Print Media Hot Takes

[TheMysteriousGX]

Echoing other forums, what are your hot takes for various print medias, or what hot takes have you seek and agree with?

Delicious in Dungeon, Laios is a furry


Also, I think Kui's probably building to a Laios/Marcille endgame, which is a shame

 

[Hawki]

Alright, that's extremely broad, but I'll nominate some:

-Alice in Wonderland really isn't that good. I get that the point of it is that its writing style defies conventions, that it's a dream with a stream of thought approach, that doesn't make it GOOD.

-A Song of Ice and Fire could easily exist in a world without Lord of the Rings. There's a clear path of inspiration that leads to it (War of the Roses, Atlantis, etc.) that doesn't require Tolkien as a stepping stone.

-Brave New World>1984 (though they're both excellent).

-Farenheit 451 isn't that good, actually.

-The Jeter Blade Runner novels are so lacklustre, this is one of the few times I really don't care that something like them was retconned ipso facto (by Blade Runner 2049 and all the media that came with it).

-The Last Battle (of The Chronicles of Narnia) is bad, and if you like it, your opinion is bad. Also, Voyage of the Dawn Treader and Prince Caspian are the two best works in the series, while Witch/Wardrobe is pretty average, actually. Also, Charn is one of the most conceptually interesting elements of the universe.

-Brandon Sanderson is...I hate to say it, but he's overrated. The first Mistborn trilogy is pretty neat, but everything else of his I've read is generally average. I respect the guy as to the sheer volume of stuff he's able to pump out, but it isn't that great.

-Matilda is Roald Dahl's best work (if you disagree, go home, you're drunk).

-Superhero comics are imposssiblely dense for newbies to get into, and I'd wager that's why manga is kicking their arse in a lot of areas.

-Dracula is...it's bad, okay? It really isn't that good. I can appreciate the cultural legacy it left, but the work in of itself is bad.

-The Expanded Dune novels aren't bad, actually. They're not as good as the originals, but of the ones I've read, they're average space opera at worst. And of what I've read, there isn't much that feels incongruent with Original Dune.

-The Enderverse novels are a bizzare case where by all rights, they shouldn't work (in terms of writing style and arguably plot points), yet somehow do. That said, I can appreciate the less esoteric novels as well, such as the Formic Wars series.

-The Expanse novels aren't that good, and have a case of diminishing returns. The best element of the Expanse was its worldbuilding and mechanics, but by their nature, that gets less impressive as time goes on. In terms of plot and character...well, sorry Avasarala, I love ya, but you can't carry this series by yourself (nor can Bobbie for that matter).

-The Gears of War novels under Traviss are a mixed bag. On one hand, the IP owes them a great debt for fleshing the setting out. On the other, her personal politics...whoo, boy.

-The Halo novels get too much credit in a conceptual sense. They're not the only tie-in novels out there that have helped flesh out a setting, games or otherwise.

-The Harry Potter novels are pretty neat, actually.

-The Librarians novels are better than the show they're based on. Period.

-The My Little Pony comics are legit, in the sense that they're able to be a bit darker, and devote more time to worldbuilding. Deal with it!

-The Perfect Dark novels are the best thing to come out of Perfect Dark Zero given how they're able to flesh out the setting.

-Peter Pan (the book) is actually pretty dark, when you consider the full implications of it all.

-Ready Player One is a book based on VR, where the best elements of the book are those that focus on what's happening in the real-world, while the stuff that happens in the Oasis is pandering nonsense (yes, Cline, you CAN list 70s and 80s pop culture stuff for pages on end, I GET IT)

-Saga of Seven Suns is what happens when you have an interesting setting let down by mediocre writing.

-The best Shannara book ever written is Elfstones, which means that Terry has spent decades never reaching the heights he did in the early 80s. Sorry.

-2001: A Space Oddyssey (the book) is better than the film (while it's the other way round for 2010).

