go read/the videos where the developers THEMSELVES have stated that those aspects exist for players to feel bad about the violence. I'm not sure if you understand the purpose of game-design and mechanics in relation to the narrative.

The problem with that is again the timeskip is used as a means of skipping the moments and then using the passage of time as an excuse for "duh character change". By your own description, the change comes outta nowhere. Why that particular moment and not any time before the timeskip? Even though after the timeskip, the character, as shown in the gameplay section, hasn't really changed much.

Similar technique is used in Vinland Saga after the war arc and before the start of the farming arc. The character does horrible shit in the war arc and then the farming arc is spend entirely on the character questioning his previous actions and then coming to terms with it/growing as a person and finding new purpose. Logical character progressive and the trajectory that makes sense for the character from everything that has been build up since the beginning.

In TLOU2, Ellie stops because….the plot demands it but then we find out that she actually hasn't stopped (even though somehow her character seems to be perfectly over it) because again the plot demands and THEN she stops again because the plot demands it. There is no consistent logical character progression. It's stop-start-stop like the way the plot demands it rather than the character itself changing or behaving in an organic manner. You don't see Ellie questioning her previous actions, you don't see her flinching or being disgusted by the sight of violence and yet somehow during the final battle, she just finally starts doing that?

You are trying to argue that Ellie changes but the problem is that Ellie is clearly a plot-device here. She does whatever the plot dictates and not whatever makes sense for her.

The "change" here is basically like Sasuke randomly deciding he wants to be the Hokage. No logical reasoning, no progression, no build up, just a random "oh but" moment.

That's literally what the game is trying to do right down to including dogs that the players have to kill or give names to enemy NPC's in order for the player to feel bad. Do I even need to mention Mel?

Did you even play the game or watched it on Youtube?

Also gotta love the ending. Hundred's of people dead, Ellie doesn't question shit. Timeskip, she now questions it.

Brilliant character-writing, I gotta say. Just use timeskips as a shortcut to skip any genuine character-development. Who needs actual character-study and organic character progressive when you can just jump all over the timeline, show the character "changed", skipped any moment of "growth" and then whack you over the head with "VIOLENCE BAD".

And then the credits roll. Neil personally comes to thank all the players for participating in his fifth-grade survey of "is violence bad?" that he randomly picked as the topic just 5 mins before the class.

Also for the people that care about the LGBT stuff, don't bother. Go instead buy The Missing JJ created by Swery that presents these ideas with much greater respect and ability to explore it frankly and honestly. Support the creators that actually have the balls to be frank and honest instead of just marking the checklist.

TLOU2 is nothing more than a pandering checklist progressive crap that basically uses these elements in the cheapest way to get people to praise it. And LOOK!! Look at the media's reaction. Nobody wants to really talk about Dina's character. But want to mention that this game has a lesbian character so it must be praised. Nobody wants to talk about Lev as a character. Yet the trans stuff is praised. Empty praises because they included a gay and a trans character. PRAISE ND! They broke new grounds!

@MiyamotoMusashi:

As usual

I love how quick you are to ignore the very form of the product that you are discussing here. TLOU2 is a game. Not a tv-show or a movie. An element going against the very concept/form of the product is a pretty damn big of a deal. I'm guessing this is your first ND title or you simply haven't really noticed this but ND is pretty famous for being developers that fundamentally don't understand how to incorporate story with gameplay. These aren't different elements. These are the foundation of the entire product particularly for a game that wants to comment on violence. So when you get a game that is as serious as TLOU2 in terms of narrative but is soooooo stupidly fun in terms of just massacring those human NPC's, do you realize the absolute damage that does to the overall product?

It wants to seriously tackle the question of violence for the narrative but then also makes the act of violence so much more fun in the gameplay that the subject matter in itself cannot be taken seriously whatsoever especially when there is absolutely no way to avoid the violence. No incentive for the player to REALLY think about their choice when every and all enemy encounters end with their death. I have no choice and stopped giving a shit early on and REALLY enjoyed beating the shit outta everyone. This isn't just a small thing; this is where the work itself is completely clueless to the form as well as what it really wants to convey.

