My problem is that the other characters should not have believed *for a second* that the surface was habitable because it makes literally no sense. He has built too complex a lie and cannot possibly help but be caught in it.
"The planet went to hell since I sent that first message" is a much more plausible lie.
Once they've seen the surface maybe, but I don't think so beforehand.
All Leo D has to do is say 'yea, when I get here the world seemed livable, or more than it is currently; it went into some weird weather cycle and I had to go into hypersleep, I thought it would have improved, wow, this is a bit ****ed up, huh?
No, he couldnt've said that because he got a world horribly unfit for civilization and it would've been a bald-faced lie. He wanted them to utterly trust him until he got off the planet, and they wouldnt've if it at all seemed like his reasons for attracting them might have been selfish. This way he simply had to overpower one person instead of having to outwit or overpower the entire crew that would come to his planet. You might say they wouldn't have any reason to stop him from going back after they'd already thawed him, but keep in mind: His goal was to get back to Earth, and even ignoring the possibility that he really wanted to avoid punishment from Earth, he probably wanted to go right back and not get roped into their journey to find a different planet after his.
Literally nothing any character does after the first 20 minutes of the films makes even a tiny bit of sense.
I think the character motivations were fine, aside from some of the stuff about "maybe love is a universal force that we should trust guys". The film had some other flaws though I think.
So you're sending some people off on a seed ship to another solar system...and you've deliberately decided not to tell them. Well, that seems like an awful plan. You'd get plenty of volunteers for a one-way trip, doing it this way just ensures the people will be pissed off. Also, sending only 4 people and only one woman seems like some pretty piss-poor genetic stock; if something goes wrong with your first generation of vat-born kids, you're too old to realistically grow another set, as your access to medicine will be little or none. Plus if a single adult dies you lose an extraordinarily large percentage of you teaching/defence against the new world.
They're a squad sent to determine which planet to colonize and to thaw embryos. They're not necessarily the only colonists, and you probably wouldn't want to send all the colonists out to figure out what planet to choose. Just a barebones squad like in the film. Remember the director thought that sending up entire space stations - being able to save the entire population or most of it - was impossible, not that sending up some limited follow-up colonists would be impossible. It is a little weird that noone explicitly mentioned this. Do keep in mind too that they were already in a pretty desperate scenario so if, for example, a follow-up crew was impossible then the risk of not having a second batch of embryos might be something they had to accept. Only the option to put everything in one basket, perhaps. Regardless the director was, until his death, still overseeing the operation and presumably would be working on such things if he could, but they weren't central to the explorers' plot so we did not see them.
Also, the reason why the director chose not to tell them was because he knew everyone would be pissed off about it. He decided to entrap those undertaking the mission instead of revealing it to them beforehand, [probably] because he didn't want to have to face the shame of giving up on saving the living humans, or didn't want to be saddled with the responsibility of the decision by future history. That part was fine and well-established in my opinion. In fact, it definitely makes sense because they needed Cooper so badly and we know that at least he would not have taken the mission if he thought his kids were doomed.
Now I'm not railing against things which are meerly slightly dodgy science. Yep, they can launch off the surface of a planet orbiting a black hole in 10 minutes, sure, no problem. What gravity well?
Yea it felt like the contrast between the huge effect on the tide and the minor effect on the craft and the people on the surface was really big. You could probably justify being able to take off at hugely increased fuel cost like they did with some sci-fi bull***** about advanced launch technology but I guess Nolan decided he shouldn't bother.
Yea, I didn't explicitly mention stylistic differences by time period but was kinda hoping the vague "expecting the right things from [older literature]" would cover it. I really like a lot of facets of more archaic literary style but most modern people definitely don't.
Don Quixote is praised because it's become generally agreed upon as the start of the modern novel (whoever coined that usage of "modern" was an idiot by the way, because now that age is over and it sounds stupid) and is simultaneously one of the more well-done satires of one of the genres of the age just before it (chivalric novel). There are a lot of other very important early modern novels (I love Jacques the Fatalist) but it's been put on a pedestal, and not really undeservedly. But if you don't understand chivalric novels and a lot of other context it might not seem that good to you.