-Starship Troopers (the book) does not promote fascism. It does, however, promote militarianism. I think it's a good book, even if I don't like it much, either as it's written, or its themes/ideas.

-The new Star Wars EU stuff (under Disney) isn't too bad, actually. Yeah, there's some stinkers, but don't pretend the old EU was 100% gold either.

-There's barely been a single Terminator novel or comic ever written that has ever...EVER...really "got" Terminator. The closest I've seen was Timothy Zahn's works.

-Terra Nullius...okay, it isn't good, okay? Maybe that's just my "white fragility" showing, but even leaving the questionable historical parallels aside, the worldbuilding is highly questionable, as is the writing style (I can't think of any other novel where epigraphs are multiple paragraphs long, often coming close to 2 pages, if not further).

-Emily Rodda seriously needs to write adult (or at least YA) stuff in her World of Deltora universe, because it's actually pretty creative stuff, just, y'know, targeted at kids (yes, I'm being selfish).

-The Wheel of Time isn't very good actually. Or if it is, it happens after book 3 (where I gave up).

-Japser Jones (the book) needs to be stuided in Oz more, because it's the Australian equivalent of To Kill a Mockingbird. Mockingbird's better, granted, but JJ's far more relevant to the country it's set in.

-The Hate You Give's movie adaptation is better than the book. Cuts out a lot of the 'fat.'

-The Hunger Games novels aren't that good. It's one of the few cases where I can say unequivocably that the films are better than the books they're based on.

-His Dark Materials has the subtlety of a brick. Yes, I get it, religion is bad, I agree religion is bad, you don't need to keep hitting me over the head with it. Also, Lyra's kind of a twit.

 

[Hawki]

-Can we please, PLEASE have less focus on Shakespeare? No, this isn't because he's a "dead white male," but I really don't think that there needs to be a stage play of his assigned every year/semester/term (might vary). I'm sure there's even playrights of his own time and place that might warrant a look.

-Jasper Fforde is criminally underrated. People have compared him to Pratchett, and IMO, that's a fair comparison.

-Ken Penders (of the Archie Sonic comics) doesn't get a fair shake. Yes, he did have that lawsuit nonsense, and after #125, some of his stories got...weird, in a way, but he was the one who turned the comic from a spinoff of SatAM/AoSTH to its own thing with its own identity. He deserves credit for that at least.

-Twilight (the first book) isn't that bad...sort of. It's not for me, but in the sense of what it's trying to do (use of first person, plain girl is crushed on by hot guy), it succeeds. I just don't think what it does is that appealing (to me).

-The Bible is poorly written. There's too much deus ex machina involved.

-The Dark Tower isn't very good (or at least the first two books aren't, gave up after that).

-The Homeward Bounders (by Dianna Wynne Jones) needs more affection. I know, everyone loves Howl's Moving Castle, but seriously, have you read this book? It's jointly bonkers and creepy, and it needs more love.

-The Wind on Fire needs more love.

-Kids today can do better than Captain Underpants. I know that this is a book meant for young uns, but come on, seriously?

-I swear to God, one day I'll learn why all the little bastards like Geronimo Stilton so much. 0_0

-Okay, out of time, big one...I don't buy this idea that certain material should only be reserved for certain authors, based on inherent traits such as sex, sexuality, gender, etc. It is perfectly legitimate to criticize such works on the quality of those works itself (or lack of it), I don't buy the idea that only certain groups have the 'right' to write certain characters/periods/areas. You can point out, correctly, that not everyone has the same opportunity to have their works published, but that's more an excuse for stuff like scholarships and particular talent-drives, not imposing restrictions on what people can/should write.

 

[Drathnoxis]

Jesus, Hawki, you could run a boiler with so many hot takes!

-Farenheit 451 isn't that good, actually.

Agreed. Quite over rated.

-Brandon Sanderson is...I hate to say it, but he's overrated. The first Mistborn trilogy is pretty neat, but everything else of his I've read is generally average. I respect the guy as to the sheer volume of stuff he's able to pump out, but it isn't that great.

