battlewraith

Well, he has around 2 million subscribers on youtube. "People like him" probably range from similar youtube commentators to something like the entertainment wing of the Daily Wire. So is that enough to have an impact on a film's performance? Maybe? I think the effect is actually more corrosive on production. Studios don't know which "fans" they should be listening to. So they ignore fans in general or invest in directors/producers/etc. that they think have nerd clout like James Gunn, Zack Snyder, etc. which can pose it's own set of problems. Regardless, increasingly people are not turning out to see movies. It might be a good film. It might be an ok film. It might be a bad film. But rest assured the outrage peddlers will be there with there litany of complaints about the industry and why "the fans" knew the film was garbage. Lol no I don't think it's people trying to do it for laughs. These are people that are aggrieved that studies are not catering to them. Do I know that for a fact? No, but it compellingly explains the bizarre behavior of negatively rating ads for properties in which you have no interest.

Movies and shows fail for a variety of reasons. But you literally have to be living in denial to ignore the fact that there is a dynamic of culture war bullshit that pervades the reception of Marvel properties right now. A big tipoff is when you have people going around telling you what "the fans" think, or what they know. Or that something failed because the "the fans" do not like badly written stories. I don't have a crystal ball showing me the heart of the fans. I can clearly see, again, a reactionary social media influencer whose business model is hating on woke industry product signaling to his audience: Wow guys this one is real shite. It's even more shite than the last thing I said was shite. And then a certain percentage of this moron's audience is going to take that as gospel that is indicative of how "the fans' feel about it. Before they argue with you that they are an individual and make up their own mind etc. etc. I don't eat mushrooms. I'll look at a menu and avoid ordering food that has mushrooms in it. I don't then get online and put the restaurant on blast for selling food with mushrooms in it. Review bombing done based on a trailer is an effort to tank a film. It's laughable to me that people can't or won't take it for what it is.

It's not a perfect analogy but I think you're missing the point. If I make a new character and need enhancements, I like most everyone else do a lot of things other than playing that character. I somehow grind the resources--farming, playing the market, doing repetitive task forces, etc. If the enhancements were freely available, my focus would be on the actual goal--playing the character--and enhancing as I go. They are just pieces of plastic, given more perceived worth through the imposition of artificial scarcity. The person playing diligently every weekend should've gotten some entertainment value for their time. The issue is that this expectation is replaced with a grind mentality where the value of playing is measured by what you acquired, not what you experienced. And then the people invested in this virtual rat race want everyone else to have to commit to the same grind in order to preserve the sense of worth they associate with the time they spent grinding.

Because that source of enjoyment for some players is predicated on an imposed hassle for all players. Similarly when people say “if everything were free, the game would lose meaning”, they are arguing that the gameplay itself is not sufficient. The repetitive tasks they routinely do only matter for the reward. Ergo, everyone should have to grind those repetitive tasks in order to prop up this value system. Imagine you had a chess league where, in order to play, people had to periodically carve their own pieces. The more diehard players would flex on casuals with their more artfully carved pieces. They would have themed sets they collected. There would be a market where you could acquire pieces, resources to make pieces, etc. But at the end of the day, the actual game is still chess. It’s not made any better for these side activities and in some ways the league makes it harder to play. Under this scenario, you might have someone show up and suggest that the league do away with all this fixation on pieces—everyone plays with a standard set. The response would be the same. “If I wanted my pawns just handed to me, I’d go play in that other league.” The success and failure of MMOs is that they prop up gameplay with various grindy timesinks to keep people playing. This entails a conflict between people who would like a more dynamic game, with less associated time sinks, and people for whom the game is essentially a platform on which to accumulate stuff.

In terms of games that I think have great stories and could potentially be great movies: Bioshock Half-Life 2 maybe Hades as a full length animated feature.

Maybe you're a firm believer in Bigfoot as well but that also isn't an actual argument for or against this proposal. The game is a comic book reality that mixes technology and magic. I see no reason why magic themed characters should have to pay some sort "power tax" because their aesthetics were overlooked at the START vendor (which also offers magical items like blackwand).

It's a basic of tenet of product design in 2025. "There is a wealth of information out there." So if you buy a microwave and can't find any start button--google that shit. Log on to the company website and ask the community. We have never been this connected in the history of the species, so there's no excuse for things being straightforward.

He showed you. What does that screed about streakbreaker have to do with anything?

Maybe the GMs can prominently sticky something like this: "Lord give me the strength to ignore the threads I do not like The courage to post in the ones I do And the wisdom to know that people are different"

Which reminds me of the Dr. Strange we could've had:

I remember it being on tv. I think it was typical of 70s tv productions--like 90% exposition and 10% payoff/action (if that).

How do you know this? I’m not saying it’s not true, but the content that I typically do it seems like it’s the norm to have a fully IOed build that is in some way optimized for steamrolling +4x8. I consider the “high end” people to be optimized for hard mode content or set up to carry a team of lowbies through +4x8 missions.