And yes, killing dogs will make some people feel bad. Just as I can create a game right now where the player is forced to beat the shit outta childrens, infants and fetuses and then point fingers at the player for killing them, without any form of choice, and making them feel bad. That is known as emotional blackmail because regardless of the talent, people will generally feel bad when you have to pointlessly kill someone particularly animals. That is not talent. That is not quality-writing. That is not bold or experimental. That is the cheapest trick in the book for getting an emotional reaction. The first game literally started off with killing off a child in order to achieve an emotional reaction from the players. Not quality writing or the fleshed out relationship between Joel or Sarah that made it emotional. But the pure implication of a child being gunned down and dying to achieve that effect. And that is the entire reason for this game's existent; it wants to simply make the player feel bad. It has NOTHING whatsoever to convey or to comment on beyond the needless emotional blackmail and violence.

Not to mention that for a 2020 game, this feels very outdated and super old. MGS2, a game from 2001, can be played from the beginning to end without killing anyone yet TLOU2, a game released 19 years after MGS2, can't? And this is supposed to be looked at some kind of a ground-breaking new gen title? Just funny that the highly acclaimed title that is being considered to be ground breaking is apparently more simple and shallow than a game that came out 19 years ago. And this is not intentional as none of modern ND titles can be played without killing someone. It's not an intentional design-choice; it's a poorly implemented system simply because modern ND isn't really capable of creating gameplay scenarios that aren't run-and-gun or killing everyone. Again; the disconnect becomes more and more relevant as you start thinking about it.

If you want ANOTHER example of the Neil's incompetency for not understanding ludo-narrative dissonance in his own work then look up Uncharted 4's Nathan and Rafe moment criticism and look up Neil's response to it. Here is the article if you want to read it. Basically, Uncharted is a series that has long been criticize for having a narrative that paints ND has a lovable hero while in the gameplay you kill 100's of people without any care or regret. In fact, the games cannot be completed without killing and most gameplay sections REQUIRE that you kill everyone before you move on. This particular criticism came to a head when in UC4 (directed/written by Neil, who directed TLOU 1 and TLOU2) Rafe, the main villain, in one of the scenes states how Nathan Drake will "not kill you in cold-blood" when the player had already been doing that for hours prior to that scene occurring. Neil's reaction to that criticism? Here is his response:

I told all the people on the team, "This is my proudest moment, the fact that I came up with this trophy on this project." We were conscious to have fewer fights, but it came more from a desire to have a different kind of pacing than to answer the "ludonarrative dissonance" argument.
Because we don't buy into it. I've been trying to dissect it. Why is it that Uncharted triggers this argument, when Indiana Jones doesn't? Is it the number? It can't be just the number, because Indiana Jones kills more people than a normal person does. A normal person kills zero people. And Indiana Jones kills a dozen, at least, over the course of several movies. What about Star Wars? Han Solo and Luke Skywalker, are they some sort of serial killers? They laugh off having killed some stormtroopers. And in The Force Awakens, we see that a stormtrooper can actually repent for the person he is and come around, and there are actually real people under those helmets.

Yep, you read that right. Instead of acknowledging a very big flaw for the entire game that makes the characters as well as the interactive segments of the game very disconnected and created by very different people, he instead points to other movies and tries to justify it while missing the entire point. It also doesn't help that Uncharted 1-3 are lighthearted, mindless action set-piece type games. Uncharted 4, on the other hand, is a "mature" take on the series and is supposed to be a serious character-driven game. That's why the disconnect, that already existed before 4, is such a huge thing. You are being told by the game itself to take it seriously but then it turns around and says "yea, it's serious, realistic and gritty …...if you ignore the gameplay/interactive side of things" while killing off any chance of the game being taken seriously.

