Instalar Steam
iniciar sesión
|
idioma
简体中文 (chino simplificado)
繁體中文 (chino tradicional)
日本語 (japonés)
한국어 (coreano)
ไทย (tailandés)
Български (búlgaro)
Čeština (checo)
Dansk (danés)
Deutsch (alemán)
English (inglés)
Español de Hispanoamérica
Ελληνικά (griego)
Français (francés)
Italiano
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesio)
Magyar (húngaro)
Nederlands (holandés)
Norsk (noruego)
Polski (polaco)
Português (Portugués de Portugal)
Português-Brasil (portugués de Brasil)
Română (rumano)
Русский (ruso)
Suomi (finés)
Svenska (sueco)
Türkçe (turco)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamita)
Українська (ucraniano)
Comunicar un error de traducción
Normas y directrices sobre discusión
Denunciar este mensaje
"comport with our narrative"?
if you dont consider my argument valid, explain why we must assume he means what he says, relative to how the game looks, and the obvious contradictions.
is it true or not he may be insincere, relative not only to his current position, but also to how konami has treated people like kojima or iga.
when i say i care about the game, it means the game: not the people that may have done something positive in the past, if in the present they are no longer representing the same values.
fact of life: some artists remain true to their work, and others become corrupt. There are obv reasons to question how honest is currently that art director. that doesnt contradict what the original game is and represents, and what the remake is and represents in its current state.
great, not only you are bad to follow logical arguments, but escape asap and act all high and mighty, lol
good for you. sure that will help you learn a lot of stuff, or figure out mistakes.
what "conspiracy"? here we are discussing facts. there are silly changes between the source and the remake; some of the people that made them have accepted it was to "appeal modern sensibilities" (which anyone reasonable knows is bs).
btw, in business and politics, conspiracy is the norm, not the exception.
relative to that theme, some conspiracy theories may appear at first glance crazy or silly, but many others arent, because speculation comes from exercising logic: thats why a classic motto of detectives is "follow the money". even silly conspiracies may be close to reality, but covered in absurdity.
why do you think in criminal investigations the first people that are considered potential suspects or witnesses are family and friends?
in business, and politics, which would be the first place to look for clues about bs? to close relations, or distant relations? you start at the source, and then you search "breadcrumbs" to see if those may connect what you know, with something new. at the most basic level, is that simple.
if the dog has wet paws, and theres a broken bottle, who is your first "suspect": the mischievous young dog, or a kid that is elsewhere? sure, maybe the kid, if you know has been malicious or likes to play pranks. maybe the kid wants to blame the dog to avoid getting scold. thats normal. not good, but normal:
if you work with people who dont mind trashing your legacy and willing to replace you if you question their authority, and you cannot afford to lose your job because of debts or something else, how often most people in that position do you think will be honest?
words are very cheap. actions are what matters, and so far, the game doesnt reflect whatever devs have claimed was "done in good faith"
thats a fact, like it or not.
Or, we could take their words at face value, and conclude that they're professional creators having respectful disagreements about their creative direction, as professional creators collaborating and consulting on projects often do, and likewise take their subsequent emergent consensus in which they praise Bloober's work at face value, instead of choosing to view it through the most pejorative lens possible that requires us to essentially call them disingenuous or infantalize them as victims with no agency or input rather than framing them as the experienced professionals they are, for saying something that doesn't support a narrative that they've explicitly refuted.
considering the bad behaviour of konami against their own creatives, and their involvement with dei, is hard to know who may have done worse this time.
the first games by bloober were "more or less good", or at least "more ok than bad", but they stagnated and havent improved a lot or at all. i can give them a chance, and believe they may be honest about trying to be the ones trying to preserve the original, but since they have never reflected that level of care before, i agree is also very likely thats pr bs, as you think.
maybe some of the japanese talent just want to be supportive of their allies, and take some of the heat for them. thats also possible.
either way, is hard to consider anyone honest about whats going on and has been with this game development, because thats how konami does things now.
in the end, if any do care, they will improve or fix some of the issues, maybe offer the "uncensored and unfcked outfits", but is more likely that aspect will be fix through mods, unless devs make the game in such way modding is not possible.
so far, i have little faith in this game. i just hope devs do a "no mas sky u-turn" at some point.
