So I have recieved a Key for Prey from a friend, but buying the Digital Deluxe Edition(Bundled with Control which I already own) is cheaper than buying MoonCrash seperately. What happens to the Base Copy of Prey that comes with the Digital Deluxe? Can I gift that to a friend?
Dishonored 2 is to me, a genuine achievement when it comes to Gameplay and level design, 9 missions of a game that looks straight out of a painting, and the plethora of murderous options at your disposal are exquisite. A huge step up from the first game though, is that playing the game non-lethally and still eliminating enemies is actually fun and you have more tools and tricks up your sleeve in comparison, NG+ is absolutely delightful. The Missions "Clockwork Mansion" and "Crack in the Slab" deserve all the universal praise they have recieved, in particular I think " Crack in the Slab" might just be better than the level it is often compared to "Effect and Cause" from Titanfall 2
The Story though... it´s undeniably rushed and definitely feels more like a vehicle to send the character through levels than Dishonored 1 and its DLC did tbh. The Voiced MCs are a very nice touch though. I do have slight issues with the Non Lethal Endings of the last 2 missions though. >!I was surprised at how inflexible the Body double is, I would have thought killing the Duke and framing it as me killing the body double would be a possible outcome, and killing the actual duke after the coup seems to have little effect. Delilah being trapped in a painting AGAIN feels like a cop out and surprisingly unsatisfying for a series with some fantastic non lethal endings. Delilah in general is... how do the kids say it... glazed to an almost eyerolling degree in general as well tbh. Especially from the Outsider who should technically be a neutral party.!<
In summary, Dishonored 2 really really good lmao. Absolutely stacked VA cast as well lol, Pedro Pascal, Vincent D´Onofrio, April Stewart, Robin Lord Taylor among many, many others
TL;DR: Romance stories usually don't need to have an interesting gimmick to become popular, which is sad because I actually love interesting gimmicks.
When I say 'clever' here, I'm not necessarily talking about direct literary skills. I think romance writers master turns of phrase about as well as most authors. I like to think of cleverness in writing as the willingness to explore new concepts, challenge stereotypes and just in general expand the readers' horizons.
Let me be absolutely clear; that doesn't always lead to a good story. Plenty of sci-fi writers have a stick up their ass regarding the races and technologies they made up, and I can name a lot of fantasy and mystery books that seem to think being full of plot twists is the same as being intelligently written.
And yes, I do know romance stories are often written the same way for a reason. They're comforting and familiar, and I do get that. I do think a lot of speculative fiction would benefit from the emotional beats these stories understand how to hit.
That said, I think most romances take things way too much to the other extreme. Creative and fascinating romance stories are possible, without removing what people love about them.
Take possibly the most famous romance book of all time, Austen's Pride and Prejudice. Despite legions of people copying it over the last century or so, the mid-book twist still managed to surprise me (honestly, it's one of the funniest scenes I've ever read) and some of the depth in the character writing still shines through.
Or maybe let's pick some more modern examples. The manga Kaguya-Sama: Love is War, is built around the two clever and ambitious lead characters being certain the other has a crush on them, but are unwilling to tip over the power balance between them by actually doing something about it. So they go through elaborate mind games to convince the other to confess their love.
You don't even need to go that far, honestly. Some of the best romance stories I've read recently have pretty typical storylines. It's just that they have one good gimmick or plot hook that's explored well enough to keep me engaged.
So allow me to bring up Emily Henry. At least two of her books stood out to me as having really, really fun concepts that didn't really dominate the main romance plotline, but their presence renriched it anyway.
Beach Read - Basically, your bog-standard romance writer and a pessimistic "literary" writer challenge each other to swap genres. The romance writer will have to investigate the remnants of a dying cult for research purposes, and the serious novelist will have to accompany their rival on a romcom itinerary. Neither writer ends up completely switching up their writing style, but they do influence each other's stories, and that ties in deeply to how they influence each other romantically.
Book Lovers - The main character, a literary agent, discovers her star writer's new manuscript is written with her clearly as an inspiration for its main character. Unfortunately, it's not exactly a flattering portrayal. She's shown as cutthroat and cold, and she has to deal with those implications throughout the story, which chronicles her romance with the editor of the manuscript.
You can see I'm not asking romance writers to reinvent the wheel. Few good books in general can truly defy an audience's expectations entirely. But I feel like more romance stories should try. Because when they do it really stands out.
So, in my country we have a special degree that allows you to apply to a local medical school directly, and finish a BS/MD program (Bachelor of Science/Doctor of Medicine). But I've also got an option to directly do a Bachelor of Science degree in Molecular Biology.
My Dad says I should just do the Med School degree and specialize in genetic research later as a medical consultant, and is that the better option for the career I'm looking for? Or should I do a BS degree that directly relates to the subject I'm planning to research?
Does having a medical degree put you in a better position when applying to Master's degrees or PhDs abroad? And do you specifically learn how to write research papers and stuff in medical school that would give you the skills to spend a career in research?
I'm having a lot of trouble with this dilemma, and would really appreciate some advice.
So, in my country we have a special degree that allows you to apply to a local medical school directly, and finish a BS/MD program (Bachelor of Science/Doctor of Medicine). But I've also got an option to directly do a Bachelor of Science degree in Molecular Biology.
My Dad says I should just do the Med School degree and specialize in genetic research later as a medical consultant, and is that the better option for the career I'm looking for? Or should I do a BS degree that directly relates to the subject I'm planning to research?
Does having a medical degree put you in a better position when applying to Master's degrees or PhDs abroad? And do you specifically learn how to write research papers and stuff in medical school that would give you the skills to spend a career in research?
