You know? the thing I like the most from jrpg's is the turn based combat system, and I believe is what most people that like jrpgs , like about'em, just my opnion.Helmholtz Watson said:Are you referring to Yahtzee? lolRaikuFA said:Any JRPG, no matter how good or bad, will always have one ass-wipe reviewer go "It's a JRPG therefore it sucks." And yes, this person is paid to review games this badly.
Seriously though, I think JRPG's would get less crap if they dropped that horrible turn-based combat system. It's 2013, please update your combat system and join the rest of the world. Keep your crazy male haircuts, giant swords, angsty characters, anime art style, focus on teenagers and children as main characters, bishonen guys, Japanese view of Christianity, and other cultural differences, but please drop the outdated turn-based combat system. The only game I think that gets a pass on this is the Pokemon series, and I say that as someone who hasn't cared about Pokemon since I was 10years old.
Yup this came to my head when I read the post, I would add:unLucky500 said:Mine would be:
"Superman killed Zod, they ruined Superman forever. WAAA!"
I make this complaint when important details are left out in the transition. It can't be helped when cramming a 900 page book into a 2 hour movie, but it can be very noticable.Shanicus said:'I didn't like this film, it wasn't like the book/earlier adaptations' - NO, FUCK YOU, FUCK YOUR FACE, FUCK YOUR FAMILY AND THEN FUCK YOURSELF AGAIN WITH YOUR FAMILY.
ADAPTATIONS OF WORKS ARE AMAZING AND AWESOME AND YOU SHOULD JUDGE THEM ON THEIR OWN MERITS AND NOT ON THE MERITS OR RELATIONS OF THE ORIGINAL WORKS (unless the new adaptation just mimics the older one completely, i.e. Oldboy). EVEN IF AN ADAPTATION IS TERRIBLE, YOU JUDGE IT AS A TERRIBLE FILM/BOOK/COMIC/WHATEVERTHEFUCK, NOT AS A TERRIBLE ADAPTATION OF WHATEVER SHIT YOU'RE BUSY FANBOYING OVER.
FUCK. ING. CHRIST.
*cough* so yeah, that's my most irritating criticism I find towards films/books/alternate media. Having people go 'Oh, Memento was a terrible movie because it didn't follow the original short story close enough' is stupidly frustrating, as they avoid viewing the movie in it's own rights and judging it on what it does/doesn't do right cinematically, instead judging it by their own stupidly-high standard set by their reaction to the original material.
And? That doesn't mean that they should start changing the race of the character just to meet some arbitrary quota.trty00 said:Except... Hollywood is undoubtedly biased towards the white male. I mean, how many big movies came out this with black men as the sole protagonist? I can think of two, The Butler, and 12 Years a Slave, the latter of which is far from being a contemporary story and can practically write itself.Helmholtz Watson said:Snip
Again, the lack of Black characters in superhero movies currently out doesn't justify changing the characters race to meet some arbitrary quota. What they should do instead is make more movies with superheros that are already Black, instead of just resorting to lazy writing and just changing the race of a non-Black character.trty00 said:This is especially true in current superhero movies; there was ONE black person in The Avengers. ONE. Like it or not, Samuel L. Jackson was the token black person. I think in this case, when the racial landscape is undeniably uniform, I think it's okay to race-swap a character whose race has never been a part of their personality.
That's a pitfall excuse, nothing more. If the Norse Gods were trademarked characters, the owner would have sued Marvel over using their likeness. As for the Human Torch, he is a white guy. As I said, I've nothing against Mr. Jordan, I just wish that they would put him in a movie like Static Shock instead.trty00 said:Besides, in the Thor films they're not actually gods, they're aliens, and they clearly have a multi-cultural society, and why wouldn't you want Michael B. Jordan as the Human Torch? He's a great actor!
I would like to see less of people pretending the Norse only had white folk in their pantheon. It's hard to take complaints about Thor seriously when they had deities described as dark-skinned.Helmholtz Watson said:I would like to see less of Idris Elba pretending that a Norse God is a Black guy
I think that's also what a good chunk of people hate about them. If you can't quickscope it then teabag it, a lot of people just don't care.Drauger said:You know? the thing I like the most from jrpg's is the turn based combat system, and I believe is what most people that like jrpgs , like about'em, just my opnion.
