ShardWarrior
-
Posts
2620 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
12
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Articles
Patch Notes
Posts posted by ShardWarrior
-
-
56 minutes ago, El D said:
Riri having to go through questionable means to acquire funding and resources after the legitimate paths are closed to her is both a practical means to get to her being Ironheart and a narrative means establish an on-going test of character.
None of which could have been accomplished by having her do any number of other things besides becoming a common criminal? She is supposed to be a super genius. Surely she can come up with other ways to obtain the funding she believes she needs other than crime?
It seems to me the writers were trying to go for the Robin Hood "steal from the rich, give to the poor" type theme, but it falls flat and does not work in my opinion.
-
3
-
-
10 hours ago, TTRPGWhiz said:
Yes.
Right so, if you use a weapon of any kind to defend your life or those of your family or loved ones, you yourself are morally evil by your own standards.
-
9 hours ago, PeregrineFalcon said:
No that thread is about the critics. I'm not talking about the critics, I'm talking about Ironheart and the fact that she's a criminal, not a superhero.
Well no, you did not mention anything like that in your post. You included a video from Tim Pool and said that he did not like it and you are glad you did not watch this show.
3 hours ago, TTRPGWhiz said:What is the point, then? Do you believe arms manufacturers and companies that make hammers are producing equally dangerous items? Does my local hardware store have as much to answer for as Lockheed Martin?
No, I do not believe that these items are equally dangerous as that is not the point. The point is just about anything can be turned into a lethal weapon, so at what level does the blame game start and where does it end? Do some research sometime and look at how many deaths there are each year in the US alone to DUI related accidents. Should the automobile manufacturer be held responsible because they built a car that allows someone drunk to drive it? Why draw the line at arms manufacturers only? Simply because they are making weapons and their intended purpose is to be used as a weapon?
I do not like the idea of weapons and arms manufacturing either, but unfortunately we do not live in a perfect, harmonious, peaceful world and we never will. I hope we never have to use our weapons, but I am thankful we have them should we need them. Whether we like them or not, businesses like Lockheed Martin are legitimate business.
3 hours ago, TTRPGWhiz said:Yep. It was OK. I’ve seen better and I’ve seen worse.
I agree with you here. I did not find this to be as bad as these YouTubers say it is. While I find the story to be poorly written and the character of Riri to be unrelatable, I do think it better than Secret Invasion, which is a very low bar to hit. My main gripe is that despite Riri being this super genius, she makes very poor decisions and is not learning from the mistakes Tony Star had already made. That is one thing Stark always did - learn from his mistakes. Riri seems to be intent on making her own despite have the benefit of learning from Stark. It makes her look like one of those "so smart, they are stupid" types and I would like to have seen better than that.
-
14 minutes ago, battlewraith said:
Which is why they found American pillows and hammers all over the Middle East after the Gulf war, right?
No one in the history of the world has ever been murdered by a knife? Hammers can be used as weapons too. You missed the point completely.
-
16 minutes ago, BrandX said:
If however we go with the idea that just building weapons makes one guilty, then any who make weapons are free game on being taken out by those morally opposed to their weapon making (Quicksilver and Wanda), and yet they didn't go after the factories, which would've been far worse for Tony.
To add to this, this applies to more than just straight up weapons. There are a surprising number of ordinary, every day items that can be used as lethal weapons too.
-
2 hours ago, PeregrineFalcon said:
I didn't know there was another Ironheart thread. Please point me to it.
This is the thread for posting analysis from the likes of Critical Drinker and other YouTubers.
-
1 hour ago, battlewraith said:
You clearly don't understand the story.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/With_great_power_comes_great_responsibility
I understand the story perfectly fine and the moral of it. Again, he was under no obligation to help anyone. He chose not to and that had consequences he had to live with.
-
31 minutes ago, battlewraith said:
Peter Parker was ethically obligated to help. That was the message of the story.
No, he was not ethically obligated to do anything.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, BrandX said:
To be fair, it doesn't mean it can't be a good show. Plenty of popular shows about some terrible people and I wouldn't call Riri as terrible as some of those shows (and they're not about supes). However, I do get facepalm with Riri on this one personally, because she's not some average or even above average person with a lack of option. She has options and for what she's said she's wanted (which she hasn't said she wants to be a superhero).
Terrible characters can be related to and understood when they are well written. Magneto is a prime example. He does many terrible things, but you can absolutely understand his motivations given what has happened to him and his family. Riri Williams is not well written for the exact reason you point out. She is a very bright, very intelligent person who has many options open to her, and options that would not be available to the average person. She wastes her potential and opportunities.
