Diablo IV

[Ruin Explorer]

(This is also how I treat NPCs as a DM, so it's my worldview.)

Brutal but true.

I have to say I am little done with Stranger Things myself because it really feels like the writers like the original characters a lot more than the audience does, or the characters deserve! It doesn't even quite seem to be a "can't kill your darlings" situation because they create other characters they know are going to be huge hits and then kill them off no probs.

 

[Bacon Bits]

It's more prominent as a subgenre than it was in the '80s and before, but there are a couple of things worth noting:

1) The default for fantasy was a lot darker back then. Fantasy, on average, has got lighter since the 1980s and earlier. Especially if you're looking at novels, TV and movies. Bridge to Terabithia isn't "dark fantasy", for example, no matter how upsetting it is.

2) All the stuff you list is the exception, not the rule, and you're listing stuff that's wildly successful next to stuff that's a moderate niche success, and stuff that's slightly dark - i.e. has some bad things happen - but isn't really darker than "normal" fantasy in the '80s, like Harry Potter - next to stuff that's nearly pitch black, like Berserk or the more downer zombie stuff.

My whole point is kind of that mainstream media now heavily includes dark fantasy in ways that used to be very niche. In the 80s, comic books, D&D, and fantasy in general were all niche. You could pick up The Dark Knight Returns or Watchmen in comics and it was refreshingly dark, or you could see Superman, Back to the Future, Indiana Jones, Batman '89, Star Trek: TNG, and they were campy or optimistic. Often both! If you wanted something dark, you had to seek it out. It was usually something in the horror genre, which was often campy itself.

Nothing is really campy at the moment. Comedies are not that popular unless they're animated. Comics are still largely dark, and a lot of fantasy novels are dark. But now TV and movies and video games are often dark, too! And not just the horror genre, either. Hell, even Star Trek is dark!

If you don't see it, I'm happy for you, but your disagreement doesn't really alter the root of my perceptions. It doesn't mean I'm any more interested in the stories that modern speculative fiction is trying to tell. It still feels too uniform to me to draw my interest. So when something specifically tries to aim for dark fantasy like D4, it doesn't excite me like it used to.

Like anti-heroes in the 90s, dark fantasy and dystopian elements just feel pretty boring right now. It makes me care less about whatever it is, while historically it drew me in. Noir and hard boiled are two of my favorite genres. Red Harvest is one of my top 2 favorite novels. Nope. Not interested right now.

And "the more recent Marvel movies"? No. Absolutely not. Of those only Multiverse of Madness could even arguably be considered dark, and I'd say that was balanced by the extremely light-side No Way Home (i.e. where MCU Peter Parker finally finds his real compassion and moral center, and where all the bad guys get sent home healed*, not murdered). Wakanda isn't dark, given the ending(s). Thor 4 wasn't dark - a character dying doesn't make a film "dark fantasy", for god's sake. Quantumania is, I presume, not dark - certainly no-one I know who has seen it has suggested it was - the main comparator has been Star Wars.

Sorry, that's my fault for poor phrasing. Recent meaning Phase 2-3. I haven't really been to a cinema since before the pandemic as the one close to me is now gone. I've seen a few post-Infiinty War films, partially because I wasn't interested in the story anymore. If it's less dark that's good, but I don't really care as my interest is already gone. As you can guess, it's been gone for awhile.

This is all on you, frankly.

Yes, my experiences and perceptions are on me. Whose should I be talking about?

Mentioning Hunger Games in the same breath as The First Law or GoT or even The Walking Dead is absolutely nonsense and illustrates a serious failure to engage with the themes and ideas of the works, and instead a focus on entirely superficial elements.

No, it merely indicates that I didn't watch past the first movie. I punched out early. I wasn't really interested in the premise as soon as I understood it, and while I did finish it, I don't really think the first film has particularly well-defined themes. The only solid theme I recall from the first one is "big tyrannical governments are bad." In retrospect, I should've guessed that's what it was going to be from the title, but I didn't really think about it before starting it since I got the movie for free on YouTube on a lark. Either way, I wasn't really interested in a YA Battle Royale, especially one that was 5(?) movies long.

