u/xyZora

I think this is really important. At this rate I would not want FS to work with Sony ever again. Nintendo is by no means a good guy, but they are the only console manufacturer that has a semblance of a decent future for the next five years.

With NS2 garnering a lot of third party support, I do see the possibility this will be the best console for FS to focus their development efforts (and PC).

It's weird, and I know a lot of people in this community hate Nintendo, but this could potentially be the best option for FS.

Because am not willing to spend $1000 for a next gen console in two years.

So with Sony announcing they will kill physical games, Nintendo is the last bastion for physical ownership but I fear this will just pause this new trend.

Physical ownership matters, so I believe fighting for that is good, but digital ownership is more important IMO.

Full digital will eventually become the new standard, and I think it makes sense for different reasons (including environmental), but the issue is the lack of ownership.

That's why GOG and Steam users are less worried because they own the software for the most part.

I do believe physical should alway be an option, but game preservation and ownership is the true issue here and owning the software would be the key. But I don't see Nintendo doing this anytime soon, either.

What a frustrating situation.

I finished my first campaign yesterday and now I'm doing a second campaign and earning so medals. I adore this game. I played it as a kid but was always terrible at it. The 3DS remake was cool, but I felt didn't add enough (but the 3D effect is still cool).

But this? The world feels so alive and it's gorgeous. And despite all the added stuff to make the game more cinematic the core gameplay is the same and it feels like a 2026 game.

I'm so surprised how well this game has aged and I'm having so much fun. StarFox is finally back 🥹

I have tested both the Lance and the Gunlance and the appeal to me right now is the counter and aggressiveness. But I want to know which one would be best to focus in the long run? Seem Gunlance is more aggresive, but does it outclass Lance?

So I've finally finished Book 2 of the live action adaptation and as many of you I have a lot of issues with the series. But before posting I wanted to provide a worthwhile take that wasn't just a rant as to how Azula sucks now or how the walls of Ba Sing Se are pointless. And to be clear, there is some enjoyment here and clearly a lot of people have invested their talent. We can recognize this while still remaining critical and honest about the show's issues.

To me the true problem with this series is that it doesn't understand the OG's themes. Almost all of its narrative issues (even the dialogue) stem from this problem.

Let's use the final scene of the catacomb battle as an example. Aang enters the Avatar State and dominates Azula and co., but Aang lowers his guard because of his kindness (alluding to Long Feng's speech from before) and Azula kills him.

On a purely visual and narrative viewpoint the scene works. It doesn't contradict itself and visually it's the best thing in the season. *But it fundamentally misunderstands Aang's arc from Book 2.*

Aang's arc in Book 2 of the OG is divided in two parts: his fear of the Avatar State and his Air Nomad values been put through the ringer after Appa is stolen. Both work incredibly well because both stem from the same issue, that Aang's values clash with the circumnstances of his life.

The Avatar State is violent and destructive and losing Appa meant he had to face terrible despair that led him to struggle with violence (he verbally slashed out and even killed a wasp in the desert).

This dissonance reaches its peak when Pathik asks Aang to detach himself from even his closest relationships. Up to this point we knew Air Nomads detached from *material belongings* but held deep relationships. So now even his values began to clash with each other.

*His inability to resolve them is what leaves him vulnerable to Azula's lighting.* This eventually builds up to his hesitations when facing Ozai.

NATLA changes this to a more generic "you're too good" arc, reducing Aang's complex feelings (and how these were formed by the war itself) and philosophical quandaries to a flat, "digestible" story beat.

And you can find this *everywhere*. Zuko's moral conflict gets little screen time, Azula's inability to self reflect on her actions and her perfectionism is almost ignored completelt, Long Feng's political shenanigans and Ba Sing Se's structural problems as a society are sugarcoated, the Earth King is barely a character at all, Sokka's resourcefulness as a consequence of compensating for his lack of bending and as a result of trying to "win"
his father's approval is dismissed, Toph's hyper-independence is swapped for family drama and Katara's mother figure identity is changed for a generic vigilante story.

All of these complex and beautiful character threads are simplied, reduced to the more superficial characteristics.

It makes "good" binge TV, but it absolutely botches the thematic beauty of the animated series. Which is not a new or surprising statement. But hopefully I have put into words what others have felt.

