Why do people online act so entitled and snooty about everything?

[thejuice]

Interesting. I have an android phone and a windows 10 pc will they be compatible?

 

[Misery]

Interesting. I have an android phone and a windows 10 pc will they be compatible?

For Android, the actual extension page says this:

"Compatible with mobile YouTube, m.youtube.com, through Firefox on Android"

I dont actually use my phone for video watching, so I cant say anything from experience there. But considering how malleable Android devices are, this is probably pretty easy to set up (wheras on an Apple device it's an enormous pain).

For Windows, I dont know if Windows version is even a factor here. As far as I know, extensions merely want the correct browser, and for that browser to be properly updated.

I personally use Edge, but these extensions are also on Chrome and Firefox at least. I'm not sure about others.

 

[thejuice]

Thanks bud

 

[Judge]

I felt compelled to post this thread, as it's something I notice a lot online. But basically, I always notice YouTubers with a sizeable following are always trying to act like a big shot, and it's equal parts sad, equal parts embarrassing.

It's true, like watching a plethora of "Jackass" characters. All competing against one another, requiring them to "out-jackass" everyone else. But yeah, they're still being jackasses in the process. Go figure.

Actually what bothers me even more is how so many YouTube content creators seem compelled to use completely unrelated images and issues to get people to click on them. Better known as "clickbait". Like guys having their girlfriends or wives wearing the least amount of clothing YouTube will allow just so they can display their passion of wildlife. Quite insulting for some of us.

Or creating taglines and altered images that draw you into a long presentation, only to discover that they never actually address what the tagline said in the first place.

It pains me to have to wade through so much crap just to get to a few content creators who actually operate on a premise of less or none of this nonsense. It seems that misrepresentation itself is now a way of life on YouTube.

 

[Lemon Zing]

At my age, I'd rather have a partner and quit all gaming forums. There's tons of review sites. At my age, and giving all the abuse I have had since I was 17, I'm better off just browsing.

But the online services for dating are bad. I fear I'll always be single, because I don't look attractive. And I was also on the 'other sites' to be what some women would label as a 'simp' and it's all been money down the chute. But I wasn't really simping. They don't even care about their followers.

I also contacted them on the relevant sites where you book them, and they were either nasty or seemed totally disinterested in a meet. It's all sugarcoating. I don't understand why they write their profile in a way that looks good. But then again, it's because men are too desperate.

There's a goth girl into anime cosplay. I think she's retiring from you know what soon, for a more normal life. Even has a boyfriend who knows what she was doing. I never met her anyway. She was rarely working. So when she recently announced her retirement, I was displeased at being a subscriber for a while, and while she never said anything bad, I could sense she was just into it for the money. Because they just do this to pay off education loans, or their rent, and sometimes to garner pity. Of course, I knew that. It's a waste of cash either way.

I wouldn't get in too deep. I wasn't. But some 2 years later, I never got to meet her. I doubt I will, with this being her last month with her sites.

 

[Misery]

It pains me to have to wade through so much crap just to get to a few content creators who actually operate on a premise of less or none of this nonsense.

Yeah, this is the most frustrating part. No amount of browser extensions fixes this bit.

Honestly I used to really love Youtube, content was straightforward, I mostly followed a lot of gaming and "let's play" type videos. This was before the era of screaming. None of them had gotten to like, a million subs or anything. So many of them were great.

Now? Ugh. There's only two channels I really follow of that sort... one of them being Markiplier, the only super huge gaming content creator I follow... and most others are just... bleh. Older channels I used to follow either stopped producing content when the bigger ones started to take over, or they pivoted into nonsense.

Used to also follow a few channels that focused on gaming industry news, there was always something interesting happening. But as the site overall started leaning more and more towards all things dramatic and shocking, those channels started reporting only on negative stories, and nothing else, and of course all presented as shockingly as possible in most cases. Those channels, most of them I pruned out, because they'd just gotten so bad. I know I'm not going to find any good ones from here on out.

I do follow a few analog/digital horror series, but of course even that cant just freaking work right. While I moderate the heck outta my main feed page and all that, there's still just SO MUCH STUFF that it becomes super easy to miss very specific things I'd been waiting for (and yeah, I know about the "bell" function, too bad it doesnt work right half the time).

My overall feed may all be positive stuff, but... that doesnt mean it's all actually worth watching. Still gotta sift. Which is annoying.

But it's like... what the heck is the alternative? You couldnt pay me to go anywhere near Twitch (gaming-focused streaming site, it is terrible), Youtube has no real competitor, and actual TV is all just absolute drivel.