This is like Mushashi becoming a wise person that cares about human life only for him to become like the main character of Kingdom and start killing everyone while the writer says that they are both consistent with each other and ignoring the very obvious inconsistent and confused message.

This right here is an IMPORTANT THING to consider because Neil is also the creator of TLOU2 and his incompetency and lack of any solid-understanding of the connection between narrative and gameplay and how that can make or break the game. In this case, it completely destroys whatever the game is trying to convey or explore. Because just from a design-standpoint, it's already at odds with itself before you even start talking about the other stuff.

As for the writing; I mean sure, if you ignore all the forced and out of character moment that starts the entire plotline of the game (like the golf scene, you know exactly what I'm talking about), the general lack of any character establishment, the slow-pacing and how utterly useless/waste of time it is considering that the characters that basically vomit their stories on you aren't even developed, understandable or empathetic. They are just empty cardboard cutouts that exist purely to make you feel bad for what happens to them. Otherwise, characterization in this game is basically non-existent with the best character moments being related to Joel, who is still by far the best aspect of the narrative.

How can a game feel super-rushed and yet utterly dragged out at the same time? Unpack the story in your mind, unpack the character moments in your mind, unpack the conversations in your mind, consume them, take your time, think about them and tell me exactly how much of that
A.) is actually relevant,
B.) tells you anything meaningful about the character and isn't just background fluff dressed-up as characterization
C.) doesn't comes across as empty words
D.) doesn't just come out and spell out the basic character sob story
E.) doesn't exist just to drag out the already paper-thin plot

Feel free to elaborate. Because one thing I have noticed amongst ND fans or TLOU fans is that there is very little elaboration. Just "this is good" or "i cried so best game ever". Kind of a shame since people don't really want to discuss the actual quality of it; just merely praise it and then ignore any sort of discussion for it.

As for the rambling; it's called discussion and critiquing.

I hope you do try to respond with counterpoints and not cheap tactics to ignore the actual discussion that you yourself came to this thread to start.

Learn to analyze the story before you start judging all the criticism as pointless or "didn't get it".

While there are stupid complaints, there are legit ones out that highlight the fundamental problems with the confused narrative that doesn't match at all with the gameplay, character's being super one-note and only existing to be used as plot-devices in order to make the player feel bad, the constant repetition of brutal violence and pointless deaths in order to beat you over the head with the simple and utterly "NO SHIT" message of "VIOLENCE BAD", cheap emotional blackmail tactics and a general nihilistic tone that shows how there isn't much depth or talent to be found here aside from cartoony violence.

Look at the actual characters. Look at the actual relationships. Look at the actual message. None of it is properly developed or established as much as game stating "character goes here, character says this, character does this. FEEL BAD" instead of properly establishing characters with any depth whatosever. Everything is fundamentally so ham-fisted that I wouldn't be surprised if people like it because it has blood, mature tone and gore and not because it is conveying anything meaningful with that.

From the spoilers, I assumed that this might actually be a bold direction for ND. But instead it is fundamentally exactly like how I imagine ND to handle it. Polished surface but utterly shallow when looked upon closely.

So much shit is skipped and then sloppily ham-fisted to you as you stand/walk around as the caricature characters then deliver their "sob" stories in forced dialogues just to make you feel bad about what is coming next. The worst thing about is that the game wants to take an attempt at critiquing the violence but don't seem to understand that just having NPC's with "names" or killing dogs isn't thoughtful commentary. It's just utterly stupid and makes the writers look like people who fundamentally don't even know what they want to really convey here.

There is a reason why there were three different directors for this game and two different writers. The disconnect between what they want to convey, how they convey it and how that connects with the gameplay is fundamentally huge. This is basically like Batman vs Superman or Gantz in the regards that once you overlook the horrible shit, you will soon realize how basic and simple the message is and yet the writers struggled to convey it even in 20+ hours and that's while skipping doing any sort of heavy-lifting characterization-wise.