So I've finally finished Book 2 of the live action adaptation and as many of you I have a lot of issues with the series. But before posting I wanted to provide a worthwhile take that wasn't just a rant as to how Azula sucks now or how the walls of Ba Sing Se are pointless. And to be clear, there is some enjoyment here and clearly a lot of people have invested their talent. We can recognize this while still remaining critical and honest about the show's issues.

To me the true problem with this series is that it doesn't understand the OG's themes. Almost all of its narrative issues (even the dialogue) stem from this problem.

Let's use the final scene of the catacomb battle as an example. Aang enters the Avatar State and dominates Azula and co., but Aang lowers his guard because of his kindness (alluding to Long Feng's speech from before) and Azula kills him.

On a purely visual and narrative viewpoint the scene works. It doesn't contradict itself and visually it's the best thing in the season. But it fundamentally misunderstands Aang's arc from Book 2.

Aang's arc in Book 2 of the OG is divided in two parts: his fear of the Avatar State and his Air Nomad values been put through the ringer after Appa is stolen. Both work incredibly well because both stem from the same issue, that Aang's values clash with the circumnstances of his life.

The Avatar State is violent and destructive and losing Appa meant he had to face terrible despair that led him to struggle with violence (he verbally slashed out and even killed a wasp in the desert).

This dissonance reaches its peak when Pathik asks Aang to detach himself from even his closest relationships. Up to this point we knew Air Nomads detached from material belongings but held deep relationships. So now even his values began to clash with each other.

His inability to resolve them is what leaves him vulnerable to Azula's lighting. This eventually builds up to his hesitations when facing Ozai.

NATLA changes this to a more generic "you're too good" arc, reducing Aang's complex feelings (and how these were formed by the war itself) and philosophical quandaries to a flat, "digestible" story beat.

And you can find this everywhere. Zuko's moral conflict gets little screen time, Azula's inability to self reflect on her actions and her perfectionism is almost ignored completelt, Long Feng's political shenanigans and Ba Sing Se's structural problems as a society are sugarcoated, the Earth King is barely a character at all, Sokka's resourcefulness as a consequence of compensating for his lack of bending and as a result of trying to "win"
his father's approval is dismissed, Toph's hyper-independence is swapped for family drama and Katara's mother figure identity is changed for a generic vigilante story.

All of these complex and beautiful character threads are simplied, reduced to the more superficial characteristics.

It makes "good" binge TV, but it absolutely botches the thematic beauty of the animated series. Which is not a new or surprising statement. But hopefully I have put into words what others have felt.

It hasn't had a performance update AFAIK, but the boost mode really allows the framerate to remain more consistent and for the visuals to have a steady 720p on dock mode.

Still not the best console to play the game (until they update it, hopefully for the new DLC), but this version was my first one. I always had a deep appreciation for the work done by the devs to port W3 to the OG Switch.

I'm sure an update would make this game shine.

No spoilers. I only want to say that "The Calamity" film is the best quality animation the series has ever had. It captures (and adds to) the manga so faithfully.

If anyone here was on the fence on watching the theatrical release for the first episodes, please go and watch it. It was worth every penny.

If you pre-order you can play base game immediately.

I'm so, so pleased with this new pricing. They removed almost all MTX and lowered the price of vanilla permanent AND are selling the whole package for $50 when other games are selling base game at $80?

Insane.

One thing I don't like about DD2 is how easily outclassed some weapons can get. Molten Fury is clearly the best Mace by raw numbers alone, but the Exalted is sooo cooool.

So I'm wondering if there are specific areas where this mace can shine? From what I've found, seems the Batthali upgrade path is the best one as the knockdown never really improves significantly with dwarven.

I'm interested in trying this. Fighter seems the most obvious one for their versatility and mage the worst for its lack of offense, but has anyone tried this?

Edit: by quarter I mean having all members of the party to be the same vocation.

This is a pet-peeve I've had for quite some time. When LoK was released criticism existed sure, but most fans seemed pretty pleased with the overall show (also Korra's ratings were excellent, Nick screwed the show with their release schedule but it made enough money that it was renewed until it got a finale).

A significant portion of modern criticism is outright false. I've heard it all, "Korra chose Jinora over the Avatar Cycle", "Korra destroyed the Avatar Cycle", "Korra is weak", "Korra never grew as a person", "Beginnings contradicts the canon", and so on and so on and so on. Of course the show and character are subject to criticism (as well as ATLA, nothing is perfect), but none of the above is even literally true.