1 hour ago, BrandX said:Irredeemable? No. Of course not. Still, her reasoning for a genius is terrible. She's not someone without options. She's someone with options, she just doesn't like the speed of those options.
Spot on.
-
1 hour ago, battlewraith said:
I don't see how these other options would be certainly better and more relatable.
I can.
1 hour ago, battlewraith said:Tony Stark started off as an arms dealer. He is certainly responsible for more death and devastation than Riri will do in this series.
Not quite the same thing as being a criminal stealing from others.
16 hours ago, PeregrineFalcon said:Tim Pool watched the first three episodes.
This belongs in that other thread.
-
34 minutes ago, battlewraith said:
That would be a different show with it's own set of issue--probably half workplace melodrama.
There is no reason it would have to be. It would barely even need to be mentioned. It certainly a better and more relatable profession than turning to crime.
-
42 minutes ago, battlewraith said:
There is no way in hell that, because she's really smart, someone is just going to throw a bag of money at her and let her just do what she wants.
This does happen in real life. Even if Riri Williams would not accept funding in exchange for an Iron Man type suit, she is intelligent enough to create other kinds of technology such as the vibranium detector. Surely there are other things she can be given funding to work on or invent other helpful and profitable technologies. She can use the money she makes from that to do her own thing. That is a far more endearing character than one who turns to a life of crime.
-
2
-
-
So allow me to be clear, I do not care for YouTubers like Critical Drinker or Nerdrotic either. I find their schtick formulaic. Having watched films that they completely pandered, I personally find them not to be as bad as they claim they are. Having recently watch CA: BNW, I did not find it to be a very good movie and it is very clear it suffered from extensive story edits, but I did not find it to be anywhere near as bad as critics like Critical Drinker made it out to be. They are certainly entitled to their opinion, but I disagree with the degree of it. I certainly will not allow them to be the arbiter of whether or not I will watch a film or TV show.
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, battlewraith said:
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.
This is giving people like Critical Drinker far more agency and credit than they deserve. He simply does not have the power or influence to sink a film on his own. At some point, a bad film is just a bad film and if people are not turning out to see it, it is not because Critical Drinker told them not to.
6 hours ago, battlewraith said: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.
And you know this as fact? Every thumbs down on a movie trailer is from someone deliberately trying to tank a film just for the laughs? None of them cannot possibly be from anyone who just did not like the content?
-
2
-
-
19 minutes ago, TTRPGWhiz said:
Have you never in your life seen a movie that had a misleading or badly produced trailer?
For me personally, once. The trailer for the Shawshank Redemption comes to mind. It did not do the actual film justice With that said, it was a singular extremely rare edge case, and believe me, Ironheart is no Shawshank Redemption.
22 minutes ago, TTRPGWhiz said:Is it then also fair to say "yeah I saw the trailer and didn't like it, therefore the thing it's a commercial for is bad"? No, that's not fair.
I take it you never read product labels to see what is in the foods you buy or read the ingredients on menus at restaurants? If we see ingredients we know we do not like or cannot even pronounce, it is unfair that we do not buy the product and eat it?
-
1
-
-
18 hours ago, Glacier Peak said:
I think with the introduction of Fold Space and the introduction of reverse repel, it's becoming a plausible play style to clump up enemies to actually get the usage out of those arcs.
Until you have various team members all using Fold Space without communicating so mobs are getting teleported all over the place. These new abilities were ill conceived in my opinion.
-
1
-
-
17 minutes ago, TTRPGWhiz said:
If someone wants to post a review of 3 hours of content based on the 10-15 minutes they've seen in trailers, that's certainly their prerogative. I'm not sure how much credibility that lends their review, but a lot of folks don't seem to care about credibility when it comes to reviews. They're much more focused on finding and sticking with the 'critics' who reinforce their preconceived notions.
So just to be clear: it might not be toxic, but it sure is worthless.Help me understand you here. On one hand, you are suggesting it is toxic to post a negative review "before even seeing the product". That means anyone who has seen a trailer, but not the actual product in its entirety, who then posts a negative review is being toxic. Now, in your follow up, you are suggesting it is not toxic. What exactly can be "review bombed" if there is not even a trailer released to be reviewed or bombed? How do you know that these YouTubers you are so focused on have not already seen the product, or have seen enough of it to know that it is not good?
