Excraft

To actually interact with the game? From my experience, most players aren't looking to go nuts with proc builds to instavape mobs. They actually want to enjoy interacting with the game and feeling super. Think of it like going to a restaurant and ordering an expensive meal. Most people want to enjoy savoring the meal, not swallowing the entire thing in one bite. Personally, I do speed runs mostly, but will hop on the KM team every so often when the mood strikes. You can do both here and that's a good thing. I think it's a problem if that's the expected behavior. I've been on quite a few non-speed TFs advertised as such, only to have a couple of players wanting to speed objectives. There is also the problem this creates in that DPS and DPS only is king, so every other AT besides Blasters becomes irrelevant. Join a Hamikaze run sometime. There's like 1 tank, a couple of buffers and the other 99% of the league is all blasters. I'm not saying the author of the article is right. Far from it. Just that I can understand where they are coming from in one regard.

Wait, so Riri Williams isn't the "right kind of person" to be a hero? That doesn't sound right. Again, if people are desperate for heroes to protect them, why doesn't anyone want to help her out if she's willing to step up and help? She's got the motivation, brains and the talent to dot it. Absolutely Tony Stark recognized talent. He can't be the one and only person in all the MCU to do so.

It's not exactly a set of fancy pajamas. It's vibranium that is bulletproof and grants the user near invulnerability to physical attacks. Sounds like armor to me. It also grants the wearer the option of storing and releasing kinetic energy, kind of like how Iron Man was able to absorb and redirect thunder blasts from Thor. They're not exact matches, but it is an armored suit. Killmonger also had a vibranium armor suit as well. That is certainly true. But why does Riri Williams build an Iron Man suit then if there's better tech out there? Especially since she'd already be familiar with it having worked in Wakanda and had access to their science and tech.

Very true and even more reason for her not having a sponsor a stretch. Exceptional students are offered all kinds of scholarship deals, internships and such. If she's this brilliant, she'd have some very interested parties wanting to work with her. How can you miss T'Challa running around in an indestructible nanotech vibranium suit that can harness and refocus kinetic energy or their robes that can project force fields? Stark didn't have any of that until Infinity War.

The story we're being presented with here is very odd and doesn't seem to make much sense. There are several things that contradict what we've already seen in the MCU. Riri Williams, super genius who designed and built a vibranium detector and suit of armor that rivals the best that Iron Man produced is somehow struggling to find a sponsor to fund her work. Didn't we see all sorts of people and/or governments trying to reproduce the Iron Man armor in Iron Man 2? Surely there is more than Justin Hammer who would be interested in funding her. I find it very hard to believe someone of her intellect and talent would be having problems finding investors. The Wakandans gave Sam Wilson brand new armor and wings gratis in FaTWS, but Riri Williams gets no help at all from Wakanda? The wrap-around armor has been done before in Avengers and Iron Man 3. This isn't anything new or innovative or "iconic". The Solo movie stunk.

I really very very much hope this is not the direction this series takes. I'd like to see a space based sci-fi series, not some police procedural set in rural small town America.

Wow. Is that really the direction they're going with the Lanterns series? I don't know that intergalactic cops hanging about in rural America solving a mystery as a setting appeals to me. I mean, they're the Lantern Corps. They're history and setting is the universe itself. There has to be plenty of stories for them to do in that setting. Wait and see I guess. I was just hoping for something more space/sci-fi.

I'm looking forward to these. Lanterns especially I think is a great setting for a sci-fi series.

You've misunderstood. This isn't what I was suggesting. The comment was regarding video titles and such of these YouTubers immediately being negative and "poisoning the well". This was just one example from another source including immediately negative words or sentences from a full review. That's all. There are plenty of others there for modern films as well. It was not meant to say modern internet critics are right and everything they say is true or to validate their cultural beliefs and other nonsense they promote. That's all.

I forgot to mention in my earlier post, the link to the Battlefield Earth review was just an example to show that even these "legitimate/major" outlets are doing the same thing as these "hacks" to get clicks. They could promote are more subtle and nuanced bad review right on the listing page, instead they went with a 1 word tagline from a "top critic". They're all doing the same thing.

Whatever. I understand. I don't disagree. I also don't see anyone else suggesting otherwise. No one suggested you can't comment on it.

I don't see anyone suggesting he's impartial. I certainly don't think he is. I don't think anyone offering up their opinion on any topic is impartial. Right. Just like Critical Drinker having "The Message" is Dead--Snow White was the Funeral" in his tagline and thumbnail imagery, and then has a longer full review in his video. Again, that's his schtick. You know it's his schtick. Pre-shitting on movies is his thing. Let him do it and don't watch his content. It doesn't prevent you from enjoying a movie. If people out there want to like his content, let them.

Again, what well is being poisoned? He's not spreading any misinformation by stating the Thunderbolts are C-List characters. That's true. As for him being negative in his opening line, you can go on any review site right now and look at tag lines from "legitimate" film critics that trash a movie they didn't like. Just as an example, take a look here at Battlefield Earth on Rottentomatoes. Alexander Walker of the London Standard - a "top critic" - has a one word review - "Appalling". Aren't critics like him poisoning the well for this movie? According to you, comments on his videos reflect his viewers disagree with him, so it would seem his viewers don't have axes to grind. Has Critical Drinker "crapped" on every single film or TV show he's ever done? I'm guessing no. You say you don't watch his content, but you seem to know quite a lot about what he says in several reviews he's posted. Seems to me you're watching his content. Again, if you don't like him, don't support him by watching his content. I've no objection to you providing your opinion on him. I don't necessarily disagree with you that he's got his schtick, but that's his thing. I do think you're holding him to a different standard than other critics.

Ok but the characters that are in the movie aren't "A-List" characters in the comics, nor were they "A-List" characters in the MCU films or series they appeared in either. So for him to say that isn't inaccurate. Going by your own criteria, this is what a film critic does. He's pointing out things that worked for him and things that didn't. He's offering an actual critique of the film, which involves discussing the good and bad points. Again, going by your own stated criteria, it sounds like a film critic doing what they do. You can disagree with his opinion and that's perfectly fine. I don't agree with a lot of what he says either and movies he's panned I've thought were ok. Well, you were the one who suggested "hacks" like him are "poisoning the well". I only mentioned he has millions of subscribers in relation to asking what makes one source "legitimate/major" and others not. Like I said earlier, he may have a larger audience than other "legitimate/major" outlets. I don't think he can move the dial on the success or failure of a film with his reviews, so no amount of well poisoning on his end will affect anything. Why do you keep watching his content anyway if you dislike him? Best thing you can do is stop watching his content and stop supporting his channel.

Admittedly I haven't watched every single review Critical Drinker has given, but from what I've seen he's got an understanding of the film industry. He also provides basic information that informs his review. He certainly knows who directors/screenwriters/producers/studios are and what they're know for. He does offer his critiques of films and discusses both the positive and negatives, at least in the few I've seen. Whether he's impartial or not I guess is an opinion. I don't watch enough of his content to say one way or the other. He may not like certain filmmakers or studios or types of films, but that's nothing out of the ordinary. Other "famous" critics didn't like certain kinds of films either. Roger Ebert generally disliking sci-fi comes to mind. What "well" is being poisoned? I really don't think these handful of YouTubers have that much of an influence on movies that have flopped.