IDK how anyone can call this "experimental" when Spec Ops the line already did the concept much better and that's not even including all the indie/Japanese titles that accompolish and explore the concept in much better and more subtle way.

This is a modern Western work through and through where the writers use the most cliched techniques and emotional blackmail as a way to be like "VIOLENCE IS BAD. FEEL BAD" while I was just massacring everyone without a single care about either side or characters. I'm sorry but this is not deep. There is no depth to be found here.

As someone who finished the Vinland Saga anime and read through the Farm arc literally hours before TLOU2 came out, the difference between the two works was super huge. Like Berserk to Gantz level of difference. One series wants to properly explore the ideas and gives it time, characters and scenarios that properly lay the groundwork while the other skips all that, pulls all the cheap trick in the book and tries to make you feel bad but once you overlook that, there is absolutely nothing to be found. Just mindless blood, bore and brutality.

I mean, the slow-to-the-point-of-constipation type character interactions where characters throw dialogues, that are supposed to build the character but ultimately come across as fluff, at each other to spread the paper-thin story have been a ND thing for some time now.

TLOU, also, suffered from the plot skipping many moments that would've given characters and their actions or how they deal with certain events more depth, in favor of passing the time to tell the story rather than convey any meaningful character.

It's just more obvious in Part 2 because the length is longer.

Though I gotta say that I love the conversations between Ellie and Dina. Not because they are interesting or convey anything meaningful but because of how forced and irrelevant they are. Like I'm going inside a building to explore it and Dina starts talking about her sister and I'm just sitting there laughing at how poor the attempt to build her character really is. Like there is absolutely nothing to her character that has any ouch of depth or characterization other than getting Ellie laid and fluff dialogues.

I recently finished the Vinland anime and seeing how that series tackles the concept of revenge and violence compare to TLOU2 is just interesting. It's like one is written by someone who has put thought and care into the themes while the other one is written by a fifth-grader who thinks that Gantz is brilliant because blood, gore and general nihilistic views. It's dark, bloody, edgy so therefore it must be saying something about something.

The best thing about this conference was just how irrelevant PS5 actually was here.

None of the games coming out for PS5 look like anything next-gen or seem to leave any sort of impression other than them being common generic triple A crap. Indie titles were the only ones that seem interesting and different and again, you don't really need a PS5 to play them (unless Sony just makes them exclusive just for the sake of business).

PS consoles (mainline only) are the only consoles that I care to buy and PS5 seems like there isn't anything justifying its existent. For all the big talk about the hardware, none of the games feel any different from PS4 mechanically and technically speaking. Might just wait until the next 10th edition/version of PS5 comes out in 2024 before getting it.

It would also be freaking hilarious if the games still end up being stable or unstable 30FPS rather than 60. Either way, next gen isn't looking next-gen so far. Just more of the same crap with more time wasted on visuals and less time on the actual…..interactive elements.

Goddamn, that looks shit.

Yea, the earlier parts of Vagabond are a bit like earlier parts of Berserk. It just takes time for the writers to find the right footing.

It's why I never understood why anyone would read a heavy character-driven narrative like Vagabond and not give it couple of volumes.

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

@FatDogForMidTerms:

Why the fuck would anyone care at all about someone else's manga preferences?

And for that matter demand an explanation from them?

Ask yourself this; why did you seek out Apforums and create an account here?

The answer to that question is the answer to all your questions.

4 chapters…...just to put things into perspective; the first volume of Vagabond has 10 chapters.

This dude legit read less than HALF of the first volume and yet somehow managed to understood the entire series and came to the conclusion that the series is bad.

You can't make this shit up.

Something tells me you will be waiting quite a long time for that type of discussion :ninja:

What's the appeal of Cowboy Bebop for you guys? Or Watanabe's work in general?