No, im admitting im here for entertainment, which is the same reason most people are here.
"Lowbrain bait" doesnt make you a "lowbrain baiter".
If you were correct, you would also be labelling yourself as such with that answer alone. do you consider yourself a "lowbrain baitter"? hope not.
thats doesnt make any sense, in relation to what ive written, or the nature and intended purpose of remakes, by their own definition: the word, literally means, "to make again". obv, there are different styles and approaches for that, good and bad; for example, "faithful and accurate" to the spirit and nature of the source, vs "mediocre and rushed" (usually a bad version that uses part of the source as a "skin suit" for something else).
At the very least, you should be able to understand that, to be able to follow the topic and the stuff that people have been discussing, arguing and ranting in the forums. if not, then maybe you have not noticed the irony in your words, when you want to "make others smaller than you to feel powerful and cool".
everyone understands remakes are different products to the original version: what you fail to grasp, is their purpose and reason to exist, as a marketing tool, and a "launch pad" to restart a franchise.
mediocre or bad remakes rather than help, can destroy or trash the chances of recovering something positive that was abandoned or partially lost from previous mismanagement. thats one of the main issues here, and why anyone that cares about the original story, dislikes what we know about the remake.
if you are a poor reader, i get it: many blabla is headpain. less words comfort. me no think. happy.
there we go again, another brilliant deflection to make a proper argument, lol
you skipped the parts which i wrote to explain you why your "joke" about conspiracies cannot land, specially when nothing we commented here is about theories or conspirations, but factual information.
the way you write, and what you write, reflect how little you actually care about the game.
why not try to make a proper argument for a change, rather that mediocre attempts at mockery, or relying in cheap insults that dont, and cannot work?
Not "just because you dont care about wardrobe" but because you are unable to understand why the issue isnt a single small change, but a collection of multiple changes that ware not needed, and devs did confessed were done only to try to appeal "modern sensibilities", rather than remaining truthful to the source.
You also dont seem to care about the franchise, again, not only for those (basic) reasons, but from the few things you comment and how. you may or not genuinely care about this game, but not because is a "silent hill game", but because it represents something else to you. thats what your words reflect.
lets try this:
whenever you go to buy food (or any other product) and want a specific flavour (or that the thing you want has specific "specs"), you buy your "usual brand" (or the thing with product pages and publicity that claims to have the spec you need or want). then, after paying and buying, you eat (or begin using the thing you got), and it not longer taste as it used to (or doesnt work properly, and at least shows lower performance): you may think something is wrong with them, until you read the "fine print" the recipe was changed without notice (or the components were replaced with cheaper and less efficient parts).
before anything else can happen, you have at least some obv options:
1
to accept the change introduced without warning or notice and keep using the downgraded version of the product;
2
to reject it, return it, ask for refund and seek something similar enough to what you were originally looking for.
A
"say something" and contact support, or at the very least try to communicate your disappointment to those responsible of the production (assuming you respect their original quality), since in a "normal world" people that sell stuff want to make money rather than losing clients and reduce sales.
B
spend extra time and resources trying to recreate yourself something that resembles the original thing, so in case you need or want that thing, with those "features lost in modernisation" remain available to you.
so, again, which options you think an "actual follower" of the brand would take (the one that appreciates the features and quality), and which would a "fan" (the compulsive consumer that usually buys anything with the label of the brand, no matter if its the real thing or not)?
so far at the very least you look like the second type: a blind supporter that doesnt really care about the quality and content, or if the changes improved the quality of the product, but one of those that only care about the claim "of owning a copy of the new thing, because it is supposed to be new".
thats what your words reflect to me, and probably most of those that dislike the game while you support it without been able to offer any reasonable or sound argument about why the changes should be "acceptable" or good; how those changes improve the original, rather than downgrading it.
so, if you truly care about the franchise, and also believe the un-requested changes and replacements introduced in this version are truly good, explain why they are, relative to the main theme and messages, and the original story of the game and characters. how they make sense to you, if they were truly not introduced for bs like politics or anything unrelated to the game itself.
i see that at least you were able to replace your favourite "facepalm icon" with a pug, even if the horse remains, lol.