The first Mistborn trilogy was very good, though. I haven't read any of his other stuff except the second trilogy, which I wasn't as fond of.

-The Hunger Games novels aren't that good. It's one of the few cases where I can say unequivocably that the films are better than the books they're based on.

I liked the first one a lot, the others not so much. I thought the third had kind of a crappy ending and a lot of the logic and characters didn't make much sense.

-Kids today can do better than Captain Underpants. I know that this is a book meant for young uns, but come on, seriously?

I will never forgive you for this. Captain Underpants was, like, my favorite book ever when I was in grade 2. You are clearly too dim to see the true meaning and satire in the story. It's really a very profound work. Much meaning.

 

[Hawki]

Jesus, Hawki, you could run a boiler with so many hot takes!

It's autumn here. I needed the heat.

 

[BrawlMan]

-The Gears of War novels under Traviss are a mixed bag. On one hand, the IP owes them a great debt for fleshing the setting out. On the other, her personal politics...whoo, boy.

Such as? Curiosity here.

• Neuromancer is boring as fuck, and not much happening. Just because it's the first of its kind, does not make it good.
• The first three stories in the John Carter of Mars Trilogy are the best parts in the franchise. After that, the later installments vary in quality.
• The Conan stories from Howard are good (the one's that aren't completely racist), but I feel the character got so much over hype from the Frank Frazetta paintings on later covers, and the movie adaption. Nothing against movie, nor Frazetta of course.
• Most "literary classics" I don't care much for, nor have interests in reading. There's plenty of non-classics that are just as important or more important to read and learn from.
• Most overly long manga are not worth the money they are printed on. Especially when the art quality gets worse or too simplified. Once again, the shounen genre suffers so much from this.
• The DMC1 prequel novel has some good ideas, but those were fleshed out better in 3 and later installments.
• Nearly all of the Star Wars EU, pre-Disney or post-Disney are all bad fanfiction. Ironic, because Disney ended up making the same mistakes in Rise of Skywalker all of the pre-Disney EU did.
• The Vampire Hunter D novels are not good. Just stick with the Bloodlust movie.
• Futurama ruined Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy for me.
• I prefer the first two animated Ghost in the Shell movies, and SAC over the manga.
• Akame Ga Kill sucks, with the anime adaption only being slightly "better". Either way, don't bother being too attached to any of the characters. The same applies to Elfen Lied.
• The Tenchi mini-series comics by defunct Pioneer USA, are better than any of the original manga continuity and the franchises various manga/light novel spin-offs.
• The manga version of Afro Samurai is the worst version of the story and character. You have no reason to root for what he did in the manga. Stick with either the anime, it's sequel, or the video game adaption.
• I actually prefer the animated adaption of The Long Halloween over the comic original. The comic is by no means bad, but the two part movie has better flow, pacing, and is less convoluted in its murder mystery.
• Other than art style, I find Sin City to be over rated. Not bad, but it's clear Frank Miller never got out of his "Sin City phase" afterward. The best version of Sin City is Mad World.
• The Udon Street Fighter comics have some of the best and simple stories; especially some of the spin-off stories that focus on personal struggles of various fighters. My favorite and what I consider the best is Ibuki Legends.
• A lot of the spin-off/sequel comics for Avatar and Legend of Korra are not good or terrible. ATLA has only three good comic stories: The Rift, North & South, and Imbalance. With Imbalance being the best of the three.

 

[Hawki]

Such as? Curiosity here.