I watched both Bebop and Samurai years ago and while I enjoyed Bebop a bit, I was just bored by Samurai and generally found Watanabe to be all style and no-substance type director. I found his work on Kids on the Slope to be much stronger than any of his work before or since then. Though I already loved the manga way before his adaptation came out so I'm not sure if his direction was the reason for why I loved it. Is there more to the director or is he one of those "love'em or hate'em" where either the work clicks with you or it doesn't.

Those Terek posts were painful to read through.

Reminds me of the recent "I have read only 20 chapters of Vagabond and have seen everything from those 20 chapters so therefore the series sucks" posted by a certain someone.

For anyone who entertained the idea of rewatching the earlier parts of Bleach.

@auem:

At it's peak OP sold some 36 millions in a year. Kimetsu already 10 millions ahead in half a year. Having read it completely already, it's popularity baffles me. It is a very good manga with repetitive trope( sad past and noble sacrifice) again and again. I doubt it can keep the same hype( irrespective of sales number) outside Japan.

You have to take 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 in account for One Piece's overall backlog sales as it didn't just happen over the course of 1 year as there were over 50+ volumes.

Kimetsu reached those numbers this year because the backlog sales started late last year and continued this year. I highly doubt Kimetsu will see anything close to these numbers next year as it seems like people are caught up.

Here are the articles for OP's number during those years:

https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2010-11-30/top-selling-manga-in-japan-by-series/2010 https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2011-11-30/top-selling-manga-in-japan-by-series/2011 https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2012-12-02/30-top-selling-manga-in-japan-by-series/2012 https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2013-12-01/top-selling-manga-in-japan-by-series/2013

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

@Gia:

One piece is very likely to eclipse those numbers once it reaches it's final volumes, the finale is poised to be the biggest thing ever in manga lol

That literally makes no sense if you think about it for more than 2 seconds.

Nobody is going to catch up with the series that has over 100+ volumes just to see the end. It will most likely bring some people but if you think that it's somehow going to bring entirely new millions of readers then you are seriously kidding yourself. Every series has it's peak. One Piece already hit its peak.

Roger wasn't thinking about Imu too lmfaoooooooo.

Please go on.

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

Also Whitebeard's VERY mention of THAT is particularly painting the picture of Blackbeard's importance.

This is just becoming silly with you trying your hardest to ignore the very clear and distinct storytelling pattern where Oda is LITERALLY singling Blackbeard out. Whitebeard did not talk about Law or Kidd let alone any other D clan member? Yet he did mention Blackbeard in the same breath as Roger while knowing the truth. But that ain't anything to you?

Like I'm guessing you want Oda to point fingers and present a powerpoint type presentation to highlight the fact that he is highlighting and singling out Blackbeard amongst the D-clan.

!

Ray literally states "The answer you will arrive at may be different from ours even after you see the world in it's entirety at your own pace".

I'll never understand the blatant disregard for Blackbeard and his importance. Like you seem to acknowledge the importance of the plot-threads regarding void century but then completely ignore the fact that Blackbeard is, just like Luffy, also an important part of them. And especially after the introduction of Rock's role in the previous era.

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

@Cyan:

I swear to god like 50% of the pushback against Teach being the Final Boss is because Teach doesn't fit peoples' notion of what a shonen Final Boss is.

Or the fact that people apparently can't comprehend such an interesting character being the final villain.

Must have a blank one-note villain.

I can't say I'm interested in writing paragraphs about "should be" or "if this so therefore that".

The final conflict of the entire series, and the earth-shattering revelation will not be "WG people are dicks". History was brought in. Concept of interpretation was brought in. Your interpretation of the plot still seems to be stuck at pre-Sabondy.

Luffy will not be doing the same thing as he has done in the story up until that point. The revelation has to be…...well a revelation. And it can't be a revelation when the main protag have already seen the corruption of the WG and have fought against them.