Excuse my bluntness but do you do anything else over the internet beyond spread your crackpot international jewry “marxism” through the gays conspiracy theories? I’ve seen you in several other forums doing the same exact thing. I’m starting to feel bad writing this because it feels like I’m talking to someone suffering from extreme paranoia or some other disorder.
And more importantly HOW do you manage to make EVERY conversation you’re in about wokeness or DEI or whatever other synonyms for “thing I don’t like” you have? Jesus H. Christ man, live a little. There’s more to life than being afraid, I promise you.
I don’t say this unironically often but consider therapy. You keep posting this stuff all over steam - and as far as I can tell you’ve been doing it for MONTHS. That is not the behavior of a healthy human being. That is the behavior of someone who is genuinely disturbed in some way. Please reconsider what you’re choosing to spend your life doing. I can promise you you’re helping neither yourself nor others through these constant arguments you get into.
she is not "dressing better":
she is dressing differently, and in such a way she communicates something different about herself; her "new style" reflects a different "personality", that doesnt match her original role.
you dont care, because you fail to understand the relevance of stuff as basic as this, while cheering for the game without been able to support any of your arguments or comments logically, and factually.
again, same goes for each character appearance. imagine that devs wouldnt care even the minimal amount, and swap the main character with a "empowered black woman that means business", lol. as a parody, that could be funny, but such bs changes have become part of rl, meant to be taken seriously.
Please, if such thing is true, list examples of those "conspiracy theories" you are refering to.
Everything i comment is factual, no matter if you find it annoying. Another thing is if you are unable to understand what i comment and assume a different meaning, from a lack of knowledge or actual interest in analysing the things i comment.
if that is the case, it will be evident as soon as you can be more precise about that.
wow, i got a fan.
Then you are misreading me: im "pissed" about bs changes, from bs reasons, warping and trashing stuff for cultural and "historical revisionists".
if you are confusing what i write with fear and paranoia, you are probably "projecting yourself"; if you are unaware of this psychological phenomenon, invest a bit of time reading and learning, so you can make better arguments, and bait.
I dont "make them": i follow the topic of "dei infected", and the "sweet baby inc drama" in part for entertainment, in part to help others calling out the bs.
orly? lol
Do you know how arguments work? in the sense of "logical arguments" (ie aka "proper argumentation")?
Before be able to learn that, theres a concept you are probably unfamiliar with: "self-reflection"? when people tell you to look yourself in a mirror, it usually doesnt meant literally that: it means that often, your words and actions are contradictory and ironic.
You could, and you must try that. when you are able to do that (if you are able), you will learn more stuff about you that you were unaware. thats a basic psychological exercise you really need to try, before making more "tragically comic" pseudo-suggestions to others.
Her dress sense is much better, yes. Wait... do you think the granny cardigan from the OG looks good? Really? Damn bro.
you are misreading, un intentionally misrepresenting what i commented.
No, she isnt dressing "much better":
the way she was portrayed was relative to what she was supposed to represent in the original story. her physical appearance, also matters (if she was supossed to look in a specific age range, if she was slim or not, if she had long hair or not, etc.).
thats basic in symbolical language:
you cannot change freely any single thing, without changing what it communicates, and if the new message it communicates is congruent and coherent with her personality traits and role in the story, it can be describe as "worse".
you are looking at things superfluously, which obv supports my criticism, and that you probably have never cared before about the franchise until now.
in horror, and specially in "psychological horror", symbolical language is at the core.
you cannot swap parts randomly with stuff that isnt compatible with the original concept and art direction.
the way you view things is similar to what the producers of the first mario movie did, which was probably like this:
"we cannot make goombas like animated characters if we want to make mario bros look like real life characters, so how about we make them look like brutish gorillas with small heads. that will be fun"
and sure, making random changes can be fun, for fan fiction, but not for representing accurately things as they are, or what they are actually supposed to represent.