I figure that the Swiss Army knife my dad got me for Boy Scouts is really up there. Self explanatory why I suppose.

I could have sworn Discovery was connected with Bad Robot, but it looks like I was wrong.

It still has a “JJ Abrams sensibility” - frantic space combat, overly emotional characters, a lot of flashy but meaningless tech (the hologram communicators as an easy example) and visuals (the way the bridge was often shot). It was very much trying to be loud and new, while throwing in a lot of surface level references to try and give it some franchise credibility (this USS Discovery is a rejected Phase 2 concept design).

It all came together in a loud, unlikable soup that felt inauthentic to the franchise. There was some course correction later on, but too little, too late. Strange New Worlds went the right direction, while the Section 31 movie tripled down on all the worst aspects of Discovery.

In any case, I agree - the D&D movie was a lot of fun, and while I wouldn’t want a ST movie to strike that tone, I’m interested to see what they cook up.

I don’t want the Trek movie to have the DND movie tone either, but more like when that movie was made they understood the correct tone to match the franchise. It felt authentic to what DND players experience. If the Trek movie has the same care in figuring out what long time fans want, it will be good.

That’s good. The repercussions of the Bad Robot era have really derailed Trek in a way it’s just started healing from.

While Discovery wasn’t in the Kelvinverse, the connection to Bad Robot probably gave it that similar style. The Section 31 movie wasn’t connected directly to Bad Robot as company, but it did share a writer.

Strange New Worlds has been a huge step in the right direction, though it came directly out of Discovery, making it kind of a prototype for modern live action Trek trying to both be “gritty” and classic Trek at the same time. I think it has mostly succeeded, but now that it’s proven there’s an appetite away from Bad Robot era Trek, I hope the new series goes further.

While I hope whatever they make doesn’t share a tone with the new DND movie, I appreciate that the DND movie was obviously well versed in the setting and knew what fans were about. Applying that same mindset to Trek would be great.

I can’t agree more strongly. The ad for the Neo felt like a cult recruitment video. It’s targeting people in their feels, not appealing to sensibility. Huge red flag. 99% of footage of a Neo in motion has been with in remote controlled by a person in a VR headset.

I double checked myself on some Chauchat machinegun facts, and then kind of went into a rabbit hole of inter-war French armament.

In 2026 the Neo robot, the figure 3 and the Tesla bot are going mainstream in countries like America and I’m pretty sure other western countries.

I am skeptical. The Neo robot is basically a Mechanical Turk with extra steps.

I can’t prove it but the Figure 3 gives me even more vaporware flags.

As for the Tesla bot, it’s the least scammy of the bunch, but this is on the “we promise to put robots in your house in 2026” scale. It wouldn’t be the first time Tesla overset expectations.

None of these companies are straightforwardly showing extended, unedited footage of these robots operating in full AI mode in an uncontrolled realworld environment for a reason.

Humanoid household robots are the new (edit: I suppose not new, but resurging) fascination, but they are dumb. If someone wants to automate away chores it’s going to be by increasing smarthome capabilities and integration, and/or by having improved standalone robots and automation, like roombas, if they aren’t going all in on integrated smarthome tech. Success in automation will be with specific use robots and pieces of automation, ideally working together, not a Cylon lumbering around.

Ziggy’s done messing around.

I grew up eating what most people consider very spicy food. I don’t care what level of spicy other people are comfortable with, but I’ve found that amongst certain types of people I have to be discreet about my preference for spicy food. Some people find it a novelty to gawk at which is just awkward.

If an art work has been popular for years, has won dozens of awards, is used by experts as an example of excellence, isn’t it ‘objectively’ good?

In this earlier definition looking for objective merit, it leans heavily on professional opinion. If a small number of individuals not thinking a work that is “objectively good” is good doesn’t change that, then the opposite must also be true. Therefore, if we have a situation where the critical consensus is that a work is bad, and only a small number of people think it is good, then we have a piece of art that is “objectively bad” by using the critical standards, but which is held onto by a small number of people who disagree.

At the top of this discussion I didn’t define “art” merely as visual pieces (I actually used examples of movie and games). So that art could be anything expressive- music, books, plays, movies, games, and beyond. I can think of art and artists not appreciated in their time, and then over time critical perception turned around.

This is all a long way of saying critical opinions are at the end of the day still opinions. That’s why even critics disagree with each other.

saying that something is objectively good does actually mean “for the majority”, because there is no singular point of absolute goodness to compare it to.

I agree completely that people use it like this.

If a piece of art was created 100 years ago and every professional critic of the time thought it was trash without any merit, and then 100 years later the critical reception of that same piece had changed and it was considered a piece of high art, is that piece of art objectively good? Objectively bad? Was it objectively bad 100 years ago and then somehow became good?

If an art work has been popular for years, has won dozens of awards, is used by experts as an example of excellence, isn’t it ‘objectively’ good?

If I don’t like that piece of art, am I wrong? Am I objectively incorrect of the opinions inside my own head?

Lots of people dislike award winning movies, songs, and games. Are those people measurably wrong? No. The plural of subjective opinions is not an objective one.

My personal gripe in this area is people misusing “objectively”.

Such as declaring that a certain movie or game is objectively good.

Probably stereotypical, but I find well done steaks to be a total waste.

I rarely cook steak, but when I do I go to a butcher and get something quality and fresh. Normally I don’t care how other people enjoy their food, but when I take the effort to get quality steak and someone at a family get together asks me to cook until the steak is grey in the center it just deflates me. Logically I know that if everyone is happy with their food it doesn’t matter, but personally having to mangle a steak so it has the taste of ground beef just goes against every cooking instinct I have.

I’ve learned that when certain people are coming to a holiday cookout to just cook burgers or BBQ instead. Everyone is just as happy with what they get.

I’ll never get past the Dangerous Hunts games since some management somewhere at Cabela’s had to approve a hunting game with deep lore about a literal shapeshifting demon and chimpanzee supersoldiers.

In Wasteland 2 there is a museum of pre-war artifacts. One item is an undetonated nuclear bomb. If you monkey around with it you can find a big red button. It is obviously a terrible idea to push the button. If you still decide to push it you get a special game over screen.

deleted by creator

Speaking of disrespectful, the rules for this community specify that posts must be photographs.

Respeccing. It shouldn’t be infinitely free, but I like games that allow you to pay (usually increasing amounts) to respec.

Related to this, in older games without this it was common practice to save up your skillpoints and just sit on them until you’d gotten a little further into the game and hopefully had a better idea how to spend them. What was massively frustrating in older games were when leveling up forced you to immediately spend the points instead of sitting on them.

I thought about my answer, since many mechanics I don’t like can have good implementations, or at the very least are a sort of lesser of two evils kind of thing.

What I can’t stand are tactical or RPG games with realtime or turn based combat option toggles. I play many games with one or the other and enjoy them, but when I play a game with both that can be toggled in options I always feel like neither setting feels perfectly right. The balance is always off no matter what. Understandable with game devs having to double the amount of work for creating combat and tuning items and it ends up feeling a little soggy every time.