What's the appeal of Game of Thrones? I see so many peeps with a hard on for it, but I never got into it. It might be because fantasy was never my thing.

What's the appeal of Game of Thrones? I see so many peeps with a hard on for it, but I never got into it. It might be because fantasy was never my thing.

Would it not be pointless to explain why if you do not care for its genre in the first place? Seems illogical.

What's the appeal of Game of Thrones? I see so many peeps with a hard on for it, but I never got into it. It might be because fantasy was never my thing.

I think GoT has been covered earlier in the thread.

<Snipped quote by Mr Allen J>
Would it not be pointless to explain why if you do not care for its genre in the first place? Seems illogical.

Don't be confrontational, you can be curious about the appeal of something without liking it.

<Snipped quote by Mr Allen J>
Would it not be pointless to explain why if you do not care for its genre in the first place? Seems illogical.

Shut up, Gowi.

I want to see things from the perspective of other people.

What's the appeal of Game of Thrones? I see so many peeps with a hard on for it, but I never got into it. It might be because fantasy was never my thing.

There's a lot of nudity. That could be a reason. There's also blood and dragons. People like dragons.

---

Could somebody explain the appeal of Homestruck for me? I literally have never cared for it. Not when it was actually relevant nearly a decade ago and most certainly not today.

<Snipped quote by Mr Allen J>

There's a lot of nudity. That could be a reason. There's also blood and dragons. People like dragons.

---

Could somebody explain the appeal of Homestruck for me? I literally have never cared for it. Not when it was actually relevant nearly a decade ago and most certainly not today.

Homestuck* is one of those 'in-joke' style phenomena. Something that is relatively popular but still mostly obscure and cryptic enough to make people who watch it feel part of something interesting. Its also more about the community than about the content. Lots of shipping, discussion, theories and fan created media.

Its very LGBT friendly in a very subtle way, which automatically makes tumblr and hipsters adore it.

The fandom is also really REALLY insular and basically has a "you either get it or you don't" mantra which further makes the individual feel like part of something special, which if you have few friends or accomplishments in real life, can be extremely appealing.

Why do people like Overwatch? I feel I should like it since it's a team-based FPS like Team Fortress 2, but I just don't get it.

Why do people like Overwatch? I feel I should like it since it's a team-based FPS like Team Fortress 2, but I just don't get it.

Its basically team fortress for younger gamers who never discovered team fortress. So they treat it as something original and fresh. The cutesy but mild lite-erotic character designs allow cynical older gamers who have underdeveloped sex lives and an unhealthy obsession with irony to find things to 'gush' and also viciously argue about online.

_____________________________

I would like to ask, what is the appeal of God Of War? It cant just be the deep voice protagonist and the b-movie sex stuff can it? The combat is awful, and for some reason it gets a pass on really obnoxious QTEs.

The God of War games came out in that sort of "dark, gritty, super violence" period of gaming, @Dynamo Frokane. Around the era of Gears of War and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare. While the action itself was nothing ground breaking within its own genre of action and adventure, it was that you could be and were encouraged to be as absolutely brutal as possible just for the sake of it. It rewarded that excess and encouraged the ideology of it as a game mechanic. The quick time event issues hadn't become cliché yet either in that era, where people now roll their eyes, groan or complain about them en masse because they have been so abused.

In essence, the entire series was an excuse to murder things, violently, in a setting people had never really seen before while pushing the boundaries of what was allowed in a game. It also falls in the tail end timeline for that generation of players no less, many of whom just wanted to do things rather than do another collectathon, a type of game play that is now considered archaic all its own. I wouldn't be surprised if in a few years from now, sandbox style games are considered "dated" and over.

And now for my question.

What is the appeal of "hyper fantasy", wherein magic is just everywhere and essentially combines with or replaces technology? I mean this in the sense of, what is the point? I have noted a strong leaning of persons towards this mentality, where fantasy elements are just common place and everywhere; people see these really unusual, fantastic and impossible things without any reaction or reflection on them. Why even make it "fantasy" at that point when everyone can do it and the world has no great unknowns? You've bottled the genie already, more or less.

I would like to ask, what is the appeal of God Of War? It cant just be the deep voice protagonist and the b-movie sex stuff can it? The combat is awful, and for some reason it gets a pass on really obnoxious QTEs.

When it first debuted, god of war was a state of the art action game and everyone was copying its combat system. You can even see elements of it in Castlevania. However, you could accuse it of not keeping up with the times. This is probably why the upcoming god of war is taking such a drastically different approach to the game as a whole.