So to be clear, I'm referring to the politics as presented in the novels themselves. I don't doubt this stems from Travis's own views (and Travis has a habit of not 'playing nice' in the tie-in media she writes for), but basically:

-The GOW novels are very, VERY pro-military. And you might say "it's Gears of War, isn't that to be expected?", and yes, you might be right. However, this kind of stuff gets hammered over and over, in that:

-If you're a soldier, you're generally respected, and this is presented as a good thing. Not in the sense of "you served the COG, thank you" more the idea that military service = better moral standing, ipso facto. This is generally reinforced by the characters in said military, whereas non-military characters? Well, every politician is generally scum. Every scientist is generally presented as being amoral (e.g. making the Hammer of Dawn), and if you're one of the 'good ones' (e.g. Adam Fenix), well, Adam's different, don't ya know? He's a former Gear, he understands the cost of war, therefore when HE makes the Hammer of Dawn, he's doing it for the right reasons, whereas all those nasty UIR scientists were just dicks for doing...the exact same thing.

-This further extends to the Stranded. The weird thing is, if you look at the novels chronologically, it starts off being sympathetic to the Stranded (I mean, these are people that were left for dead in the Hammer strikes), but by the time period of the game, every Stranded/group of Stranded is portrayed as being idiots at best, or monsters at worst (criminals, rapists, etc.) The only 'good' Stranded is Dizzy, who's the one who brings himself and his family into the COG to do his part. From a purely intellectual point of view, you can say that the Stranded trying to go their own is silly, the Locust want all of humanity dead, but humans aren't always logical, and the Stranded have pretty good reason to dislike the COG. But in the books, the COG (or at least its military) can't be wrong, so therefore, the Stranded are just all dicks.

-Forwarding any counter-points, you could technically make the argument that these are all arguments from in-universe, and make sense, but trust me, the novels have a through-theme with them that the reader is expected to agree with. It's absolutely possible for a novel to portray arguments from characters that the reader isn't meant to agree with, or at least present ideas that leaves it up to the reader to decide on, but the Gears novels aren't among them. And if you disagree, then I can point to Traviss's Halo, Star Wars, and Wess'har novels, where the same archtypes apply (soldiers are great, scientists are stupid or downright amoral, everyone else falls somewhere between those moral points). How one feels about this is up to them, but there's a common pro-military theme among all of Traviss's works that I doubt is coincidental.

-And back to my first point about Gears being pro-military...it isn't. Not really. Oh sure, it has you playing as soldiers fighting against genocidal monsters, but Gears has never really been an "oo-rah"-esque franchise like, say, Call of Duty. Gears has generally been pretty sombre about the conflicts it portrays - there's certainly chest-pounding moments, but there's always been a sense of tragedy in the games, both under Epic and the Coalition. This is especially true under the latter. The novels, however, are. As in, explicitly pro-military and the supposed ideals of military service.

(There's also other things, such as how little Traviss explores the Locust, or how book!Hoffman is completely different from games!Hoffman, but that's another issue.)

 

[BrawlMan]

So to be clear, I'm referring to the politics as presented in the novels themselves. I don't doubt this stems from Travis's own views (and Travis has a habit of not 'playing nice' in the tie-in media she writes for), but basically:

-The GOW novels are very, VERY pro-military. And you might say "it's Gears of War, isn't that to be expected?", and yes, you might be right. However, this kind of stuff gets hammered over and over, in that:

-If you're a soldier, you're generally respected, and this is presented as a good thing. Not in the sense of "you served the COG, thank you" more the idea that military service = better moral standing, ipso facto. This is generally reinforced by the characters in said military, whereas non-military characters? Well, every politician is generally scum. Every scientist is generally presented as being amoral (e.g. making the Hammer of Dawn), and if you're one of the 'good ones' (e.g. Adam Fenix), well, Adam's different, don't ya know? He's a former Gear, he understands the cost of war, therefore when HE makes the Hammer of Dawn, he's doing it for the right reasons, whereas all those nasty UIR scientists were just dicks for doing...the exact same thing.