And then there is the fact that Ancient Kingdom itself wasn't entirely good by itself as consistently and constantly empathized power of the Ancient weapons. The whole void century conflict isn't going to come down to "AK good, WG bad". And this was plainly illustrated when Ray talks about seeing the world and coming to a different conclusion. Interpretation.

Now keeping with the series inheritance of will concept, it will come down to two characters from the same clan. Who, upon the revelation, will act on the Will according to their own beliefs and moral character. Thus Luffy representing the good side of AK and BB representing the bad side.

The final conflict between Luffy and BB is far more relevant and satisfying than whateve Imu is supposed to represent (who isn't even the first one to do so mind you).

And then there is the fact that a pirate series will have the final duel between pirates.

WG are important but BB is being build up as far more important as he ties into the D-clan plot-thread, AK-plot-thread, and One Piece-plot-thread.

And is named after the most well-known pirate of all time lol.

But nah, he just some fodder who exists for Luffy to punch before One Piece.

@Chrior:

Oh snap, I had totally forgotten about that! And all the while Chopper and Sanji going about their Mr. Prince shenanigans. I suddenly got the need to reread old OP, but scanlations from those times are worse than terrible. Maybe after rewatching FMA Brotherhood, I'll get to rewatching OP as well. The anime was pretty good back then.

There are great HQ scanlations available for the earlier One Piece volumes.

Luffy believes in dreams and seeks true freedom. One Piece and the title of 'Pirate King' are means to that end. They are not the end in and of themselves. Teach believes in those same ideals. Only one can inherit the treasure and the title. It has become clear over the past 980 chapters that the treasure represents more than the fulfillment of selfish desire. To discover One Piece is to inherit the burden of history. It is to inherit the responsibility of completing that which Roger, the first to discover the treasure, and Joy Boy, the one who left it 800 years ago, could not or did not.

Teach is not Luffy's thematic antithesis. His speech when the two meet in Mock Town underscores the idea that the two share largely the same beliefs. What differs is their moral character. In simple terms, both are dreamers who openly pursue their goals in waking hours to make them reality, but Luffy is good and Teach is evil.

Now really think about what you said here.

Literally made the case for Blackbeard lol.

One Piece isn't going to be seeing those numbers ever again.

Even having a super high quality anime isn't really going to help with that. One Piece already had it's peak during 2011 and 2012. There is no way that One Piece is ever going to blow up like that again.

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

@Riddler:

I admit, I'm actually not much of a manga/anime fan, so I have no idea what the hell Kimetsu no Yaiba is and why it's selling such an insane amount of volumes when I've never heard of it before (I usually know at least the names of the major ones). Where they even on the list last time? It's a little weird how the series apparently came out of nowhere and surpassed One Piece by this much.

It was on the list last year.

As for why; the anime is created by Ufotable and the animation quality is pretty damn great.

I guess I should make it clear that most of my points were solely focused on FT and Hiro Mashima. Not Bleach.

And while there is a lot that can be said about Kubo and his weakness as a writer, he at least crafted something at the beginning of Bleach that people (including me) to this day look back with fondness. And you can easily analyze the most basic elements and understand why Bleach was popular and why the latter arcs and the state of the series disappointed many. It reached heights and showed incredible potential that was destroyed.

VS a series that started off incredibly unremarkable and only got worst as the series went along with the writer already establishing that he had zero clue and ended up rinse-repeating the arcs. It never offer any level of heights or highs or elements that made it worth a damn. That's why people are super passive towards it to the point of ignoring the most basic issues that the series had since the very beginning.

And as someone who originally got into the anime/manga medium through Bleach and have watched the anime AND read the manga from the beginning to the end of Aizen multiple times, I can easily say that the beginning of Bleach was one of the best shonen beginning I have ever seen. And it's certainly more impressive and interesting then some of the big shonen hitters right now.

