Can someone please explain the appeal of anime? I have only seen one or two movies and few episodes of various shows in my life but I just don't understand the allure. The animation seems jerky, the graphic style often over-simplified and childish, and I either have to watch with subtitles or listen to it badly-dubbed. Sometimes the storylines are interesting and unique but in those instances I'd rather just read the books than watch all the bs flashing quirkily across my screen. Explain?

It's an incredibly diverse medium that, because of its animated origins, can portray fantastical scenes far better than actual live action programs can. There are many examples of anime which fall under what you've described, shows like Boku no Hero Academia or Mob Psycho 100. Shows that while lauded by the anime community as massive successes, have a quirky air about that in both plot and animation which turn many, like myself, off.

But like I said, it's a very diverse medium. For every twitchy, quirk shonen action series, there's a more subtle and complex show. For every One Punch Man, there's an ERASED. For every Kill la Kill, there's a Showa Genroku Rakugo Shinju. Mushi-Shi, Psycho-Pass, Parasyte the Maxim, there's a wide range of anime to select from. Even if you simply want a humorous, light hearted show to unwind with, there's titles like Konosuba or Ore Monogatari. Subs bothering you? Excellent English dubs exist in shows like Full metal Alchemist Brotherhood and Death Note.

It's a media that turns many people off, both because of the internet culture it has bred, and the 'immature' goliaths that dominant as some of the most popular series among the literal thousands available on the web and in stores. It's simply a matter of digging through, asking around and giving it an honest, unbiased shake to find a series, or many, you'll be more than satisfied with.

@JDolan@Drache … Yeah. That’s about what I figured. Suppose it was silly of me to ask when I kinda already knew. Thing is, I like whitewashed things, happily-ever-after and such, I don’t like having to worry. I don’t go to fiction to feel sadness, so it honestly annoys me when a character dies… ever, in anything. It feels detrimental to my enjoyment, when I indulge in it for my enjoyment. Well, I’ll simply keep doing what I’m doing and avoid Game of Thrones and let those who enjoy it do so.

@Drache Heh. I never wrote that with the intention of getting you into anime. I was simply explaining what I find appealing about it. But, if you wish me to recommend you something… I’ll pick a few things. I'll PM you something to ensure this thread doesn't go off-track.

With that settled, I ask someone explain the appeal of the following roleplay concepts, as we have all seen them and some may have even been involved. what is the appeal of "school" roleplaying? Namely high school roleplays.

I had and even yet still hold great disdain for public education and that period of life. To not disgress from my point, why would anyone want to emulate being children, potentially again and in that environment? I can understand the allure of college where you find a bit of freedom children have, topical as that is but that isn't my point, and the responsibility of an adult but less than.

With that settled, I ask someone explain the appeal of the following roleplay concepts, as we have all seen them and some may have even been involved. what is the appeal of "school" roleplaying? Namely high school roleplays.

I had and even yet still hold great disdain for public education and that period of life. To not disgress from my point, why would anyone want to emulate being children, potentially again and in that environment? I can understand the allure of college where you find a bit of freedom children have, topical as that is but that isn't my point, and the responsibility of an adult but less than.

This.

Good god, somebody explain this.

The fact that the author, the show-runners, etc, refuse to pander to their audience for any "fan favorites"

Except Daenerys, Jon Snow, and Tyrion. GRRM's books have "main characters" like any other, but he's talented at tricking his audience into thinking minor characters (who are going to die later) are actually the protagonists.

All three of these characters have plot armor, especially Ms. Mary Sue.

<Snipped quote by Drache>

It's an incredibly diverse medium that, because of its animated origins, can portray fantastical scenes far better than actual live action programs can.

Actually, this is wrong. CGI can do a lot more than stylistic line-art can do. Sure it may not be able to realistically do over-exagerated emotional expressions but that isn't really limited to the anime field at all. Example:



Exaggerated and vast ranges of expression isn't something anime itself has a monopoly on. It's the realm of all of animation. Unless we of course compare the entire meta-genre to the likes of Jim "le faec man" Carrey



But on the all-in-all apart from obvious things like spell-casting, CGI is all over in film-making together which adds as much visual content and depth to the live-action scene as is in anime, and saying the later has a benefit over the former because it can do it so much better is pretty much a heresy. The benefit of live-action too means that cinematographers often blend live-performed stunts with CGI based off of their live-action performances. Example, Fury Road actually:



While like to praise Fury Road as a departure from CG to prove live-action stunts and effects are still as visually effective as CG, it's forgotten CG is still used a lot to enhance the shots on screen. This is obviously true for the Sandstorm sequence.



But the key to any CGI is that it's performed in such a way that the audience can't tell off-hand. This is a rule true for early CG particularly from the early 80's or early 90's and early 2000's live-action TV (like the first seasons of Supernatural, fucking bee-episode is meme-tier bad). But more often than not for television serials these days CG is close enough to looking realistic is can be off-handedly excused for being real-life if you don't stop to consider that the clearly sci-fi stuff in the likes of maybe Dr Who is clearly sci-fi so has to be computer generated.