While the gruff protagonist and sex are certainly enough to get the blood pumping in any teenage boy, I think the excellent narration by Linda Hunt kept the rest of us interested. as the story telling started to take a back seat in later installments, I think it's popularity suffered.

Basically, God of war was a great game for it's time. But each subsequent game provided more of the same or actually took away to the point that the appeal is starting to go away. That's probably why the newest installation is completely overhauling every aspect of god of war.

EDIT: Dayum, big cat beat me to it, and did a better job.

What is the appeal of "hyper fantasy", wherein magic is just everywhere and essentially combines with or replaces technology? I mean this in the sense of, what is the point? I have noted a strong leaning of persons towards this mentality, where fantasy elements are just common place and everywhere; people see these really unusual, fantastic and impossible things without any reaction or reflection on them. Why even make it "fantasy" at that point when everyone can do it and the world has no great unknowns? You've bottled the genie already, more or less.

I would expect the same reasoning for any fantasy setting: because it is impossible for us to use magic in the real world, and delving into the possibilities and where they lead is an interesting mental exercise. For example, if everyone can use conjuration magic to create food and water, what is the purpose of work and commerce? If the necessities are covered, why would some even bother to work at all?

Usually however, even in extreme high magic fantasy settings, there are limits. Spell slots or mana points, or perhaps people only learn specific schools of spells. I have yet to find an intriguing world where every person is able to perform every type of magic with no limits. I have, however, seen worlds where magic replaces technology, and the lore behind these worlds are usually quite intriguing: gods conferring with man for a mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship, or a mage association rising to power due to their collective abilities and keeping others under their thumbs.

In addition, these fantastical worlds are balanced by even more fantastical challenges. Magic usage is often concentrated in specific areas, leaving the rest of the world unkempt and overgrown. Nature mixes with mana and grows rampant and unchecked, creating massive monstrosities that threaten everyone they see. Or perhaps mana is being used at too great a pace and is slowly destroying the world as life-giving energy is wasted.

In short, the point of high fantasy is to create impossible challenges and limitless stories, then give the player the ability to rise up to the challenge. High fantasy worlds typically are not fully explored, and neither are they without unknowns (in fact, usually quite the opposite).

Why do people like Overwatch? I feel I should like it since it's a team-based FPS like Team Fortress 2, but I just don't get it.

Its basically team fortress for younger gamers who never discovered team fortress. So they treat it as something original and fresh. The cutesy but mild lite-erotic character designs allow cynical older gamers who have underdeveloped sex lives and an unhealthy obsession with irony to find things to 'gush' and also viciously argue about online.

I mean, that could be one way to look at it, but there are a ton of people who have played TF2 and love Overwatch as something unique from TF2. Also, I would probably suggest that passive aggressive explanations that insult those who care about the item in question do not actually help explain very well.

The basic structure of TF2 is not unique. No one thinks that it is. It differs from TF2 in several ways. 1) TF2 allowed hyper-customization and pay-to-win strategies. When you're up against an enemy player, you don't know what their abilities are unless you know what items they carry. Overwatch removes this hyper-customization. Any Ana player has exactly the same abilities as another Ana character. Why is this a bonus? Because the game goes to one's skill and game knowledge instead of the items they carry and how long they've been playing.

2) TF2 has a handful of characters with many playstyle choices. Overwatch has many characters with relatively limited playstyle choices within the same character (but has nearly every playstyle covered). This goes back to #1. If you're playing against a Reinhardt, you know that you need to burn down his barrier and about how long it will take. If you're playing against a Pharah, you know that there are places she can't reach you and who best counters her. Sure, TF2 has similar strategies, but it's much more explicit in Overwatch (and there are still plenty of nuances to be found).

3) Overwatch has structure. TF2 tends to turn into a cluster with dozens of unused game mods that no one cares about. TF2 also has probably the worst tutorial system I have seen in a game. Overwatch's isn't exactly amazing, but you at least know how to play and where to find stuff.

In short, Overwatch took what made TF2 great and refined it. Sure, there are cutesy characters, and sure, plenty of people treat them as waifus. But that is not why most people love the game. People love it due to the polish and care that Blizzard has put into the game, and the fact that it's really fun. Nearly every playstyle is well-represented, and even if you suck at shooters, there are heroes you can excel at.