I often find myself going back to muuuuuuch older content and just rewatching those over and over. LP series mainly, from certain Youtubers that mostly dont make stuff anymore and havent for ages. Certain series I've watched all the way through like 20 times over by this point.

I will say that I do every now and then find something surprising and good from some channel I've never seen before, there IS still people making really creative stuff... but that doesnt happen very often.

Honestly it's all really frustrating. Youtube overall is sort of a "comfort site" for me, a digital stim, if you will. It's where I go when I'm feeling agitated, and also it's what I watch while eating (because if I dont have anything to watch while eating, I'll get progressively more and more agitated). But half the time now when I go to do those things I end up just getting really irritated from having to search so hard for something interesting that it just ends up seeming to not be worth it. And that's all WITH all the pruning and filters and extensions. It's all positive content, but even out of that much of it is low-effort stupid stuff.

The worst ones to me though are the trend-hoppers. I very much value creativity and genuine self expression, and it's pretty easy to tell when someone is doing something not because they want to, but because [youtuber with a million subscribers] started doing it, and now everyone else seems to be doing it.

I will say though, I'm more appreciative than ever of those channels... often really niche ones... that turn out to be diamonds in the rough.

 

[Judge]

I will say though, I'm more appreciative than ever of those channels... often really niche ones... that turn out to be diamonds in the rough.

Exactly why I continue to access YouTube, for those few diamonds in the rough. Putting up with a lot of crap just to get a little wisdom.

 

[Lemon Zing]

The last time I checked, you now only need 50 subs to live stream on a mobile or tablet.

So it went from 1000 to 500, down to 50. I don't know if you need all the viewing time as well, "to be considered" for the feature. It was a large amount of hours.

They aren't asking for much, are they?

 

[DrBadStrings]

They act that way because there is nobody in arms reach to slap them up side the head. Folks get brave behind a keyboard and screen and will say things they never would face to face.

 

[Lemon Zing]

Believe me. Choosing to rabbit on about the Resident Evil franchise on video game forums that are full of radge pots, is a waste of time. I'm sure there's other gaming series they love to defend to death as well, but RE is one of the best series to use as an example, due to the kind of squabbling that occurs on message boards. Because I've did it for years, as "thesaunderschild".

They bash RE5 so hard, which in my view, is really biased and vastly dumb. RE4 and 5 killed the series. I'm not bothered about which one you blame for the downfall of the survival horror genre. 4 and 5 are practically identical.

The idea is that you go to a village in either Spain or Africa to investigate something, or to look for a person who got kidnapped. So these villagers infected with parasites attack you when you enter this land, right. But people always say 5 is lame, while praising 4 as if the second coming of Jesus had just occurred. I'm not kidding. They cannot ever shut up about how amazing that game is.

Then RE6 came out and nobody liked it. Nobody. But it plays just like 4 and 5. Go figure.

So Capcom made RE7 into horror again, since all the action based games peed people off. But all they did was cut and paste stuff from various horror movies. As if somebody in authority was like, "Oh, just copy every famous horror film scene there is!"

But RE8 was a major clone of P.T. by Hideo Kojima. They even added in these mannequins to copy the nurses that attack you, and Rosemary Winters is a repeat of Heather Mason, through in through. And I knew it. They took their sweet time releasing the DLC, because it came out like a year and a half after the base game was released. But even so. I told these idiots they were being hacks, and doing it as a cash grab. And I also let them know about the lawsuit concerning that person's stolen artwork. I did. So I won the war.

My point is, YouTube is full of people who always say RE4 is the best of all time, and the backlash you will get for saying otherwise will be like Abby Anderson from The Last of Us Part II, just took her golf club to your dome. But to me, RE4 ruined the series in 2005. However, if you love the game, that's okay. Because I cannot fault someone for having an opinion on something they personally enjoy. But just know that Capcom is lying about everything they produce, saying they made Nemesis in RE3 into a useless jelly blob because Mr. X was too intimidating in RE2. Which is why RE3 was an epic failure during the early days of COVID.

Oh, my wooden puppet. See how big your nose has grown!

 

[thejuice]

I always liked the isometric angle games.

 

[Lemon Zing]

Like Tetris?

 

[thejuice]

Maybe like later Tetris. I mean the early resident evil games in 3rd person from an isometric perspective that were actually scary

 

[Misery]

Maybe like later Tetris. I mean the early resident evil games in 3rd person from an isometric perspective that were actually scary

"Fixed camera" games, is what that sort is typically called these days. The kind of thing RE did, I mean.

