Pointing out that the prequels have the slightest hint of an interesting story does not change that they are garbage movies. All you’ve done is summarize the plot in vague terms that are only slightly more vague than the movies themselves. They do not “explore how an opportunistic politician can subvert democracy to create a fascist dictatorship”, they barely even dip their toes in the attempt.

The prequels do not do an adequate job of establishing why the republic is vulnerable to being hijacked by a fascist dictator. They do not adequately establish how Palpatine is able to seize power. Germany was reeling from WW2 and was thus vulnerable to a charismatic dictator like Hitler. Hitler successfully used the hate and anger of german citiziens, caused by the very real suffering they were experiencing post WW1.

What the fuck happened in the prequels? There was a trade dispute, whatever that means, (it’s never explained in the slightest), and so Palpatine gets appointed supreme leader or something? No suffering of average people is asserted, no populist rhetoric that gains momentum because of real suffering. Just, there’s a war so we need a supreme leader and it has to be Palpatine.

The plot is completely nonsensical and I challenge you to outline Palpatines rise to power in detail. Every single character acts like a complete idiot and does nothing as Palpatine blatantly seizes power.

Not to mention the dog shit dialogue, stiff delivery, boring characters, racist caricatures, and blatant and obnoxious pandering to children.

The prequels are absolute awful movies in basically every way imaginable. Pretending they are some sort of intellectual piece of work just exposes you as an idiot or someone who hasn’t watched the movies since they were 8 years old.

Sorry to be a dick but those movies are seriously fucking bad and I have issues.

If that’s how you feel, ok. I’d love to hear your reasoning for why any of the prequels are better than FA.

I felt like it dragged a lot in seasons 3/4 but the ending was fantastic.

Was this an actual scene in the show?

Looool.

You’re right that the OT are just fun movies that are much less impressive than when they came out.

The prequels are hot steaming piles of shit in comparison though. Maybe you need to remove your rose tinted glasses?

We can’t be together, I’m a senator!

Yes.

Our family’s first cat brought in a crow. I can’t remember how we got the crow out of the house lol

Dude what the fuck

I don’t want my depressive episodes to result in my cats being miserable

I would appreciate if you didn’t attack me personally.

Nah but for real I go through the same thing. I feel really guilty when I let their box get out of hand, they never seem bothered either which kind of makes it worse.

I don’t mean to be a dick but without giving actual reasons all you’re saying is “I preferred ow1”, which is kind of what my original comment was referring to. Tank synergies is definitely something that was lost with ow1, rein/zarya and dive comps were very fun and definitely something I miss. But it was also a major source of balance issues and player frustration.

Two tank team composition was a consistent balance issue and severely restricted the design of tank heroes. Sigma is a really fun and interesting hero, but when he was added overwatch entered a prolonged two shield meta which was incredibly boring. The devs added a cool hero, and he made the game worse. Not only did he make the game worse, but there was no obvious or easy solution, because sigma wasn’t the problem, two shields was the problem. In my opinion that exemplifies how bad of an issue the game was facing and justifies the changes made.

There’s nothing wrong with preferring ow1 but the person I responded to called it “a terrible game compared to the original” which is just blatantly incorrect in my opinion.

I agree. I was a die-hard ow1 fan and quit because of the absolute disgrace that was the transition from OW1 -> OW2. I have every reason to hate OW2 but I don’t because it’s a fine game and improves on OW1 in every way that is important to me (gameplay and balance).

In my opinion, anyone saying OW2 is worse than the original is saying this for personal reasons and not trying to be objective. OW2 is, in my experience, much more balanced than OW1. Many of the more frustrating aspects of the game have been fixed or removed, and most of the characters added since OW1 seem fun to play and not frustrating to play against.

There are very many valid criticisms one can make of Blizzard. The history of being a shitty workplace, the objectively awful decision to make OW2 a sequel, the treatment of Jeff Kaplan by execs, the monetization, and probably more. None of those criticisms (except monetization to a limited degree) have anything to do with whether or not OW2 is a bad game or not.

But I’m speculating since the person you responded to has not elaborated on any of their views.

Why? I played OW from beta, stopped playing after all the shitty workplace accusations came out, then played again for 10 or so hours last month.

I didn’t play much competitive (in my recent sessions) but the game seemed like it was in a pretty solid place. The only “major” issue I can think of is that the tank role is incredibly important, which creates a bit of a toxic environment where people are scared to play tank because they get flamed if the team gets rolled. But I think the downsides are worth the benefits, with tank being so important it’s become the core that the rest of the game balances around. Healers have more agency and dealing damage/contributing to elims is a vital part of the role. A lot of the frustrating/cheesy aspects of the game have been removed, scattershot, damage-doomfist, mercy 5-man-res, goats, double shield.

Again, I took a long break from the game, but before that I clocked a lot of hours in competitive. Personally the game feels about as balanced and enjoyable as it’s ever been.

Obviously the monetization is gross and that entire side of the game sucks now but that’s an entirely different conversation.

I miss u bukkit ;-;

Completely agree. He also just seems like a better candidate vibe wise so far, he’s funny and endearing in a way Kamala is not. Although I do vibe with Kamala’s dorky/weird moments that so many seem to criticize.

My point is that society perceives her as a black women. Saying shit like “there are no black people” is moronic in a society that values and scrutinizes race as much as ours does.

I’d argue Walz bucks this trend, at least to a certain degree. His progressive policy and seemingly unwavering integrity seems to be a huge reason he was picked. They’ve leaned into his achievements and republicans are desperately grasping at straws trying to criticize him.

Missing the forest for the trees or whatever. It’s not about skin colour but how society perceives and treats you. If Kamala isn’t black then why is she being called a DEI hire when Hilary Clinton never was?

Or just fund public transportation instead :)