I saw the trailer for Ironheart. I did not care for it and did not like it. I posted my observations and suggested that the story did not makes sense and I found the main character unrelatable. I did not care for her in Wakanda Forever either as I felt she was poorly written and developed. Am I toxic? Or should I have given the trailer a 4 star rating and a thumbs up because that is the nice thing to do?
I can completely understand not liking a particular reviewer or their given modus operandi. Those people are very easily ignored.
-
1
-
-
14 minutes ago, TTRPGWhiz said:
No. People posting negative reviews *before even seeing the product* are toxic.
Just so we are clear, does that include any trailers for said product?
-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, TTRPGWhiz said:
To avoid the binary assumption: pointing out that a show was review bombed isn't a statement about the show's merits; it's a statement about toxic 'fans'.
So all of these fans who are not turning out to see the latest movie or watch the new streaming show are now "toxic" because they do not like badly written stories? Automatically ascribing the label of "toxic" to anyone who simply does not like poorly written characters, poorly produced content and poorly executed series or films is a statement too. You had several people in this thread calling others all kinds of horrible names in posts that have since been removed simply because they do not like a badly written character. That is toxic behavior.
51 minutes ago, Glacier Peak said:I'd push back a little on that - the audience was introduced to genius, billionaire, playoy, philanthropist Tony Stark and went along his journey of self reflection and healing from losing his parents, being betrayed by his business partner, and having his company undermind by his government. Taking to drinking and pushing away those who care for him were human responses to those incredible life stressing events. The "Tony Stark has a heart" ultimately paid off for the audience after the saga concluded and it felt like it meant something.
Introducing a character and then immediately taking away their intellectual capacity to forment drama seems disingenuous.
It reads to me that Glacier Peak did not care for how the character is portrayed. I agree. Does that mean we are toxic? Of course not. We are people who are intelligent enough to know a badly crafted story and badly developed, unrelatable character when we see it.
The MCU is not doing as well as it used to and that is not because the content is getting better. The fans are intelligent enough to recognize that.
-
2
-
1
-
-
16 hours ago, PeregrineFalcon said:
I think more people will watch Drinker's review of the show than the show itself.
Having watched the first 15 minutes of this, I have no doubt you are right about that.
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, Erratic1 said:
Were people complaining about farming? No.
Right. No one is ever complaining about farming ever. HC has never made changes to the game because of farming.
9 hours ago, Erratic1 said:Farming is meaningless in team situation too, but supposedly it mattered to what occurred. You're not exactly being consistent here--is it teams are the only thing that matter or farming was too good?
You have completely misunderstood my post regarding the use of Pylons and Trapdoor. Try reading it. How much damage and how fast a Tanker can clear the trapdoor map is a meaningless measure.
9 hours ago, Erratic1 said:Then why are you complaining about what changed?
I explained this already.
11 hours ago, ShardWarrior said:What I do care about is that my tankers now feel less powerful and thereby less fun and now take longer to run content that I like to run. These are disincentives for me, so as I said before, thank you for that.
-
Right because there were just so many people complaining that some tankers can solo the Trapdoor map faster than a Brute or Scrapper can and that is just unfair..... Yeah... These measures are absolutely meaningless in a team setting. Most meta content runs do not even allow you to bring a tanker or melee in general. There are Hami runs going on all the time where people are discouraged if not outright not invited to the league if they bring something other than DPS. How fast or slow a tank solos the Trapdoor map is absolutely meaningless to them.
I personally could care less how fast or slow one AT or the next solos a specific map. I could care less if tanks could farm faster/better/more efficiently than Brutes could. What I do care about is that my tankers now feel less powerful and thereby less fun and now take longer to run content that I like to run. These are disincentives for me, so as I said before, thank you for that. If the HC goal was to make tankers less fun, then well done. Mission accomplished. I can easily switch to a Brute or Scrapper, at least until someone decides their Trapdoor clear times are a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent too fast...
-
1
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, Erratic1 said:
I have noted I don't think farming was a consideration. Not sure why so many have leapt to that.
Of course it was.
-
2 hours ago, Erratic1 said:
If only farming and soloing by pulling multiple groups together (which apparently only oddballs like myself do) are what is bit, why all the consternation?
A better question is why was this change necessary in the first place? Brutes are still farming just fine. If the intended goal was to slow down farming, then well done and thank you to the team here for making my non-farming solo play experience on my tankers more slow and thereby more boring. As I mentioned in the feedback thread, thank you for the disincentives to run my tankers.
Ironheart Trailer
in Comic, Hero & Villain Culture
Posted
^ This exactly.