>watch "Phantom of the Opera" on Broadway one time
>"omg i'm suuuuch a theatre nerd xDD"
>watch a big-budget Marvel movie or two
>"omg i'm suuuuch a comic book geek xDD"
>read LotR and watch Game of Thrones
>"omg i'm suuuuch a Fantasy nerd xDD"

What is the appeal of using normie dilettante pop-culture as part of your personal identity?

>watch "Phantom of the Opera" on Broadway one time
>"omg i'm suuuuch a theatre nerd xDD"
>watch a big-budget Marvel movie or two
>"omg i'm suuuuch a comic book geek xDD"
>read LotR and watch Game of Thrones
>"omg i'm suuuuch a Fantasy nerd xDD"

What is the appeal of using normie dilettante pop-culture as part of your personal identity?

What is the appeal of using greentext and verbage like 'normie', 'an hero', and 'kek' as part of your personal identity?

I think one of the only legit "explain the appeal" questions I have is one I sort of have an answer for.

But I'm going to voice it anyway for posting sake.

How come so many people like Harry Potter.( Heads up, kindred. Spoilers like fuck)

I mean. I love it all for my reasons but when you really look at the series they are filled with plot holes, especially when you think chronologically. Things are simply PLZ NERF TOO OP stop existing. The philosophers stone which apparently grants immortality-I may be mistaken. It's been AGEs since I watched one- but somehow dumbledore can't get his hand on it to save himself.

That guy who took that juice to turn himself into old curse your to cuck, 1 one eye chuckle fuck who wasn't spotted on that map that tells anyone who they are. Keep in mind, peter was detected by the map as a rat. So, unless it was directly stated-or at least generally hinted at- there is no reason we assumed it wouldn't work.

Or the time fuckery. A kid can get a hold of some time 69'er for class work but the dark lord can't get this shit to go back in time and just hit babby harry with a bat?

This is over stepping also that Hermonie is pretty much a sue. She's a perfect wizard and student and all her issues seem to be derived from external sources like her lineage or her friends being douches. Ron pretty much has NO-well, ok maybe a bit- character development until the last movie. I did read the books way back and she may of fixed that in them but...that was like in my early teens. So give me some slack guys.

I feel like. All these characters really needed some sort of internal crisis. Rons crisis of being a failure was always shadowed but never happend...The rivalry between harry and malphory seemed like it should of had a head but petered off in the movies in effectively a back break up in a bathroom, which was a bit anti-climatic for all their years. I don't know about others but my feelings don't work like that...even hate requires an investment. Hermonie was BEGGING for a opposite of RON crisis where she realizes she can't study for every problem. One again something was HINTED and implied to come with her divination class failure...but she got a bit haughty and it was never visited again.

Harry Potter has a really fun world for individual episodes/movies but when you start combining all the shit it turns unstable really fast. In one sense...who gives a shit...I'll take chronological plot holes if they are sacrificed for a fun world...but once you see them it's like waking up and finding out half the memories you had with your buds are plagued with sudden flash outs.

@pugbutter What you're describing is the label connection.

(Some) People in this day and age cling to labels because they are too weak to represent their own thing, and need to rally under a label to feel like they're a part of something bigger. Or it can go the other way, and it makes them feel special because of how exclusive a label is. You see this a lot with tumbler lard whales and their 50 precious "genders."

It's not always this insidious of course. Some people just like the idea of belonging to a group of "elite" people, and feel their labels are interesting reflections of their character.

@Iuniper
>Mahz codes greentext into his website
>"D-DON'T USE IT THO, IT DOESN'T BELONG OUTSIDE OF THE BOARDS!!!"

You tried.

@BrokenPromise Thanks mate. How is it "exclusive/special" when a comic book movie which receives good reviews can be expected to easily rake in >$1B of revenue, though?

@pugbutter Oh, it's not. The "feel special because of how exclusive a label is" people are indie gamers and people like that. The comic book movie nerds "rally under a label to feel like they're a part of something bigger." Point is, they just want to stand out a little bit more. even if it's a veeeeery little bit. That, or maybe it's an invitation to invite you to talk to them about other comic book/movies that they might be interested in.

@Iuniper
>Mahz codes greentext into his website
>"D-DON'T USE IT THO, IT DOESN'T BELONG OUTSIDE OF THE BOARDS!!!"

You tried.

I mean, my point was that the integration of those sorts of labels into their identity is parallel to the labels you self-identify under. Nothing wrong with it.

So whats the appeal of Disney's Frozen? Ive been wondering that for forever.