And that's not to say that Bleach manga is the one that made the series like that. The anime elevated the source material and give it depth that Kubo started losing through his drawings. Kubo himself is a great artist but is a poor-mangaka whose approach works better for single-still shot type drawings rather than comic panels that are supposed to convey variety of things. Kubo started focusing on poses and "cool" imagery but ultimately failed to give them weight. The last arc is full of revelations that I was waiting for years including Isshin's and Kenpachi's backstory but felt absolutely nothing when they were actually revealed. No sense of weight behind them whatsoever. And practically every big/huge moment in the final arc is consistently hammered down by the lack of weight. Which is why even Kubo stopped caring and decided to go Oprah "you get a fight" route. No sense or logic or anything. Just explosions, deaths, mindless fighting.

Which is why it's a bit exciting to see how the anime will do it because the anime has always done a better job at conveying what Kubo wanted to but didn't have the ability to do so.

@pariston_hill:

fact a person enjoys something of questionable quality doesn't mean said person is incapable o perceiving the flaws of the work.

Literally, nobody cares.

I don't know if my post somehow triggered you guys to write whatever this is supposed to be rather than what the actual point of my post was, combining the context of it but this is just ridiculous.

Go back and read it please because this "OPINION" shit is literally not relevant here. Nobody cares if you enjoy them or dislike them.

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

@zeltrax225:

Stop treating everyone else that doesn't enjoy your "pinnacle" of literature as peasants devoid of critical thinking and maybe respect the other series for what they have done right to reach popularity.

I don't know if this is meant to be ironic considering this particular comment:

Maybe you'll understand more aspects of culture, of history, that you might have missed and dismissed and only get a better appreciation with more understanding.
That's why it is dangerous to peg your standards onto others without truly understanding why people enjoy the entertainment and medium that they do.

Which is even more jarring when combine it with this part:

they are not exactly going through this list of "masterful story telling 101" before deciding to continue and turn the page.

So which is it? Are you trying to say that people mindlessly read shit because they enjoy it or do they think they are going to get something more out of it?

And in regards for Bleach and FT, exactly how do these apply? I'm interested to see how people can apparently get something more from series that are literally devoid of any author voice and rely entirely on cliches and tropes.

I'm gonna ignore the very-obvious tactic that you are applying over here. It's not literature to have some sort of an standard for stories. You seem to be confused about the type of series you are reading and are, in fact, trying to claim that these series that are created for teen boys somehow contain some serious subtext when they really don't nor they have to.

Seems like you are insecure about reading series that are just meant to entertain and then claiming that you need some cultural context because Rabbit goddess being a terrible last-min boss is loaded with Japanese culture and only those who achieve the true weeb status can understand it and appreciate it.

there was definitely something that still draws the readers back and that enjoyment makes the terrible writing/illogical moments bearable.

People still watch and talk about The Room or Birdemic. Not because of its own intentional enjoyment but rather the unintentional so-bad-so-good type moments that come from the lack of experience, skill, and understanding of the medium.

with a greater understanding of the importance of familial values and the Japanese culture will I be

….......Do you know why they call it shonen series? Maybe look into that since that will be much simpler and faster to understand why Naruto was popular.

knowing your audience is so important

Knowing your audience and pandering to your audience are two different things.

Like Stanley Kubrick and Michael Bay level of difference.

Its not a reboot so just covering the final arc as far as i know.

Nice reading comprehension you got there, bud.

Mind showing the response where I mentioned that you can't enjoy something?

I'm gonna assume that this isn't one of those "I got nothing to say so let me just pull out something that wasn't even mentioned as a way to support my irrelevant point".

Let's see if there is more to this conversation or will it end with "SUBJECTIVE" as some ground-breaking statement.

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

But here; let me make the obvious distinction here.

Art is subjective in terms of how YOU or I feel towards it.

The craftmanship of the art isn't subjective. A poorly written character is poorly written regardless of how you feel about it. Just like how a poorly written series is a poorly written series. You can enjoy it. You can love it. You can consider it to the best thing since slice bread. But that doesn't make it.....not poorly written. But if you really enjoy it then it shouldn't really matter what the quality is.