Further, I reject the idea that disliking elements of the setting or plot means you don't understand the theme. One can understand the themes and still not wish to engage with the topics in the plot, the setting, or the premise. One can understand the themes and still be put off by other elements even if they are as broad and nebulous as "dystopian and dark fantasy tropes." After all, we can say that the theme of most published Dark Sun adventures is heroes surviving and overcoming the odds in the face of ubiquitous and pervasive evil -- quite hopeful! -- and still not be interested in playing the campaign setting simply because we don't want to deal with specific trappings of the setting itself.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Nothing is really campy at the moment.

Are you joking?

Both Multiverse of Madness and Thor 4 were unarguably campy.

Look it's in the headlines here:

‘Thor: Love and Thunder’ a campy letdown after the rewards of ‘Ragnarok’

The Avenger must team up with his newly empowered ex (Natalie Portman) in a disjointed Marvel mess.

chicago.suntimes.com

Sam Raimi delivers gleeful, campy horror with the uneven 'Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness' - utpolunderground

I’m committed to a spoiler-free review, but this is a difficult movie to properly discuss without giving away certain plot elements. If you do care about spoilers, my first suggestion is stay away from Twitter, but also definitely go see this film. It has some serious flaws, but also an energy...

utpolunderground.com

I can find more examples if you want.

And nothing? This is on you. You are blinding yourself. Just look at Knives Out! and it's recent sequel - Glass Onion - that's high camp! That's not even just campy that's barely short of a Carry On movie! Even The Batman, which was kind of noir, bordered on camp at times (as Batman movies are wont to do).

Comedies are not that popular unless they're animated.

Comedies are absolutely still popular and successful, and comedic elements in movies, which sort of faded a bit in some genres '90s and '00s are back with a vengeance. Comedy movies, specifically, are a bit less common, but so are non-superhero action movies, thrillers, and so on. That's an impact streaming has had. There's a bit less of a clean line between comedy and other genres, today, perhaps that's an issue you're seeing?

If you don't see it, I'm happy for you, but your disagreement doesn't really alter the root of my perceptions.

It's not me "not seeing it", this is a genuine misperception on your part. One that is easy to show as a misperception, because you keep making examples that are trivially disproven, like the "campy" one.

Recent meaning Phase 2-3.

I mean, but that's not recent. That's pre-pandemic. That period happened, but that period is over. And you are specifically saying this is happening now. There was a period from like Civil War through Endgame - 3-4 years - where the MCU was on average, "kinda dark" compared to previous stuff, but it's course-corrected since then.

Yes, my experiences and perceptions are on me. Whose should I be talking about?

You were saying this was factual, not merely perception - that's my issue here - this is a perception on your part, and it's demonstrably wrong to assert it as a fact.

No, it merely indicates that I didn't watch past the first movie. I punched out early. I wasn't really interested in the premise as soon as I understood it, and while I did finish it, I don't really think the first film has particularly well-defined themes. The only solid theme I recall from the first one is "big tyrannical governments are bad."

It absolutely does have well-defined themes, and they go a long way beyond "tyranny = bad". There's whole lot of critique of celebrity culture, mass media, what people want to watch and so on, as well as points about dehumanization (including self-dehumanization). The first film is weaker than the second film, though.

Further, I reject the idea that disliking elements of the setting or plot means you don't understand the theme. One can understand the themes and still not wish to engage with the topics in the plot, the setting, or the premise.

Sure, but you're demonstrably misunderstanding the themes. You just demonstrated it with Hunger Games.

And you're changing your point here from "man the media is full of dark fantasy and dystopias" (demonstrably wrong - again 10+ years ago it would have been closer to true) to something different - perhaps "I only want to watch/read stuff that is immediately obviously not dark and doesn't contain dystopian elements". That's fine - but there's never been a huge glut of that stuff, given how broadly you're defining dark. That's also about you, not about how the media is, and obviously no-one can argue that you must like things you don't. But when put that as a claim that the media is doing stuff it isn't, rather than a simple desire for certain types of media, that's when idiots like me decide to argue the toss.

