This is stupid. I have no love for Overwatch or Blizzard - I've been boycotting them for years, in fact. But there are far, far worse games on Steam than OW2. The fact that, to my knowledge, it runs properly, doesn't have crypto miners built into it, and isn't just made from stolen assets already puts it at like a 5/10 at minimum.
I'm all for consumers standing up for themselves and being critical or poor products, but I really wish people wouldn't get caught up in these hate bandwagons.
Old school scifi always has issues with weird tech hangups just throwing wrenches into huge foundational aspects of highly advanced civilizations. Thankfully most of them can be handwaved away.
This is something that Dune handles really well precisely because it writes a lot of the tech out of the setting. "Thinking machines" are gone and banned, guns don't work against shields, lasers are banned because of their (nuclear) interaction with shields. Even communications are largely handled by couriers. The tech is deliberately written to be at a level where it doesn't take convenience or deux ex machina for certain situations to occur.
Anyone expecting a very internal monologue driven book series to be translated well into the screen is just green though lol.
I thought Denix Villeneuve's adaptation of Dune handled this incredibly well when Paul and Jessica used sign language to communicate while they were tied up. In the book, that entire section is told through their internal monologues and their expectations of what the other would be thinking, so translating that to sign language for the screen was clever. I'm very curious to see how the internal-monologue-heavy second half of the book will fare, though.
Green Wing. It's a British sitcom set in a hospital. There's absolutely nothing medical-related in it; the hospital is just the place where everyone works - a backdrop and nothing more. It's somewhere between a sketch show, a soap opera and a comedy drama - it's surreal, exaggerated and definitely has a lot of "sketch-like" scenes, but the characters are fleshed out and consistent, and have proper emotional arcs.
It has an absolutely fantastic cast, and a lot of them have gone onto have very successful careers since then. Olivia Coleman, for one, but I'm sure you'll recognise Tamsin Greig, Stephen Mangan, Michelle Gomez and Mark Heap - if not their names then at least their faces.
It has an incredible editing style and score, too. Like, it's impossible not to notice how good they are, even if they're not something you're usually remotely interested in. In particular, it makes heavy use of slow-motion and fast-forward at the start and end of scenes, with the brilliantly catchy score as the only audio, which really highlights the actors' body language as well as making for great transitions between scenes.
It's laugh-out-loud funny, memorable and surprisingly endearing for such a surreal show. I always found it surprising that Black Books - which is also fantastic (and also stars Tamsin Greig) - managed to find an American audience but Green Wing never seemed to. Both are on par with each other, I think.
Yeah, it is daily. Which I personally find better than having to do it all in one go - it just fits into my routine as something I do when I turn my computer on - but I can definitely see the appeal of being able to do it all in one go for some people.
I pay for my Game Pass subscription with them. On average, it probably takes about a minute of interaction per day - I've macro'd the searches, so I'll just leave my computer running the macro for a couple of minutes while I go and get a drink, clean my teeth, etc. Other than that, I just have to click all the links and then immediately close the tabs they open. Some days it takes a little longer because there are quizzes, but they're rarely more than an extra minute.
So overall, I think it's worthwhile for me;. It's probably half an hour of "work" per month to get Game Pass. You can redeem points for other things like Amazon gift cards, too (although obviously they're lower monetary value per point than Microsoft'own products/services).
Stranger Things doubly suffers because it's horror. In the first season, neither the characters or the audience know what's going on. The monsters are new and scary. The concepts are new and scary. The first season is incredible because it's all unknown, and because there's an almost cosmic horror quality to it.
However, by the end of the first season, both the characters and audience are experienced. The monster has been revealed and killed and, while it was tense and scary, the characters and audience know what to expect next time. The upside-down has been revealed and, while there's a lot about the idea left to explore, there's and understanding of what it is, how it works to some degree, how it's linked to the real world, etc. Everyone has knowledge and experience. And with knowledge and experience, the horror dissipates.
So where do they go from there? Well all they can do is to make bigger, scarier concepts or to throw more of the same at the characters. More of the same can make for good action - see Aliens - but the horror element just doesn't work any more, and it loses a sense of intimacy that a single monster brings. So the only way to try to maintain that feeling of horror is to go bigger and scarier.
Of course, the issue of intimacy remains. How do you have a huge, scary monster - far bigger and scarier than the first one - while still keeping it feeling both personal and intimate to our characters and having it feel "beatable"? And, well, you can see how Stranger Things struggled with that in season 2.
Funnily enough, The Boys came to my mind as a negative example. It feels like every season hints at big things coming, but then the finale just kinda resets everything without those big things actually happening. And then the next season starts with them having to get the gang back together again.
I largely enjoyed the most recent season but the finale killed any excitement I might have had for the next season. The finale really avoided resolving anything at all, and basically undid as much as it was possible to undo.
Wait, so what have they done? I love the comics but I've not watched anything of the TV show yet. But the whole appeal of the comics is examining mundane, everyday human things from an alien perspective; I don't understand how they could try to adapt the comics and not do that.
I do both. I have YouTube Premium, but I also use ReVanced because it's just a better app than the standard YouTube one. It has far better options, like removing a lot of the bloat - cough Shorts cough - and many nice quality-of-life features. It feels much more responsive than the standard app for me, too - I'm using an older device and the standard YouTube app can feel pretty sluggish.
It's the second article from this site I've seen today - both posted by the same account - and they've both been horrific. The Cities: Skylines 2 one had some awful title gore, too.
Part of me wants to just block OP so I don't ever see this website again. But part of me doesn't want to because I want the news still, and I think there can be valuable discussion in the comment sections even if the article itself is awful.
I'm not a Sync user (or a Lemmy user, even - I'm on kbin) but something I'd love see in general across the threadiverse is to be able to add some sort of weighting to certain communities/magazines. There are some meme communities that I don't necessarily want to block entirely, but that show up in my feed far too often, and there are some niche communities I wish I could see more from. Having a "weighted all" feed would be fantastic.
Like I said, I've been actively boycotting Blizzard for years now; I'm not sure why you think I'd want to "slop on their dick". But yes, if a game is fine on a technical level and mediocre in every other sense, why wouldn't it be a 5/10? A game that runs properly and is otherwise unnoteworthy is probably already better than the average game out there. There's a lot of shovelware.
There's a reason review outlets like IGN rarely give scores below 5/10 - it's that almost any AA or AAA studio is going to be competent enough to get their game to run and have something to it. Even Redfall is a 5/10 on Metacritic. 5/10 games aren't generally worth your time, but that's only because there are so many 7+/10 games competing for your time/attention.
Even though I have no love for Blizzard as a company, and have never played Overwatch 2, I refuse to believe it's in the bottom half of all games ever. A lot of the grievances I've seen about it seem completely justified, but it's not a game that's truly awful. It's good on a technical level. It has good art direction. The characters are unique and identifiable, even to people who've never played Overwatch. I get that people don't like the balance, they don't like Blizzard's money-grabbing, they don't like the change to 5v5(?), and they don't like whatever else people are complaining about. But that doesn't make it the worst game on Steam, and it doesn't make every single aspect of it bad.