-This further extends to the Stranded. The weird thing is, if you look at the novels chronologically, it starts off being sympathetic to the Stranded (I mean, these are people that were left for dead in the Hammer strikes), but by the time period of the game, every Stranded/group of Stranded is portrayed as being idiots at best, or monsters at worst (criminals, rapists, etc.) The only 'good' Stranded is Dizzy, who's the one who brings himself and his family into the COG to do his part. From a purely intellectual point of view, you can say that the Stranded trying to go their own is silly, the Locust want all of humanity dead, but humans aren't always logical, and the Stranded have pretty good reason to dislike the COG. But in the books, the COG (or at least its military) can't be wrong, so therefore, the Stranded are just all dicks.

-Forwarding any counter-points, you could technically make the argument that these are all arguments from in-universe, and make sense, but trust me, the novels have a through-theme with them that the reader is expected to agree with. It's absolutely possible for a novel to portray arguments from characters that the reader isn't meant to agree with, or at least present ideas that leaves it up to the reader to decide on, but the Gears novels aren't among them. And if you disagree, then I can point to Traviss's Halo, Star Wars, and Wess'har novels, where the same archtypes apply (soldiers are great, scientists are stupid or downright amoral, everyone else falls somewhere between those moral points). How one feels about this is up to them, but there's a common pro-military theme among all of Traviss's works that I doubt is coincidental.

-And back to my first point about Gears being pro-military...it isn't. Not really. Oh sure, it has you playing as soldiers fighting against genocidal monsters, but Gears has never really been an "oo-rah"-esque franchise like, say, Call of Duty. Gears has generally been pretty sombre about the conflicts it portrays - there's certainly chest-pounding moments, but there's always been a sense of tragedy in the games, both under Epic and the Coalition. This is especially true under the latter. The novels, however, are. As in, explicitly pro-military and the supposed ideals of military service.

(There's also other things, such as how little Traviss explores the Locust, or how book!Hoffman is completely different from games!Hoffman, but that's another issue.)

Most comic book/literature tie-ins to games are shit. I get where you're coming from and thank you for the information.

 

[Hawki]

Most comic book/literature tie-ins to games are shit. I get where you're coming from and thank you for the information.

Well, don't agree that "most" are. Some, yes, maybe 50/50, but not "most." There's plenty of tie-in fiction I enjoy, and that actually does include the GoW novels.

That might seem weird given I spent a good 10 minutes explaining what I don't like about them, but there's plenty of stuff I do like. In fact, I think the IP owes a great debt to Traviss, because no matter my personal feelings, her novel run really helped flesh out the setting. Prior to the novels, stuff like Sera (as a whole) and the Pendulum Wars were just broad strokes in the background. The novels, on the other hand, really excel in worldbuilding, giving Sera a sense of time, place, and culture. You can actually see this reflected in the games from 3 onwards, as the concepts in the novels are lifted wholesale. Considering that Epic Games confirmed that these were never really fleshed out (they had broad strokes for the trilogy, that was it, heck, GOW 1's story was made up on the fly to chain a sequence of random missions together), Traviss certainly deserves credit in building the setting up.

People have often accused Traviss of not "playing nice" with the IPs she writes for (and I kind of agree, using Halo and Star Wars as examples), but I think the GOW novels work in part because when she wrote them, there was so little lore to actually 'ruin.' If not for Traviss, I'd argue GOW would be in a very different place today, at least in terms of lore.

 

[BrawlMan]

Well, don't agree that "most" are. Some, yes, maybe 50/50, but not "most." There's plenty of tie-in fiction I enjoy, and that actually does include the GoW novels.

Sturgeon's Law - 90% of everything is crap. That is most. I rest my case. When it comes to video games tie-ins though, it is more like 95%. But since you enjoy them, or certain parts of them, I hold nothing against you for it.

 

[Gordon_4]

Well, don't agree that "most" are. Some, yes, maybe 50/50, but not "most." There's plenty of tie-in fiction I enjoy, and that actually does include the GoW novels.

