battlewraith

As someone who never watched that series to begin with, I don't have any bad taste in my mouth. I would much rather see She Hulk on a new Marvel team than characters like Hawkeye or pretty much the entire roster of Thunderbolts. Any of these characters can be made to suck with a bad script and vice versa. I enjoyed She Hulk's stint as part of FF when John Byrne was doing the art.

Did you look it up? It's even in the dictionary now so that means it's real.

So you don't think they should do She Hulk ever again because that series failed? There have been a lot of failures--FF, Superman, Venom, etc. I don't blame the characters for it.

There's a single tear rolling down my cheek right now.

This is your politics of aggrievement. You're mad because things change and you don't like it. And it's like arguing with someone who has ghosts in their brain. I did not define misogyny that way and I never said I can change words on a whim. In fact I just talked about how words change. It's not controversial, it's just an observation about the world. I think you should talk about unicorns more. Add some much needed whimsy Mr. Grumpy Downvoter.

Yeah, I think the films have gotten worse of the years precisely because they try to sugarcoat Bond. In addition, the whole notion of a British spy saving the world for Queen and Country is just laughably out of date. I'd like to see them do it as a period piece where Q giving Bond a tracking device hidden in a cigarette lighter is still high tech and not like a default feature on an Iphone or something.

No you seemingly can't follow the logic. If the definition includes x and y, or z --it doesn't mean that x, y, and z are all being expressed when someone says a word. Often the meaning of a word is contingent on the rest of what's being said. You're basically cherry picking the meanings of the word to object to it being used in relation to Bond. No, because presumably you're some random individual and aren't actually trying to express anything in this hypothetical. However, individuals (politicians, writers, artists, philosophers, scientists, etc.) may start a usage that catches on with a community and spreads. If it reaches a certain mass and displays staying power--it will eventually end up in a dictionary. There might be a million people routinely using a word in a certain way that is not reflected in a dictionary. Look at something like the word "bear". It originally comes from a word that meant "the brown one" even though many bears are not brown. The word now can refer to the type of animal, a type of man, a general problem, a trend or type of investor in the stock market, and so on. Obviously the further back in time you go, the less these more current usages are going to be reflected in a dictionary.

No, you're asking for those things. There is this weird and imo outdated logic at play where, if a set is good, it can't get any kind of tweaks. Or those positive tweaks have to be paid for with some kind of nerf. All the guy is asking for is decent AI and maybe no knockback on the phantasm so that it doesn't train mobs on the user. As a principle, pets shouldn't have some dysfunctional aspect to them that makes them a liability and a headache to play. With the current state of the game, anyone on any character has access to pets that are better than phantasm by you own account. So it makes no sense that it would be a big deal to tweak phantasm. None.

Yeah but apparently you don't. Like I said, words acquire meaning through usage. That usage varies over time and in different contexts and communities. A dictionary is a record of usages that the editors of the dictionary have compiled. The very fact that there are multiple meanings commonly associated with words is indicative of how, when people start using a word differently the meaning changes. The addition of a new word or a new meaning often substantially lags the use of that word or meaning as the dictionaries take time to establish whether or not to update. So no, the fact that someone may use a word in a way not sanctioned by your dictionary doesn't mean it's wrong. Which is really besides the point because your reading comprehension is horrible. I replied to Shardwarrior who wrote that the definition of misogyny includes "hatred of or contempt of" women. I said the usage and meaning has expanded--it has. YOUR cited definition expands it (lol): The OED doesn't even include strongly: "Hatred or dislike of, or prejudice against women." Is Bond prejudiced against women? Sure seems to fit the bill in some of the narratives. Anyway, there is probably continuing education available if you want to build on what you learned in high school.

You are so very basic. And why would you lecture me on what a dictionary is when it's referenced in the post you quoted. Words change meaning over time, and are used differently in various contexts. And no, your favorite dictionary is not the arbiter of language. It's just a tool to help the uninformed.

This is largely semantics. You're resorting to a simple, constrained dictionary definition of misogyny and then saying Bond doesn't fit with it. The usage and meaning has expanded since the Greeks, whether you agree with it or not. And it doesn't follow that someone being a misogynist can't love ANY woman. Internal contradictions are common among people. Even Vesper Lynd--that story ends with Bond declaring that the bitch is dead. I mean, yeah it's not accurate because we're talking about a fictional character comes across to different audiences. But quibbling about whether Bond is a chauvinist (I'd go with possibly a psycopath) or a misogynist sociopath is like complaining that the oven is set to 325 rather than 350.

Lol so people in your opinion overuse the term misogyny, therefore you're just going to wave it away with respect to Bond? Weak. Bond at the very least is a chauvinist. There's multiple instances where he forces himself on women. In Casino Royale, Vesper Lynd tells Bond that "you think of women as disposable pleasures rather than meaningful pursuits." That's a pretty good summation of how Bond relates to women in the films. Two die in Goldfinger alone from being involved with him. It's not like he's happy about it, but he isn't exactly troubled by it either. It doesn't stop him from using women, putting them at risk, to advance his goals and have a good time. I don't think anyone here is saying that Bond should be Hannibal Lector in a tuxedo. But Ian Fleming himself pushed back against the idea that Bond was a hero. He's a spy, serving the needs of a government agency: “I don’t think that he is necessarily a good guy or a bad guy. Who is? He’s got his vices and very few perceptible virtues except patriotism and courage, which are probably not virtues anyway.”