Going back to Citizen Kane and The Room; some people might find The Room to be more enjoyable than Kane and might like it better. I myself don't care for Kane. But the actual quality, skills and the impact on the industry behind it? That is factual. That isn't "opinion" or "subjective".

Because yes, any artistic work is created in a vacuum and then randomly shat on the paper.

Remember, there isn't any difference between the film making of The Room and The Citizen Kane. It's all subjective.

Or so is the go-to-response for majority of people nowadays when it comes to understanding criticism.

TL;DR; Writing a shitty series can be a talent because you sold copies and have fans who bought them.

Remember guys, if you steal elements from other series and basically execute them in the most generic and laziest way then you are talented. Who cares about author voice, creativity, trying to put your own spin, or writing skills etc…. when you can copy popular works and make money.

--- Update From New Post Merge ---

@Razh:

not sure what is there to disagree on.

Pretty much says all right here.

actually talented writers

For example? ….....

Pandering and copying/pasting popular elements into your work is now considered a talent. Well shit, Stephenie Meyer and E.L.James must be really talented writers because they sell copies and know exactly which group of teen girls they are appealing to.

Oh, the shit people come up with in order to justify reading garbage.

Them being incompetent and them making money aren't even remotely connected.

@Dylcor:

I haven’t yet watched stampede, didn’t get to see it in theatres, but this Friday funimation is making it available for 2 months on their site! Finally I’ll get to watch it. Without spoilers, what are opinions on it from people here? How does it stack up against previous one piece movies?

Depends on what you are reading the series for, i guess.

While lot of people enjoyed it, I can't say I did and would consider it even weaker than Strong World since most of the movie is just fighting and fighting. Visuals are cool if you like the fights but as someone who generally can't care about fights, it was a waste of time.

It didn't help that Bullet has as much personality as Rob Lucci and would easily go down in my book as the second most blandest and generic character in the series aside from Lucci.

Film Z and Movie 6 are still the boss when it comes to One Piece adaptation.

Also fuck that female cast and their Sword of Art online level of garbage and cringey dialogues.

While I can forgive the padded nature of the story, the superficial attempt at giving characterization to these caricatures and the 2008 gameplay systems, the female cast was the absolute fucking trash. Felt like I was watching some softcore hentai whenever they showed up on screen in particular Jesse. Having to sit through her godawful one-note character being thirsty for Cloud was just….uhhhhh.

It looks pretty ok so far.

Combat looks very Assassin's Creed-like and doesn't really seem to have much depth besides capturing the dullness of samurai in gameplay.

Just a question for the One Pace team; will you guys be doing the English Dub too or is it just purely the japanese version?

I know this project in itself is a massive undertaking, especially for people who are just doing it as a hobby, and I appreciate all the work done here but I just wanted to ask if there were ever plans to do the dub too.

Also for people who have watched both English sub and dub of the first 200 episodes, which one do you think is better?

Take it with a grain of salt until there is an actual reliable source to confirm it. As of now, it sounds made up.

With context, it means nothing.

The connection isn't really there. Even YOU guys acknowledge that but then lowley insert "maybe she will because if and therefore".

@Vongola_Boss_XI:

Moments before his death, Pedro imparted the wish on to Carrot and expressed his belief that the Straw Hats will bring about the New Dawn awaited by the Minks and Kozuki for centuries. It doesn't necessitate she joins the crew, but does give her clear motivation to do so.

Nope.

One thing does not mean the other. "If so therefore or why" is just poor reasoning.

You would only have to resort to this level of thinking if you don't have any actual reasons.

His wish does not mean that she will join nor gives her the motivation to do so. Bringing the dawn of the world isn't depended on her joining Sh's and being part of their journey.

Oda inverted the typical pattern with Carrot.

…...By poorly developing the character and making her the absolute laziest SH to date, IF she joins?