That might seem weird given I spent a good 10 minutes explaining what I don't like about them, but there's plenty of stuff I do like. In fact, I think the IP owes a great debt to Traviss, because no matter my personal feelings, her novel run really helped flesh out the setting. Prior to the novels, stuff like Sera (as a whole) and the Pendulum Wars were just broad strokes in the background. The novels, on the other hand, really excel in worldbuilding, giving Sera a sense of time, place, and culture. You can actually see this reflected in the games from 3 onwards, as the concepts in the novels are lifted wholesale. Considering that Epic Games confirmed that these were never really fleshed out (they had broad strokes for the trilogy, that was it, heck, GOW 1's story was made up on the fly to chain a sequence of random missions together), Traviss certainly deserves credit in building the setting up.

People have often accused Traviss of not "playing nice" with the IPs she writes for (and I kind of agree, using Halo and Star Wars as examples), but I think the GOW novels work in part because when she wrote them, there was so little lore to actually 'ruin.' If not for Traviss, I'd argue GOW would be in a very different place today, at least in terms of lore.

A lot of the fluff about Gears makes me question if this is a universe worth saving because it just seems to be full of utterly amoral psychopaths. Granted this could merely be representative of those who are left fighting the Locust after all the normal people are dead but I can’t imagine that should these meathead chucklefucks defeat the enemy for good, that the society built in the aftermath is going to be a good one.

 

[Drathnoxis]

• Futurama ruined Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy for me.

How so? I read the Guide books after I saw Futurama and loved them anyway.

• Neuromancer is boring as fuck, and not much happening. Just because it's the first of its kind, does not make it good.

Couldn't agree more. I made it through maybe 50 pages before I couldn't take it anymore. Just endless purple prose, which is -- hold on, this can be it's own take.

OT: Purple prose is a writing style used by hack writers that don't know how to give their writing actual meaning. They wrap every sentence in 10x the necessary descriptors and hope nobody notices that it doesn't actually mean anything anymore. And the worst thing is how people eat it up, thinking it makes them more intelligent to read something where the meaning has to be interpreted, when in reality it's just the author covering up the fact that they don't actually have anything insightful to say.

Prominent examples: The Name of the Wind, Fahrenheit 451, and Neuromancer.

Symbolism can shove it for the same reasons.

 

[BrawlMan]

How so? I read the Guide books after I saw Futurama and loved them anyway.

They're not bad exactly, but they have a been there, done that feeling. Even though Guide obviously came out first. Futurama took many elements from Guide, don't get me wrong, but the books did not have much of an impact on me. I read the first two fine, but anything afterward I got bored and lost interest. It just did not work for me.

 

[Drathnoxis]

They're not bad exactly, but they have a been there, done that feeling. Even though Guide obviously came out first. Futurama took many elements from Guide, don't get me wrong, but the books did not have much of an impact on me. I read the first two fine, but anything afterward I got bored and lost interest. It just did not work for me.

The first two were the best for sure. As I recall, there was a bit of a tone change in the later books.

 

[Gordon_4]

How so? I read the Guide books after I saw Futurama and loved them anyway.

Couldn't agree more. I made it through maybe 50 pages before I couldn't take it anymore. Just endless purple prose, which is -- hold on, this can be it's own take.

OT: Purple prose is a writing style used by hack writers that don't know how to give their writing actual meaning. They wrap every sentence in 10x the necessary descriptors and hope nobody notices that it doesn't actually mean anything anymore. And the worst thing is how people eat it up, thinking it makes them more intelligent to read something where the meaning has to be interpreted, when in reality it's just the author covering up the fact that they don't actually have anything insightful to say.

Prominent examples: The Name of the Wind, Fahrenheit 451, and Neuromancer.

Symbolism can shove it for the same reasons.

I’ve begun to think as of late that in the house that is a novel, symbolism should be treated like a rug or a clock on the wall. Something to add some personality or resonance to the experience. It should not be used as a foundation stone.