But you didn’t have to nerf my brute Make out like regen never happened and it was nothin’ And I don’t even need a buff But you treat me like a warshade and it feels so rough No you didn’t have to stoop so low Have my friends farm emp merits and then nerf conversion Guess that I don’t need that though Now you’re just an MMO I used to know Now you’re just an MMO I used to know Now you’re just an MMO I used to know

It's just not your thing. And you're helping us understand why it's just not your thing.

I didn't say it wasn't armor. I said it wasn't power armor. Nobody is going to mistake Black Panther or Killmonger for Iron Man. And if you put Tony Stark into one of those suits, the results would be laughable in comparison. Because someone thought it would be an entertaining story to tell. And superhero comics aren't exactly centered around practicality. You still get lame characters like Hawkeye on Avengers rosters.

https://www.technologyreview.com/2025/05/20/1116327/ai-energy-usage-climate-footprint-big-tech/

I didn't miss it. It's not power armor. T'Challa was already superpowered without the suit and I think he was the only one wearing that type of outfit. Being able to to project force fields from robes supports my point--maybe going all in on an Iron Man style power suit is not the way to go. Maybe that's not as desirable an option in light of other tech that becomes apparent.

Even something like videogame development. I was at a university once where a group of students were developing a game (not even, more of a mod for something) and a lawyer appeared at a meeting and informed them that the university would own the rights to this work.

Are you actually going to watch this? You kicked this thread off saying no thanks. You're pointing to a narrative expectation that you have--that based on what has happened before you would expect Riri to have funding and she doesn't. I get that but it doesn't bother me. There could be reasons why investors are not as hot to back something like that--the government already has a version, the technology is seen as too expensive, there are more attractive options available, etc. I only saw the first Black Panther movie, but I don't remember seeing a bunch of people running around in power armor despite their superior tech. Moreover I think it's pretty clear from the trailer that they want to tell a story about this character doing things on her own. Dramatically it makes sense to distance her from the other films. I'm also not real worried about the continuity between the films and the Disney miniseries, any more than I expect comics to change tone, logic etc. every time a new writer comes on board.

Tony was a billionaire who owned the tech that he developed to become Iron Man. That clip is him refusing to share the tech with the US government. AFAIR the reason was that the government couldn't be trusted with it. So RiRi working with Rhodey for the government runs against the grain of the clip you're referencing. Which is from 2010. All I've seen is the trailer for this show, so they will probably explain why she doesn't have funding. There are all kinds of reasons why government agencies/investors wouldn't pursue Iron Man style tech. Unless you're dealing with a Tony Stark level intellect, it's probably way more cost effective to mass produce robotic drones. And dealing with a Tony Stark intellect has a track record of being a pain in the ass. If she was working for someone like the government or a large corporation, she wouldn't own anything she made and it would be under lock and key at all times.

Because it isn't a perpetual money making machine. The fact that it worked once doesn't mean that it's going to keep working indefinitely. As the MCU continues and they move on to less recognizable characters, this complex background lore is going to be baggage. That doesn't mean that the films shouldn't connect with each other in some way but it will make more sense for them to be self contained so that someone with no knowledge of the universe can enjoy it as a standalone experience.

I don't know what they intend with this series, but I think that Marvel is maybe waking up to the notion that every film or series shouldn't hinge on what came before in the MCU. The nerds are going to keep track of the overall continuity, but the general audience will not remember every plot point from previous films, assuming they have even seen them. I like the general vibe of this because it reminds me of a typical story you'd see in a tabletop rpg where the assumption is not that the character is a billionaire with endless resources (although Tony in Ironman 1 built his prototype armor in a cave).

We watch the fallout. Whether or not AI is art is something that can be debated. Whether or not it's a tool is, IMO, pretty straightforward to answer. It's not. It's automation. The goal is to replace the worker. And we are already seeing this in the job market--entire divisions of companies being phased out in favor of AI. Recent college grads in general are facing much worse prospects at employment due to AI. The buggy whip salesman was phased out by technology. But I don't think that there is a natural human inclination to be a buggy whip salesman. AI is intended to replicate the products of human creativity while bypassing the effort that was needed to produce these artifacts. And LLMs have gotten to this stage of development by feeding off the work of human artists so that they can be removed from the equation.

Do you really believe that most players are unaware of these concerns? I think it's actually the opposite. Most players don't regularly post on the forums. Of the ones that do, most don't post suggestions because it's likely a complete waste of time. This place should be about ideation and communicating the types of things players would like to see. Instead, you have a cabal of forum regulars that treat these posts as engineering proposals. The problem is that only the most bland, pissant, non-impactful idea is going to make it past the gauntlet of economics you laid out.

Maybe you should start your own thread about how weird you find things. It would be a hoot. Glad you like this idea. Huzzah!