 

[Bacon Bits]

You were saying this was factual, not merely perception - that's my issue here - this is a perception on your part, and it's demonstrably wrong to assert it as a fact.

Sure, but you're demonstrably misunderstanding the themes.

So your interpretations are absolute, but mine need to be qualified because someone might mistake them as facts.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

So your interpretations are absolute, but mine need to be qualified because someone might mistake them as facts.

You were claiming them as facts - you were trying to argue them on a factual basis.

Further, you've changed your argument - "I don't like X" is not the same as "The media is making more/less of X".

And notice you've avoided responding on stuff you were obviously wrong about, like camp

 

[Kaodi]

A certain amount of angels have always been prone to being dicks. How could you ever empathize with an immortal being who just does the exact right thing all the time? More importantly - how in Hell would they ever empathize with you? If they cannot suffer, meaningfully lose, or go wrong how are they stakeholders in the world? How can a being be good when it meets out horrific punishments for crimes it would have no reason to ever commit itself because it does not have any reason to fear?

I am fine with both Inarius and Lilith going down but I could hope for them both to have moments where they are portrayed in a sympathetic light in addition to their selfish moments.

 

[Blue]

Getting back to D4. I missed the original Diablo, played the heck out of D2. But by the time D3 came around I just couldn't get excited enough about it. I played the free trail - up to lvl 20 I think of the various classes - and it didn't catch me. The recent Diablo Immortal I tried and it bored me after four days of play, even with friends on. My tastes have moved on from "the endless grind to incrementally improve gear", and I didn't see anything else in Diablo Immortal.

But I still remember fondly all the hours of D2. So, sell me on D4. What makes it more then just a grindfest with good cutscenes?

 

[Maxperson]

I definitely had the most fun playing barbarian. Shame I played it last.

Will definitely play it first this weekend.

Sorcerer and Barbarian are my two favorite. I played Sorcerer last week and I'll probably Barbarian on Friday.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

But I still remember fondly all the hours of D2. So, sell me on D4. What makes it more then just a grindfest with good cutscenes?

It's much more quest-centric than previous iterations. Even as recently as Diablo Immortal (I made it three days, I think), quests were mostly about "here's the reason you're going down the next stretch of road." In Diablo IV, it's much more like modern World of Warcraft, in that there are things to do all over the map (after the initial village encounter that sets everything up) and you can choose to go there or not.

Continuing the main storyline does require you eventually do certain quests, but you could in theory wait until level 50 to do them if you wanted to.

While it's not yet clear how many of these quests are required to advance the campaign, it appears to only be about a quarter of them at the moment.

Instead, you can do the quests that appeal to you (Demon-vampires? Yes, I will do those quests, thank you), ones that have good titles or ability boosts, ones that give you crafting materials, etc. The result is that it feels like less of a grind when you're choosing to help the Bear Clan barbarians against the goatfolk or participating in an exorcism of a possessed peasant kid.

If you just want to do dungeon after dungeon, you can do that, too, and I'm sure there are people who will just do that, but I liked running around, alternating advancing the storyline with quests that appealed to me (seriously, there's a bunch of stuff with demon-vampires that I loved).

Otherwise, the gameplay is pretty similar to Diablo II, including mini-dungeon "cellars" and small dungeons scattered around the map. But they're less random and generic than in previous versions and you can explicitly seek out dungeons that will unlock an account-wide improvement in the ability of a given class.

The achievement system is nice, too, and improves on how titles work from World of Warcraft by giving an adjective and a noun that people use to mix up and create their own titles. I'd say more than half of the people I saw running around last weekend were using them, so it was a pretty popular feature.

 

[Maxperson]

Brutal but true.

I have to say I am little done with Stranger Things myself because it really feels like the writers like the original characters a lot more than the audience does, or the characters deserve! It doesn't even quite seem to be a "can't kill your darlings" situation because they create other characters they know are going to be huge hits and then kill them off no probs.

Yeah. My wife and I really loved Eddie and were upset at what happened to him.