I'm having a lot of trouble with this dilemma, and would really appreciate some advice.
Not to mention even some modern Spider-Man stories completely dropping this aspect of his origin...
TL;DR: Why aren't there more superheroes whose stories focus on the evils of inaction, especially when apathy is such a common human trait?
Spider-Man's origin story isn't special because he started out as working-class, or started out as a teenager independent of adult heroes. Other stories have copied those traits, and arguably done them better. Spider-Man's story isn't even made unique by "Responsibility". Plenty of heroes are defined by guilt over their bad choices.
No, what makes him special is that his bad choice wasn't wasting away his inherited wealth, or funding paramilitary organizations, or plain old attempts at world domination. It was because he just couldn't be bothered.
Peter Parker is bitten by a radioactive spider, and his first thought is to win a wrestling match and earn a lot of money. That's pretty much what most people would do with superpowers, even if some would be a lot more subtle in how to accomplish their goals. But when a robber runs past Peter, even though he would be at zero risk to himself to intervene... he just doesn't. How is it his problem?
And that same robber is the one who murders the man who raised him, Uncle Ben.
A lot of people like to talk about what an incredible coincidence that is, but that's the point! Peter chose to fight crime not out of vengeance, but because that tragedy helped him understand that every victim was someone's Uncle Ben. That everyone deserves Justice, to have a chance to go back home to the people they love.
The Raimi trilogy kind of rewrites this a bit so that Peter was actually cheated out of money by the guy who the robber had stolen from. But again, I feel this kind of misses the point. Peter didn't catch the robber because Peter was feeling vengeful, or feeling scared, or sympathetic towards the idea of a communist revolution. Peter let that guy go because at that point of time he didn't give a rat fuck about the rest of the world.
I mean - that's almost word for word what he says to himself in his origin story, Amazing Fantasy #15. The wider point I'm making is this: a lot more people, especially a lot more people in the audience of superhero stories and their ilk, can relate to Peter's bad choice more than most hero's bad choices. Everyone's had people who've rejected and ridiculed them. Everyone has seen how terrible the world is and decided to just stop caring.
And those sentiments clearly resonated with audiences, judging by the popularity of the character. So why is this aspect of Peter's origin so underused in other stories?
Why are there so few heroes whose greatest flaw was inaction?
I understand why Marvel would be hesitant to draw from that well again, but I'm struggling to think of any DC examples, and even branching out to anime or video games, I'm still drawing a blank.
I'd love to hear any other examples, and/or theories as to why this kind of character flaw isn't discussed as much in fiction as much as it is reflected in real life.
Don't get me wrong, LoK makes some pretty shitty decisions with him - his relationship with Eska is season 2 comes to mind. But I ended up really enjoying his story, and I think his existence in the show's universe is important.
I've said this before on this sub, but Bolin has spent his whole life being a follower. He's whimsical, but he's not really rebellious. He's spent his childhood being raised by his brother, then taking orders from people like Varrick and Kuvira. Arguably, most of his time with team Avatar is around older and more accomplished benders, people he actively fanboys around. He's not like Sokka, who spends most of the series around Aang and his friends, having to take on the role of strategist because often there's no one else who can.
Bolin's never needed to take long-term responsibility for his choices. Even his relationship with Eska is resolved without him having to do anything about it.
Thing is, though, in the first three seasons, he does show the capacity to be more than that. In season 1, when Mako and Korra are too distracted by relationship drama, he steps up for the solo round instead and kicks ass. When Varrick's saboteurs in season 2 show up, he also kicks ass (in probably one of my favorite scenes in the season). And when the team needs a hard counter for P'li in season 3, Bolin's precision is what gives them that chance.
And again, outside of the show, he's a pretty popular actor, and Kuvira wouldn't have hired him as an organizer if he wasn't a genuinely competent one. Plus, in the comics he becomes the President's assistant.
This is a dude who has Sokka levels of competence when he's pushed to actually use it.
That's why season 4 does such a good job with him. By the end of Season 3 Korra has been missing for years. Mako and Asami are getting more and more invested in their jobs. Everyone in the world is moving on without him, and for once in his life, Bolin doesn't have anyone to follow anymore. Then Kuvira shows up, and she's competent, almost omnipresent. She's doing a lot of good for the cultural home Bolin's always heard of but never known. Most importantly, she actually wants him.
People criticize him for being blind to what Kuvira was doing it, but I honestly get it. For someone like him, of course Kuvira would be canny enough to play along to his viewpoint. He's a famous guy, after all, and a great asset. And more than that, Bolin at that point is definitely willing to turn a blind eye to his own suspicions. Until he no longer can.
And it's pretty significant that through most of season 4, Bolin is forced to work with Varrick, a manchild even more immature than him. He doesn't have anyone to follow anymore. And he no longer has an excuse to justify what he allowed to happen. That's what finally allows him to permanently mature as a person. And this time, he doesn't go through character regression. In the final battle, my boy Bolin kicks ass consistently - even outside of his lavabending, he has some genuinely crazy feats.
My overall point is this. Bolin was always written as a late bloomer in a world filled with child prodigies. He might be a skilled bender on paper, but his mindset has always put him at a disadvantage. But he does grow as a person, and I think it's important that the universe has characters like him. People who aren't given access to the coolest abilities by dint of being a prominent character. People who mess up, and show that character development isn't something you're entitled to. It's something you have to earn, and struggle with time and time again.
You don't always have to be the best to make a difference, but you do have to be good. Would I have written him better in retrospect? Absolutely! I think too many of his struggles get played for laughs, and that hurts his ability to grow. But even as he is, he's a good character.