Citizen Kane is similar in that it's academically praised for its importance to the era that nearly all subsequent film, or at least the golden age of film, is a part of. But it's also pretty damn boring (and has other related, more technical arguable flaws), so it shouldn't really be watched by someone not interested in the history and innovation of film.
As to "can old books be good", of course they can. As long as a medium has artists willing and capable of creating good art, good art will be made regardless of things that might dilute it. And literature has been a prodigious and practiced artform for very long now. If you read an isolated old book like Don Quixote and dislike it, my guess would be that you lack a lot of context (doubly so as it's a translation) and/or aren't expecting or understanding the right things from it.
And yea, I agree that ASOIAF is overrated. It's passed the tipping point. I can see why people like it, and I don't hate it myself, but I think it's pretty mediocre all in all and it's plain as day that there are many people who love it without even having much understanding of fantasy. I mean, I've had a couple people tell me that ASOIAF has the best characters in fantasy. Not even "of fantasy I've read", but even if that's what someone means they probably haven't read much good fantasy. That's pretty much the hallmark of an accessible work passing the tipping point and garnering enough general praise that those who really love it become overly outspoken. Very few people are going to disagree with a statement like "it has the best/amazing/[other hyperbole] X!" just because very few people don't like it.
Not that I'm trying to say anyone should stop liking it. Liking things is always good.
Just finished Dragon's Dogma. Amazing game tho the main story was a bit short. Also seems like it ended abruptly. You're running around doing errands and suddenly its the final boss fight. Wot?
Get Dark Arisen if you didn't (it sounds like you didn't). Its content is a lot better imo, I actually feel I wouldnt've really liked the base game without it.
Actually I do have Dark Arisen. Its my first play through so I have no idea what is new content and what is not
The Dark Arisen content is the place called Bitterblack Isle. It's very segregated. You can get there from the docks of Cassardis at night, if you haven't.
Just finished Dragon's Dogma. Amazing game tho the main story was a bit short. Also seems like it ended abruptly. You're running around doing errands and suddenly its the final boss fight. Wot?
Get Dark Arisen if you didn't (it sounds like you didn't). Its content is a lot better imo, I actually feel I wouldnt've really liked the base game without it.
I... actually don't like Resistance. It's set up in such a way that unless a traitor is incredibly stupid or the group gets lucky, it's very hard for the Resistance to actually win. The only thing that it has going for it is that it's very quick. Is there something I'm not just getting? It seems like if a traitor goes on Mission 1 and doesn't fail the mission, the traitors win because it's impossible to weed people out in the remaining missions.
For my playgroup it's the opposite, there are a few of us who are master spies and unless one of us makes a big play the Resistance usually wins. Mostly because many of us are really good at playing the Resistance side, by now. I actually think it's more in the favor of the resistance members, though not by much and though I might be biased to my playgroup.
For us the average game revolves around 2 or 3 resistance members quickly figuring out that they're both trustworthy and how well the spies can manage not necessarily to trick them into thinking a spy is very trustworthy, but simply not having enough trustworthy people to make the last groups locks. The resistance members can only get this far (and make no mistake, it is far because a small alliance of trust resistance members can pretty strongly control who is allocated to missions) by talking a lot. Given that I know nothing about your playgroup and how things play out for you, I would ask whether you guys talk a lot and usually delay missions until the absolute last chance because I think those are both integral for the resistance's side to win often.
It's definitely not the type of game to play with people who aren't invested (one guy we played with once voted fails as a resistance member because he didn't give a *****/wanted the game to speed up, never again) and can be silly with people who are new or far below the average skill level ("So what do I want to do as a spy again?").
Anyway I love that type of game even when it's a bit imbalanced, because in the long-term it develops into some really fun meta-game stuff. I still have tricks and general rules as a Spy that I've used for ages but I think noone has picked up on. I even have some strategies for when I realize a specific person is starting to think I'm a trusted resistance member, because I know how to make him fully trust me. Finding stuff out like that that works to tip the game in the underdogs' favor (remember spies usually lose for us) is extremely engaging to me. Then there are also 3 really good resistance-side players who, should they all get placed on it, generally make it nearly unwinnable unless we spies get very very lucky.