Ya dont really see the fixed-camera concept these days very much, simply since it is often considered to be one of those things that only existed due to device limitations at the time. And doing it RIGHT was very hard. If you put the camera in a good spot in a room, you can make it work well (though even then, it tended to be clunky). Put it in the wrong spot in the exact same room with no other changes and you make a mess. A lot of games back in that era did not get it right. These days though, it's been a missing concept for ages now, found only in retro games. Since there's been no mechanical necessity that calls for it.

Some recent indie horror games though are starting to pull back to that concept though, just... because.

 

[Lemon Zing]

Horror games like Resident Evil stopped being scary for a long time when Capcom decided to sell out and make RE4 into a game that glorifies shooting and linear exploration. I do understand that horror alone is a niche category, and people often called RE cheesy and all that crap, so action games are more popular. But RE4 is one of the most overrated games I've ever played.

RE4 was originally going to be really bizarre. An early concept was that Leon got infected, so he was imagining a ghost with a hook or whatever was following him around a maze with these dolls. And it did not look anything like any RE game I'd seen before. Although all of this was eventually scrapped once the developers understood how ridiculous it may have been to fans. Thank goodness. But even the end result with RE4 was not one I particularly appreciated.

Now, I do find it fun overall. There's definitely a lot to like about it. But they deviated too far from the core roots. For I mean, all the other games had fixed camera angles and zombies, and an emphasis on a creepy atmosphere, as well as you learning about the various viruses made by the Umbrella Corporation. But RE4 just has you going from A to B most of the time, killing waves of the same looking hostile villagers, or sometimes giant bugs and so on. For hours upon hours. Then these numbers pop up on the screen to basically let you know where the door is. What!?

And that cult leader Saddler was pretty weird as well, to be honest. Along with like the pirate midget and the merchant who you trade with. The previous villains were more in line with science. But this is when it started to feel somewhat supernatural. Which to me, just doesn't suit the RE franchise.

The game is casual and scummy, though. What idiot thought having you flog treasures for to obtain a billion guns was supposed to be terrifying? Seriously. And then being able to do roundhouse kicks on stunned enemies, and slamming druids from behind, and so on. It was by far the main reason the RE franchise went downhill, yet it has so many supporters, its faults are cast to the side.

 

[thejuice]

found only in retro games. Since there's been no mechanical necessity that calls for it.

Ya dont really see the fixed-camera concept these days very much, simply since it is often considered to be one of those things that only existed due to device limitations at the time.

Some recent indie horror games though are starting to pull back to that concept though, just... because.

I agree that pure gameplay wise, modern Resident Evil is a more intuitive experience.

I would say there's a market gap for the retro style because people are fatigued by the endless identikit first person shooter games.

Some of the early resident evils were aesthetically beautiful, charming and atmospheric because of the camera angle, art and heavy emphasis on story and lore.

Its something hard to quantify in a consumer focussed play test. Blasting waves of zombies in tunnel vision is just a total different experience.

An unintended consequence of the antiquated control scheme was added anxiety and horror. The rarity of ammo and your general vulnerability made it feel like you were actually just trying to survive.

All this was lost in the slicker, broader, more action orientated sequels. It's a trap that many franchises have walked a well worn path into. The first game did really well, they feel pressure to out do it by upping the action!

Technical constraints can lead to amazing things, the enemy of art is the absence of limitation after all. Maybe that's one of the reasons why modern games are so drab.

 

[Lemon Zing]

One game I thought was scary that NO-ONE supported, was The Evil Within 2. It was kind of more 'open world' than RE, and was a game that played like RE4, 5 and 6, but had a unique atmosphere very reminiscent of the Silent Hill games. Shouldn't that have made people happy? The best of both worlds was on offer.

It really comes down to Capcom, in a way. They could make the most pitiful, dull, mundane game around, and yet their legion of bong puffers would still support it regardless. It's just so telling.

Also, Capcom truly tells lies to their fans. All. The. Time.

When RE8 came out, they said it was intended to be "less scary" because the feedback for RE7 suggested it was making people wet their underwear when they played it using a VR headset, which is gimmicky and overrated in my view. There has never been a bigger lie, however.

You see, if you examine RE8 closely, you can see it's essentially a cut-and-paste job of RE4. The village. The lake. The castle. Even that first fight with the werewolf type things is just like the fight with the farmers by the bonfire in RE4, right? They retreat after about 5 minutes of you holding them off. There was also a plump vendor called Duke, and he hints about knowing the merchant in RE4, calling him an old friend.

You see, they needed an explanation for making RE8 into yet another shooter game. So that was it. But if anybody doesn't believe me, there's a lot of interviews with Capcom's staff where that gets mentioned a lot.