How silly. This is a re-imagined Superman for a modern era. He should carry guns and have a skull on his chest.Yup this came to my head when I read the post, I would add:
Superman is to dark and gritty and he didn't save anyone in the movie.
I didn't hate avatar, I just didn't think it was super awesome like it was being hyped for a long time. Oh, it looks really pretty, but it's nothing terribly special. It's also really wierd when people(mostly the fox news crowd) kept seeing political agendas in it.delta4062 said:That Avatar sucked because it was basically "Pocahontas in space". Yeah it was unoriginal...so? It was still an entertaining movie.
Unoriginal doesn't make it bad. Also the whole 3D hate. Get the fuck over it already.
The people citing PC as the great be-all answer to this problem is a big one too. Its gotten *somewhat* easier to do in modern times, but its still significantly likely that to get a game 5, 10, 15, 20 years old working on your PC is gonna involve massive amounts of configuration resetting, workarounds, scouring about for emulators, and whatall.CManator said:- Backwards compatibility: I can think of only 4 and a half systems that had it(excluding handhelds and pc), now all of a sudden it's a dealbreaker? Yes it would be a lovely addition to any system, and a good selling point, but it's not necessary, apparently difficult to implement, and doesn't include the entire previous system's library.
I'll agree with you to a point. I'll go even as far as to say I didn't see Heimdall as a black guy working to begin with. Then Elba nailed it, and made me rethink the part a bit and the idea that character's race unless its specific to background (Black Panther for example wouldn't work as a white guy, neither would changing Storm to an Asian girl, etc.) isn't for the most part relevant. I actually at one point would look at trading cards I had of Marvel Characters and note a lazyish design similarity of Nick Fury and Mr. Fantastic. Take off the eyepatch of the old Nick and he does resemble Mr. Stretchpants a good bit, if a little more grizzled.Helmholtz Watson said:The criticism I hate is over the issue of how all the superheores are White men, and that is wrong/unfair, so its ok to change the race of a superhero because otherwise all the superheroes would be White(which is inaccurate). It irritates me because as a fan of Spawn, I would like to see less of Idris Elba pretending that a Norse God is a Black guy, and insteadI would LOVE to see Idris Elba in the Blockbuster role of Al Simmons and star in Spawn trilogy(which could be directed by Christopher Nolan[footnote]Hopefully Mr. Nolan could take his skills from making three great Batman movies and use it to make three great Spawn movies. Hopefully he would be the director, and not somebody like Michael Bay or Silent Bob.[/footnote])! Seriously, its not just lazy writing to change the race of already established characters, its also insulting for those of us that are already fans of non-White superheroes like Spawn. Please Hollywood, stop trying to change characters like Heimdall and Johnny Storm, and instead start making movies about Spawn(starring Idris Elba) and Static [from Stack Shock](starring Michael B. Jordan).Gromril said:I see allot of old criticisms being brought up whenever someone mentions a favourite story/film. Often, they are valid and well thought out. Other times, they are recycled arguments that have been used by people who cant think of their own one or a better one. Whatever the reason, be it righteous indignation or good old fan boy rage, such repeated criticism can drive me insane.
So I put it to you, oh mighty escapist forum community, to bring forth the ones you hate.
If I remember correct Gandalf did ask them to take them there but they said it would be dishonourable to them as they'd been seen as servants or something.Gromril said:I see allot of old criticisms being brought up whenever someone mentions a favourite story/film. Often, they are valid and well thought out. Other times, they are recycled arguments that have been used by people who cant think of their own one or a better one. Whatever the reason, be it righteous indignation or good old fan boy rage, such repeated criticism can drive me insane.
So I put it to you, oh mighty escapist forum community, to bring forth the ones you hate.
For me? The whole "Lulz why didn't the eagles just fly them to the mountain?" from the hobbit. Of the top of my head? How about smaug (you know, the freaking Dragon that lives there) being one of the few things in universe that would pass for a natural predator for a giant eagle. Cant imagine they want to go anywhere near that thing.
Also, maybe, just maybe, giant birds have different motivations and thought processes to bipedal mammal folk. I don't know Gandalf's relationship with them, beyond his ability to call in a favour from them occasionally if there is no other way for him to accomplish something (Not being dead, saving lives ect)