The discourse has boiled down to outright lies to demonstrate ATLA's "superiority". Which I find so baffling. How is that shows that exist to exemplify understanding, spirituality and openness to change and growth lead to this type of surface level discussion and bad faith arguments? It's really bizarre.

I'm curious is there's any cultural tradition this is based on, because this is the only work of fiction I recall where they do this despite not been related.

I thought it was an impressive final little content, but the fact that it remains so open ended makes me suspect that somethign happened during development that didn't allow Shadows to get where it really wanted to.

It's like two currents crashing into one another. Ideas, great ideas, clashing with each other (a realized stealth system with an open world meant for exploring and not parkouring in, a beautiful complex potential for the dual protagonists with a story that lacked the narrative structure to explore it at its full).

It's a shame because we will likely never get to continue a story with these two characters, and I wonder what ideas the dev team really had for them.

It will all end in speculation, of course. Shadows is so weird to me. It has been an experience I've enjoyed, but also left me a little empty, like a friend you enjoy spending time with but couldn't fully connect.

Perhaps one day we can get a story that lives up to the potential Naoe and Yasuke really had. Even if that story is just a nice fanfiction.

I want to begin saying that I understand why a lot of people don't like this and I, personally, usually prefer more faithful adaptations.

I'm not here to defend the casting (if true), itself. I have not watched the film to have an opinion over it, so it's a futile endeavor.

But what genuinely concerns me is how the fandom has responded. From toxicity to outright misogyny. I've read comments where people claim Greta is outright destroying Lewis legacy on purpose, and that's just... no. It's not productive, or even an honest way to engage with this.

Of course many people have been respectful, but the more negative reactions have been more common and loud than what is the norm in this fandom.

I think people are entitled not to like this film, but we can discuss this without falling into personal attacks. I also think Greta is doing her own thing in good faith and we at least should begin from there, regardless of personal preference or opinion on the film (which for now is not based on much, until it has come out).

Now that the community is in a healthier shape, I think it's worth revisiting this claim. And to be clear, if you personally feel the game was incomplete, that's a valid thing to feel.

As someone that just played the game until this year for reasons unrelated to the game's quality, and having ignored most of the anti-DD2 hate baggage, I felt surprised by much of the criticism.

DD2 took me more than 100h to complete. It was a satisfying experience, and by far my favorite game
of the year, and one of my favorite games of the past decade. This is not to say there were no flaws, just none that really affected my experience.

Which makes me think, why so many people feel the game is incomplete? My guess is for two main reasons: expectations set by DDDA and general industry standards.

The first one is obvious, DDDA has a smaller map, but the replayability of BBI compensates this and added new bosses and enemies. Which is a fair point, DD2 does have an issue with enemy/boss variety, I just think it's too overblown. If the game had been the first release, that criticism wouldn't be so prevalent.

It's also important to remember BBI's loop is not core Dragon's Dogma, so vanilla DD2 was never going to be like BBI (which is a common criticism I tend to read).

The second reason is more interesting. Nowadays we expect games to get content beyond what's available day one. DLC, expansions, new gear, QOL, etc. All this is expected of a AAA release. We are no longer content with what comes with the package. This is not a bad thing in itself, mind you. But it does set up a different expectation than just 10-15 years ago.

But I still think we cannot fully judge a game for not following that standard. Sure, new stuff is good, and sometimes it does fix things and it is necessary. But I still stand that what we got on release was solid enough. I have even read some people claiming vanilla itself needs an overhaul, which I find pretty extreme.

This doesn't mean the DLC is not welcomed, it absolutely is and it is absolutely necessary if DD is meant to become a mainstay. That's just how the industry works now. But what we got was still great, excellent in many parts. The fact we want more, I think, is a testament of how good the main game is. We want more bosses, enemies, dungeons. But most people tend to be happy with the foundations of the game.

A truly flawed game has broken foundations, that cannot be salvaged by an update or two.

And the reason I bring this is up that the game has gotten too much of a bad rap. DD2 deserves love. Even on its own, it's a unique experience among its genre that you cannot really find anywhere else outside the first game.

And I always welcome any excuse to dive in again in the world of DD.