And to continue, we can't forget how useful CG is for rendering crows and armies far beyond the scope of using extras as it was in the 50's and 60's.





Hell, even as an aside 2001: A Space Odyssey has some great special effects that hold up today, despite being near to 60 years of age or older.



So in the end really, there's nothing anime can do now that CG can't render in modern movies. There may have been a point I could've argued that the only thing Anime might have over live-action is the editing of Satoshi Kon, but thinking about it with a little imagination now you can tackle that.



So, the only thing Anime has going for it is "different strokes for different folks". There's only the aesthetic preferences people have that makes Anime stand-out from western animation or general live-action. Trying to puff it out with arguments of how anime can do something superior is all void at this point.

Or you can admit you like to see adolescent girls naked, which you won't get in any western media because Japanese media doesn't give a shit it seems.

<Snipped quote by JDolan>

Except Daenerys, Jon Snow, and Tyrion. GRRM's books have "main characters" like any other, but he's talented at tricking his audience into thinking minor characters (who are going to die later) are actually the protagonists.

All three of these characters have plot armor, especially Ms. Mary Sue.

True. But I'd say that there is a fundamental difference between a main character and a protagonist, in the strict sense. There are no protagonists in the setting. Everyone is an antagonist. And I'd also remind you that these decisions about killing/not killing are dictated by plot and story, not popularity or attachment, by and large.

But now we're kind of drifting from the point of the question originally asked.

The anime/GoT circle jerks are real...

With that settled, I ask someone explain the appeal of the following roleplay concepts, as we have all seen them and some may have even been involved. what is the appeal of "school" roleplaying? Namely high school roleplays.

I had and even yet still hold great disdain for public education and that period of life. To not disgress from my point, why would anyone want to emulate being children, potentially again and in that environment? I can understand the allure of college where you find a bit of freedom children have, topical as that is but that isn't my point, and the responsibility of an adult but less than.

Speaking for myself, I was home schooled. And the idea of trying to fit a younger version of myself, or to just take the roll of a school goer, is fascinating to me. What would my class mates be? What kind of shenanigans would we get into?

But that's not why most people enjoy school roleplays. Sometimes it's just interesting to write stories about children, who are still discovering the world and the type of people they will be. These types of roll plays very seldom focus on the classes themselves and instead focus on the events that happen between the classes. While the drama in these stories isn't quite as high as in stories about vampire hunters and the like, the drama can feel more real because it's happening in a fairly ordinary situation. Though sometimes people will take some creative licencing and do "cartoon" versions of reality where things just out of the realm of reality can happen, which can make for some great comedies. Overall, the lighthearted feel of school roleplys is great if you want to take a break from the monster killing, and don't care if maybe it's a bit like every other school roleplay you've ever participated in.

School is also a great theme to mix in with other genres. You could have a military school, a monster slayer's school, and suddenly you have a setting that allows for those human connections in a more exotic world. But I think this is going beyond the scope of the original question.

Can someone explain the appeal of Fallout? I've only played New Vegas and 4, but it strikes me as second-rate as both a shooter and an rpg. Games like, for example, the Far Cry series, have better action and shooting, and Elder Scrolls-type (to use another Bethesda series) games beat it as an rpg. I get it's a blend of two genres, it's never going to be the best at either, but I think it could have done both better than it did. Like I said, if I want to play a shooter, I'll play a better shooter, if I want to play an rpg, I'll play a better rpg. Maybe it's just me, but I don't see why Fallout has gotten as much hype as it has.

Can someone explain the appeal of Fallout? I've only played New Vegas and 4, but it strikes me as second-rate as both a shooter and an rpg. Games like, for example, the Far Cry series, have better action and shooting, and Elder Scrolls-type (to use another Bethesda series) games beat it as an rpg. I get it's a blend of two genres, it's never going to be the best at either, but I think it could have done both better than it did. Like I said, if I want to play a shooter, I'll play a better shooter, if I want to play an rpg, I'll play a better rpg. Maybe it's just me, but I don't see why Fallout has gotten as much hype as it has.

The unique, 1950s utopia meets nuclear wasteland survival setting. That's what sets it apart and makes it popular. Plus, it's a Bethesda product, so it has a very stable brand to stand upon.

Can someone explain the appeal of Fallout? I've only played New Vegas and 4, but it strikes me as second-rate as both a shooter and an rpg. Games like, for example, the Far Cry series, have better action and shooting, and Elder Scrolls-type (to use another Bethesda series) games beat it as an rpg. I get it's a blend of two genres, it's never going to be the best at either, but I think it could have done both better than it did. Like I said, if I want to play a shooter, I'll play a better shooter, if I want to play an rpg, I'll play a better rpg. Maybe it's just me, but I don't see why Fallout has gotten as much hype as it has.

If you had played Fallout 3 instead you would've gotten it. Fans are upset with Fallout 4, and some of them are upset with NV because they were both watered down RPG's to appeal to a larger audience. F3 was... somewhat true to the original F1, 2 and Van Buuren. F Tactics and Brotherhood were also decent. But they're too old for me to recommend them to you.

In short, the appeal is the rather unique setting, the interesting lore, the depth it has but also just how wacky the game can be.