 

[Asita]

To echo what I said in the "what are you reading" thread:

Moby Dick is not the "Great American Novel", and those who champion it as such are as pretentious as the book itself. It is not great, and even its status as a novel is probably debatable considering that when you take away Melville's chapters gushing about how cool whalers are and what a tragedy it is that they don't get the respect they deserve, how he personally classifies whales (which are obviously fish regardless of what those dum-dum scientists say), how either Heracles or St. George should be the patron saint of whalers, and on and on and on...it probably ends up somewhere between a short story and novella in length. The thing is less a novel than it is a bunch of poorly reasoned essays sandwiched between a smattering of story at the front and back to give Melville an excuse to talk about whaling.

 

[Gordon_4]

To echo what I said in the "what are you reading" thread:

Moby Dick is not the "Great American Novel", and those who champion it as such are as pretentious as the book itself. It is not great, and even its status as a novel is probably debatable considering that when you take away Melville's chapters gushing about how cool whalers are and what a tragedy it is that they don't get the respect they deserve, how he personally classifies whales (which are obviously fish regardless of what those dum-dum scientists say), how either Heracles or St. George should be the patron saint of whalers, and on and on and on...it probably ends up somewhere between a short story and novella in length. The thing is less a novel than it is a bunch of poorly reasoned essays sandwiched between a smattering of story at the front and back to give Melville an excuse to talk about whaling.

I'll take it over the Great fucking Gatsby. Jesus what a fucking slog of bullshit that novel is.

 

[Hawki]

A lot of the fluff about Gears makes me question if this is a universe worth saving because it just seems to be full of utterly amoral psychopaths. Granted this could merely be representative of those who are left fighting the Locust after all the normal people are dead but I can’t imagine that should these meathead chucklefucks defeat the enemy for good, that the society built in the aftermath is going to be a good one.

Not sure where you got that from.

I mean, the COG is all kinds of shady, absolutely, that isn't the same as being psychopathic. Sociopathic? Well, Niles arguably fits the bill, as well as Prescott. And even after the defeat of the Locust, the COG isn't some shining beacon of freedom. But hardly psychopathic. The COG is still preferably to the likes of the Locust or Swarm.

I'll take it over the Great fucking Gatsby. Jesus what a fucking slog of bullshit that novel is.

Say what?

 

[Gordon_4]

Not sure where you got that from.

I mean, the COG is all kinds of shady, absolutely, that isn't the same as being psychopathic. Sociopathic? Well, Niles arguably fits the bill, as well as Prescott. And even after the defeat of the Locust, the COG isn't some shining beacon of freedom. But hardly psychopathic. The COG is still preferably to the likes of the Locust or Swarm.

Its just what I've read about it; it sounded gross as fuck and most of the characters seemed like the kind of person I'd be killing in any other game.

Say what?

I did not care for the Great Gatsby when I read it in my last years of school. I didn't find anyone terribly sympathetic or interesting, like I'm watching the upper class post World War 1 be angry and miserable about their lives. And like I know everyone's got problems, but compared to what happened to all the working class people that came back from that war with amputated limbs and shattered souls.....I just find it hard to care about these assholes who can at least afford to drink and party themselves into oblivion to make the pain stop.

 

[Hawki]

Its just what I've read about it; it sounded gross as fuck and most of the characters seemed like the kind of person I'd be killing in any other game.

Okay, I seriously have no idea where you got that from. I mean, there's terrible people in the Gears universe, but they're almost exclusively the antagonists.

I did not care for the Great Gatsby when I read it in my last years of school. I didn't find anyone terribly sympathetic or interesting, like I'm watching the upper class post World War 1 be angry and miserable about their lives. And like I know everyone's got problems, but compared to what happened to all the working class people that came back from that war with amputated limbs and shattered souls.....I just find it hard to care about these assholes who can at least afford to drink and party themselves into oblivion to make the pain stop.

Except the entire point of Great Gatsby is that it's condemning everything you've described. You're not really meant to find any of the characters sympathetic bar Nick and arguably Gatsby (James Gatz) himself.