Much agreed about the unique impact of Persona 3's ending. I love 'em all, but P3 definitely has the most affecting and memorable ending of them all. I may enjoy P4/P5 more by most metrics of comparison, but the ending of P3 is far and away more interesting than anything that's come since.
Funny part though, I kind of wonder if it's a good thing. P3 made me sad. One of the most incredibly bittersweet ends to a video game there's been, IMO. But if P4/P5 also followed the same mold... I sorta wonder if I'd be exhausted from Persona by now? If Atlus kept trying to out-morose themselves for saddest ending, I might want to stop investing 90 hours to beat games that I know are just gonna try to tear-bait me, lol.
By leaving that territory alone, I think they've done Persona 3's ending decent service by letting it keep its unique identity and feel as a game about... death. P4/P5 don't feel like they're competing with it, and I like that.
That's a bit of an excuse though. Your point is the real core of it: they've succeeded as a franchise and become a kinda Big Thing, and companies don't tend to like to take Big Risks with their Big Things.
tl;dr: agreed, they'll never make an ending as ballsy as this one, lol
If a good thing's gotta come to an end, what better way than with its absolute best episode? It's so uplifting and gratifying to have a whole show all about appreciation and friendship these folks have for each other. What an absolute breath of fresh air. This is Giant Bomb at its very best.
Wow, I didn't know the difference until watching this video, but the monster introductions are way different between versions. They're said more like ghost stories in English, but with Japanese audio they're performed as shigin-style song poetry -- which hits so much harder IMO.
As someone who never even heard of Merrit K before this video it's easy for me to sympathize with Abby/GB for not knowing about the abuse allegations. BUT it's also quite easy for me to sympathize with people familiar with these issues who don't want to see Merrit K get boosted on this show. Platforming a bigot is one of the biggest harms GB can do in their position, so it's a serious thing to pay attention to -- a very appropriate subject to be passionate about. It's a sign of a conscientious crowd to not just give people a pass by association, and we should always encourage people to speak out if there's concerns.
The staff themselves have said that they want to know these things, and want their audience to challenge them to always be better. The criticism in this thread is very much in the spirit of their proclaimed mission, so I'd suggest to folks to honor it. If you trust the GB staff, then trust them to look into this matter now that they're informed. You're not helping 'em by snapping at their critics. Don't worry about the staff -- worry about being kind and respectful to your fellow community members.
There's room for both sympathy and criticism here. That's my spiel.
Sucks that the first all-female show on GB (podcast at least, right?) has been tarnished by this situation. Really hope there's another like it -- with some more fortunate booking! Host Abby is a treasure!
I was already enjoying watching, but the rule changes definitely punch it up and make it a lot more interesting. I'd argue the timer should be even shorter just so there's more forced change-outs, as I think the controller shifting hands helps keep everyone more engaged in what's going on. But then again I imagine they'll be seeing more deaths in the near future anyway.
As the "leave the room" rule is concerned, I thought it was hilarious this episode, but yeah I'd hate to lose any of the cast for another entire installment. I agree with others that the "effect" should wear off at the end of the next player's turn at the very latest (which could still be 1/8th of the show, since these usually run 2 hours and turns are 15 minutes).
This is a tough game for this situation -- the maps are very same-y and easy to get turned around in even when you're the only one playing. The game also relies a lot on the player memorizing where they saw stuff for future powerups/other Kongs, which is also going to be hard to keep track of when you're not the one encountering everything yourself. I love this game, but I freely admit that it has a lot of issues: one of them being that if you aren't very meticulous in your approach to backtracking and collecting everything, you're going to have a bad time. I'm not sure what the best answer is for making the game go smoother while also talking and running the show. Maybe getting more input from chat when lost? (Or, ooh, NEW FEATURE: player can pay a banana to have someone else read them assistance from chat??)
For that to make sense, getting a Golden Banana should probably be worth more than... a banana. But I think it should be anyway, the way this economy has turned out, haha.
Anyway, that's my rambling! Been enjoying the show! Keep it up!
Notes taken, now may I point something out? This stands out to me and I would love to have an answer. Why do you all approach this by attacking me? As a person, my actions, instead of defending a point? Instead of building an argument? Is it cause it's easier? Taking me out, labeling me as something undesirable will spare you the hustle of examining your own points? Your own beliefs? Avoiding critical thinking?
Could you please give an honest answer, to yourselves - why do you do that? Here are some of my arguments that no one even attempted to touch:
- The mental gymnastics performed in the podcast "the more you know the more you realize you don't know" (thus portraying your "yesterday" you as an idiot) is just a way to excuse yourself on how less "progressive" you were yesterday. Words driven by fear of the industry itself. "Ask Austin he knows".
- Turning off the voting system cause you don't like what it shows (talking about bad faith in tens of thousands of people, indirectly putting a message out there - you are bigots and misogynists and she is alright).
In answer to the top part of your post, I'm going to say it's because, in your original message, you weren't posing a question or an argument so much as offering snark -- and people tend to respond in kind, or defensively if it feels like an attack. It's hard to interpret snark and sarcasm any other way from a stranger. For my part, I legitimately could not tell you were even posing a point, as it was lost in the irreverence.
As for your first question, what they're referring to isn't a phenomenon that's strictly about "political growth." It's for everything. Pick a subject. It seems simpler from a distance, and it's only as you learn more about it that you see it for how much bigger and more complex it is. My dad once told me, "it takes a smart person to realize how much he doesn't know." The implication being that more ignorant people will assume to be experts or wholly knowledgeable about a certain field, when in fact the only reason they purport to know it all is because they've yet to see how much there is. As for this podcast, these two are saying "we once thought we knew everything, but actually it turns out we've still got a lot to learn." I don't think that's a bad statement, because it shows a grasp of perspective. It doesn't mean you'll never know, it just means you're still figuring it out. Listening and being open to more ideas is never a bad thing. IMO, I don't think these two are acting out of some kind of fear of the industry (especially as they're largely talking in terms of their family, not industry topics). I think you're bringing baggage to it that's not there.
Your second question, frankly you must be referring to some drama that I have no context for. So I can't rightly comment. Other than to flippantly say that upvote/downvote systems are like the most valueless thing in the world to me, haha
Superkenon's comments