Also it's highly moddable so like Skyrim, it's the perfect place to make mature 18+ mods and that's why the game still has mods being made for it.

Eh, I think Fallout NV did better with the RPG elements. Fallout 3 was more traditional Bethesda, where the story is lazy but the world is full of easter eggs and fun things to discover.

The problem with Fallout 4 is that it had none of that. It had a bad story AND it wasn't particularly fun to explore. I lost interest near the end and didn't really finish it until recently.

An ideal Fallout game would have a map designed by Bethesda and a story written by Obsidian. Instead, Fallout 4 came out as an engine to sell Pop Funkos.

As for why it gets that hype, It's personal opinion. I feel Fallout is generally more immersive than Elder Scrolls, and having played a little bit, I honestly don't see the appeal of Far Cry. Everybody has their favorite pizza I suppose.

Can someone explain the appeal of Fallout? I've only played New Vegas and 4, but it strikes me as second-rate as both a shooter and an rpg. Games like, for example, the Far Cry series, have better action and shooting, and Elder Scrolls-type (to use another Bethesda series) games beat it as an rpg. I get it's a blend of two genres, it's never going to be the best at either, but I think it could have done both better than it did. Like I said, if I want to play a shooter, I'll play a better shooter, if I want to play an rpg, I'll play a better rpg. Maybe it's just me, but I don't see why Fallout has gotten as much hype as it has.

Imo, the games up to 3 were way better than what's out there now. NV and 4 really sorta stepped away from the core. Originally, Fallout wasn't even a series that would've been associated with the shooter genre. @Buddha sums it up pretty well, and tbh I hate writing long paragraphs so yeah.

I honestly don't see the appeal of Far Cry. Everybody has their favorite pizza I suppose.

I dont think Far Cry can really be directly compared to Fallout and Elder Scrolls, apar from being first person in an open world. The bethesda games are RPGs (to varying degrees). Apart from a very simple ability tree, Far Cry is no more an RPG than Grand Theft Auto.

What Far Cry 2, 3 and 4 did very well was put you in a very hostile world where you didnt feel safe at all, but also made you feel very capable and powerful at the same-time. I didnt play 2 all the way through but it has a fairly sophisticated narrative. I loved Far Cry 3 for its story and presentation, the narrative is actually quite deep and deconstructs not only the 'mighty whitey' traveller trope but also the action-shooter genre and its ties to psycopathy in general. Not to mention all the cool reality blurring drug stuff.

4 basically amped up all the fun gameplay of 3 but was lighter on the story. Still a fun game though, but it has to be taken for what it is, an open world action FPS.

Far Cry 3 wasn't nearly as much a chaos sim as Far Cry 2 was though.

>You will never have a massive manhunt initiated for your head the moment you start shooting up enemy base-camps and you start torching the jungle and savannah around you in the ensuing battle as the AI initiates search and destroy protocols with literally everything.

The only annoying thing with FC2 though was that the game continually funneled you into those checkpoints which made moving from point A and B unfun.

Malaria never bothered me though.

Far Cry 3 wasn't nearly as much a chaos sim as Far Cry 2 was though.

>You will never have a massive manhunt initiated for your head the moment you start shooting up enemy base-camps and you start torching the jungle and savannah around you in the ensuing battle as the AI initiates search and destroy protocols with literally everything.

The only annoying thing with FC2 though was that the game continually funneled you into those checkpoints which made moving from point A and B unfun.

Malaria never bothered me though.

Sure, but Far Cry 2 didnt make you feel as powerful, all of the games balance the 'strength of you vs strength of the world' differently. But I felt Far Cry 3's story did a better job. 2's was fine but it was a little too generic for me.

Can someone explain the appeal of Attack On Titan?

Like what made it stand out in particular among other anime?

@Garattee

At the beginning of the anime it was genuinely dark and gritty, both in its atmosphere and its plot. Additionally, the characters avoided most of the stereotypes characteristic of modern anime, and when they did not avoid it (such as with Eren's aggressive "I can do anything as long as try hard enough" attitude) it did not work out well for the characters. Admittedly, it essentially became a mecha anime later, sapping a considerable amount of the appeal, though by that time we were all too invested to turn away. It still had plenty to offer in terms of darkness and grittiness, but much of horror of the titular Titans was done away with.

Whats the appeal of Sargon Of Akkad?

He doesn't seem to say anything particularly original and his voice puts me to sleep.

Whats the appeal of Sargon Of Akkad?

He doesn't seem to say anything particularly original and his voice puts me to sleep.

Because he said the comforting thing political virgins liked to hear during the Gamer Gate incident and helped shift blame to a common enemy, spoke up against that person, and then rode the wave of his success through GamerGate and beyond to be some sort of interchangeable beacon for the internet alt-right or people who call themselves rational centrists. Or something to that effect, basically he talks smack about both sides of the coin which got his fans and new fans moist because he was outside of the old-school American political dialog without being too British.

He's gotten old, and he was only relevant to me when I was trying to figure out what was going on with GamerGate. The moment that started evolving beyond the point I discovered it to be another battleground between various Idpol groups I dropped it and left.