Yeah I think that's the gist of the disagreement. You're talking about Bond the cartoon character, who faces off against some cartoonish depiction of evil and saves the day. I have little doubt that Amazon will go down that road again, but I think it's been done to death and the further we get away from the 60s the more ridiculous the premises become. Bond as a film character is basically a laundry list of traits that the editors of Playboy might have come up with: knows how to rock a tuxedo, can hold his liquor, bangs lots of hot women, can drive a racecar, shoot guns, save the world if necessary, etc. The point of the movies is to see this character have an adventure and crack one-liners, not actually see espionage. So under those assumptions, it's ok to see Bond coerce his masseuse to have sex with him (which in no way advances the plot or his mission) because the formula demands that he beds a certain number of women per film. I don't want them to change that. I want them to lean in on it. I would just want them to set him in a narrative that doesn't pass off protecting his governments interests as "saving the world."

I don't think the compliant hinges on Bond killing people. https://www.theguardian.com/film/2021/sep/23/james-bond-no-time-to-die-cary-fukunaga-thunderball "One key scene in Goldfinger features Connery’s Bond apparently forcing himself on Honor Blackman’s Pussy Galore in a haybarn. In a 1959 letter concerning the novel from which the film was adapted, Ian Fleming explains that this “laying on of hands” from “the right man” was all which was required to “cure” the lesbian character of “her psycho-pathological malady”. LOL?

That would be better for sure, but I'd like it to be something like Bond meets John La Carre. Something more accurate to what intelligence agencies are actually like. Bond is a loathsome human being who has saved the interests of his loathsome agency in it's conflicts with other loathsome organizations. Will never happen but, that's where I'd like to see it develop.

I don't know what good treatment would look like. Sean Connery's Bond pretty much set the mold and those movies are challenging to watch now. He's a womanizer that comes across as almost a sociopath at times. I loved the Roger Moore films as a kid, but they are pretty damn goofy now. The more recent films seem to try to redeem the character in light of more contemporary sensibilities but meh. I think Bond needs to be this stereotypical drinking, gambling, womanizing, killer and he needs to be set in a world where that makes sense--and I have a hard time picturing anyone, let alone Amazon doing that well.

Yeah you can stop with that. I assume that the majority of suggestions made here will be ignored. People might hope for a change, want to discuss an idea, or just vent. They don't need the world-weary gaggle of naysayers talking about the dead horse, as if they were bound like Alex DeLarge and forced to read repetitive forum posts.

Which is why I said gatekeeping earlier. I don't live on these forums. I specifically don't camp here in suggestions to shoot ideas down. If people keep asking for something again and again, it's an indication of interest. Which is why they are expressing that interest in a place called SUGGESTIONS & FEEDBACK. Your time is your own to waste. Unless you're being coerced to comment, there is no point in you complaining about what other people request. If the devs don't like the request, it will sink off the page like everything else.

"We"? They'll either see it or they won't. In the meantime, you could cut out some of the noise by refraining from beating the horse yourself and then complaining about other people doing it lol.

A very reasonable case has been made, by multiple people, that the AI should be adjusted and that the knockback is a problem. If you have to tax the player with resources and a slot to fix a problem, that's bad design and should be addressed. I couldn't care less what the status of the whole set is with regard to someone's tier ranking. Mainly because this game is very easy to begin with and calling something an S-tier monster doesn't mean that much. On a team with other ATs that are fully slotted with sets and incarnates, that "buffed" phantasm is not going to matter at all. On the other hand, if you're a lowbie and grinding your way up with SOs--seems kind of waste of money to drop a couple million to buy what is basically a QOL improvement because your own pet is putting you at greater risk.

You introduce the notion that the set should not be buffed. Then there is debate about what constitutes a buff. Wavicle said: "Any improvement is a buff. Those suggested changes to Phantasm would improve its damage and survivability, making them buffs. I happen to agree that Phantasm should hang back, and that its attacks should all be knockdown instead of knockback, but I'm not going to deny that those would be buffs. Obviously they are buffs. You were in fact asking for Illusion to be buffed, you were just specific about what exactly you wanted buffed." Nobody is directly defending the current AI, because that would be overtly stupid. Instead, the idea is being dismissed on the grounds of being a buff. A quantifiable sin, so to speak.

I don't see much there other than gatekeeping. There is no substance to this response. The pet is annoying because of knockback and it's AI. I'm playing one right now, it's a moron and sometimes gets me killed by aggroing other groups. Regardless of how strong IC is as a set, addressing these issues is not going to make it suddenly vastly more powerful. It will just make it more enjoyable to use that pet. It's laughable that someone would frame this as a big deal. And you're mischaracterizing this conversation which seems to be divided between "yeah adjust the AI" and "any fix to a problem is a buff, and under no circumstances should this set get a buff."

So the phantasm has to be an annoying moron so that people won't think that illusion is too OP. This is the mentality that, imo drives the game towards mediocrity--the fact that every set follows a formula where it comes across as a tweaked, repackaged version of something else. The concern that illusion would be head and shoulders above other sets (for what?) in a 20 year old game is silly. Particularly, when most vets have at least one 50 sitting on a shelf somewhere. In the age of inventions and incarnates, where damage dealers like blasters can have pets if they want, the thought of a non-stupid phantasm throwing things out of whack is just gatekeeping over the most marginal of concerns.

I said SO FAR. I would say given the controversy and troubled production history, these numbers are pretty good. Definitely better than I expected. I said nothing about it breaking even or anything like that.

Looks like it's doing well at the box office so far. It had a 100 million dollar opening weekend, which has exceeded expectations.