WAny more recommendations for 6+ player games? Anywhere from 6 or more, I mean. I'm currently looking for things that I can explain pretty quickly.
Greed is like Bang! but better in my opinion, though only up to 5. The Resistance is my favorite Mafia-esque light game, but there are a lot out there (some with more unique twists).
I'm having some trouble thinking of more simple, large games for some reason. Mostly when I get a lot of people together we play a big wargame or deep cooperative game.
No progress in the plot isn't even necessarily a bad thing, it's just that Inuyasha doesn't have interesting characters or ANYTHING, it's shallow shonen subplot arcs constantly.
Also, the reason why the director chose not to tell them was because he knew everyone would be pissed off about it. He decided to entrap those undertaking the mission instead of revealing it to them beforehand, [probably] because he didn't want to have to face the shame of giving up on saving the living humans, or didn't want to be saddled with the responsibility of the decision by future history. That part was fine and well-established in my opinion. In fact, it definitely makes sense because they needed Cooper so badly and we know that at least he would not have taken the mission if he thought his kids were doomed.
Citizen Kane is similar in that it's academically praised for its importance to the era that nearly all subsequent film, or at least the golden age of film, is a part of. But it's also pretty damn boring (and has other related, more technical arguable flaws), so it shouldn't really be watched by someone not interested in the history and innovation of film.
As to "can old books be good", of course they can. As long as a medium has artists willing and capable of creating good art, good art will be made regardless of things that might dilute it. And literature has been a prodigious and practiced artform for very long now. If you read an isolated old book like Don Quixote and dislike it, my guess would be that you lack a lot of context (doubly so as it's a translation) and/or aren't expecting or understanding the right things from it.
And yea, I agree that ASOIAF is overrated. It's passed the tipping point. I can see why people like it, and I don't hate it myself, but I think it's pretty mediocre all in all and it's plain as day that there are many people who love it without even having much understanding of fantasy. I mean, I've had a couple people tell me that ASOIAF has the best characters in fantasy. Not even "of fantasy I've read", but even if that's what someone means they probably haven't read much good fantasy. That's pretty much the hallmark of an accessible work passing the tipping point and garnering enough general praise that those who really love it become overly outspoken. Very few people are going to disagree with a statement like "it has the best/amazing/[other hyperbole] X!" just because very few people don't like it.
Not that I'm trying to say anyone should stop liking it. Liking things is always good.
Not that it isn't trivialized at 200, but still the hardest content.
For us the average game revolves around 2 or 3 resistance members quickly figuring out that they're both trustworthy and how well the spies can manage not necessarily to trick them into thinking a spy is very trustworthy, but simply not having enough trustworthy people to make the last groups locks. The resistance members can only get this far (and make no mistake, it is far because a small alliance of trust resistance members can pretty strongly control who is allocated to missions) by talking a lot. Given that I know nothing about your playgroup and how things play out for you, I would ask whether you guys talk a lot and usually delay missions until the absolute last chance because I think those are both integral for the resistance's side to win often.
It's definitely not the type of game to play with people who aren't invested (one guy we played with once voted fails as a resistance member because he didn't give a *****/wanted the game to speed up, never again) and can be silly with people who are new or far below the average skill level ("So what do I want to do as a spy again?").
Anyway I love that type of game even when it's a bit imbalanced, because in the long-term it develops into some really fun meta-game stuff. I still have tricks and general rules as a Spy that I've used for ages but I think noone has picked up on. I even have some strategies for when I realize a specific person is starting to think I'm a trusted resistance member, because I know how to make him fully trust me. Finding stuff out like that that works to tip the game in the underdogs' favor (remember spies usually lose for us) is extremely engaging to me. Then there are also 3 really good resistance-side players who, should they all get placed on it, generally make it nearly unwinnable unless we spies get very very lucky.
I'm having some trouble thinking of more simple, large games for some reason. Mostly when I get a lot of people together we play a big wargame or deep cooperative game.
Thanks, Ping Pong and Tekkonkinkreet in particular both look really cool.