 

[Misery]

I agree that pure gameplay wise, modern Resident Evil is a more intuitive experience.

I would say there's a market gap for the retro style because people are fatigued by the endless identikit first person shooter games.

Some of the early resident evils were aesthetically beautiful, charming and atmospheric because of the camera angle, art and heavy emphasis on story and lore.

Its something hard to quantify in a consumer focussed play test. Blasting waves of zombies in tunnel vision is just a total different experience.

An unintended consequence of the antiquated control scheme was added anxiety and horror. The rarity of ammo and your general vulnerability made it feel like you were actually just trying to survive.

All this was lost in the slicker, broader, more action orientated sequels. It's a trap that many franchises have walked a well worn path into. The first game did really well, they feel pressure to out do it by upping the action!

Technical constraints can lead to amazing things, the enemy of art is the absence of limitation after all. Maybe that's one of the reasons why modern games are so drab.

All the more reason why I just stick to indies and AA games these days. I'm tired of every game being "Super Space Gun Guy Zombie Murder: Microtransaction War" or whatever blasted nonsense it is lately. Even stuff that makes little sense as an FPS gets turned into one while other genres vanish entirely. And horror games? The AAA horror landscape aint exactly in a good spot. Er... has there even BEEN any recently? Aside from RE I mean.

Last time I even bought a AAA game was Diablo 4, only bought because "well I should at least TRY a AAA game, I havent done so in years" and, well... yeah that didnt turn out so well. Probably wont do THAT again. As that genre goes I ended up playing Grim Dawn instead.

Horror games in particular though usually lose me as soon as they get all action-focused. For me personally, the moment you give me a way to shoot/slash/explode the monsters, it is no longer a horror game. After all, where's the scares when the most dangerous thing in the spooky house is myself? Granted there can be exceptions to this, but not many.

And I tend to find that once horror games go in that direction, they tend to also devolve into "gross-out horror". Like, cant scare the player with all that much once they're armed and powerful, so let's "scare" them by just throwing as much blood and gore at them as possible, because we cant think of anything else. Resident Evil 7 and 8 both seem to have fallen into this category from what I've seen of them.

I've lost track of where I was going with this.

 

[Lemon Zing]

It's like the cyclical notion of Hollywood 'alternate sequels', in a way.

Hollywood is so desperate for ideas that they can bring a character back who you know died, or just act like certain entries did not occur. Like with that latest part in The Exorcist franchise. They ignore the events of 2 and 3, and just bring back Linda Blair in a cameo, probably just for the sake of nostalgia. Or like what they did with Jamie Lee Curtis in the Halloween films.

Laurie Strode was killed off in this mental hospital by her brother Michael, who located her there. She is then in three sequels to the original that ignore the events of the other movies with Dr. Sam Loomis and whatnot, so most of the movies you remember seemingly do not count anymore. Although I thought those films were better. But you know?

Got to beat a dead horse again somehow, eh?

This update from Dusk Golem has me feeling not surprised in the least. Because I can already see Capcom cutting out things in a remake of RE: CVX, like the Sweepers or the Gulp Worm on Rockfort Island, and just making it feel half-cooked.

Resident Evil Code Veronica Remake Gets Disappointing Update

 

[Misery]

Got to beat a dead horse again somehow, eh?

Well, it's pretty typical with big media. It often sounds like it's just bad skill on the part of the writers, but I've always felt it's actually a business decision.

Like with comics, heroes and villains are always getting killed and coming back, and it's not because it actually makes for good storytelling. Like, in DC, if they were to really, truly kill off the Joker, that's a golden goose that is now missing, and the entire franchise is worth less as a result. Since a character like him is one of the pulls for it. So like every major character in a comic book series, they will never, ever ACTUALLY kill him. He'll always come back in some form. Because he's worth real life money... and lots of it.

Happens in games a lot too. Like the Five Nights at Freddy's series, the big bad of the series, William Afton, was dead, and then killed even harder, so *totally* dead. Heck there's a game in the series where you play as him, experiencing his infinite punishment in the afterlife. So, he was all sorts of dead.

Later games brought him back anyway, and outright retconned the part where his undead form was killed. It was pretty stupid. But he's a very popular character, and without him in the story it aint worth as much. So as he says in the games, he always comes back.

Though there are odd exceptions every now and then, such as Diablo 4 not having freaking Diablo in it, which irritated the heck outta the fanbase (particularly since the Prime Evils were never able to truly die from the start of the franchise, so it would not have been a cop-out to have him revive yet again). Granted that game ended up being pretty mediocre in any case.