Mac P

English writing can be cringe/bad, especially in earlier episodes. Filled with a lot of cliches that waste moments for us to learn what the character might say as themselves. The shows plot and the world built around the game feels vast and complex. great use of sound effects and music from the game to connect the two, and trigger a response from ppl who have played it. There is something unique about feeling so knowledgeable and "apart?" Of a show, having existed in the world. The pacing is a bit weird. We didn't get much of the "golden days". I guess that's fitting to cyberpunk, but it makes for a very dramatic and a bit of a depressing watch. That all said, the ending wasnt the greatest because there were inconsistencies with the characters motives. Won't say more to avoid spoilers. I'd still recommend it if you like the genre, it was enjoyable but it has room for improvement. It feels like we didn't get enough time with some of the characters to understand or support some of the decisions that were made. Rebecca is my favorite character.

Funnest Pokemon game in a while. Lots of great user experience improvements over the old games (can fly anywhere you want, don't need HMs etc, auto battling, don't need to load the inside of a building to walk up to a counter to get to the menu you care about with most stores). Suffers from occasional performance issues and could use better character customizations. For me the issues weren't game breaking and are kind of funny (people going invisible, bad frame rates). The game itself is super fun despite all this so I highly recommend it.

Painful to watch this oversimplification that paints a picture without accurately capturing the nuance of give and take. Too bad they didn't have a more balanced take at the start of the documentary to help the viewer understand the premise better. The cringey scenes with people interacting with touch screens as though they actually are picking things for peoples feeds, and the tacky horror soundtrack elements were the final straw for me. Couldn't get through it because I found myself stressed out at all the missed nuances and half-finished explanations of things.

Might as well be an interactive movie with how much you should be engaged while watching this (over and over to get full value). It's a movie made for interpretation. It isn't supposed to have a clear meaning, rather, it's art for you to have an experience with. It isn't about what you watch, it's about how you think about and experience what you are watching. In the movie, there is a character who mocks abstract art, saying anyone can do it. What is more interesting to him is paintings/art that are photorealistic - they show you exactly what they mean, and he likes that. I have to wonder if this character has a moment of meta-commentary on how people perceive this movie. Was that character was calling out people who want the movie to be more prescriptive, who want the movie to be "less abstract, more photorealism"? He says, "How can I know what to experience without someone in the art, experiencing it for me, ie. being sad to know the painting is sad?" and she responds, "Well, what if you, outside of the painting, are the one experiencing it, without needing to see a person experience it?". That is this movie in a nut shell. You have to experience it, you can't rely on the characters of the movie to hand you your experience. It's brilliant because it's an entirely different movie the more you watch it. The movie holds the viewers hand enough to give them something to follow the first time, but lets go enough to leave room for understanding and expansion on the theories in the movie for the 2nd+ watch. You have to admire the ability to make elements of the movie juuust the right amount of obscure to make them come together over each viewing, rather than be right in front of your face the whole time. But the movie is not for everyone. If you like Memento and Shutter Island, movies with replay value that you can interpret differently each time, then you should like this one.

Been a while since I've gone from busting out laughing to being moved to tears. And I've definitely never experienced this shift on account of comedy. Hannah has a knack for weaving vulnerability and authenticity between her humor. I noticed an interesting trend in the names and types of folks who rate this poorly. Everyone is entitled to what they find funny. If you think you might be the kind of person who won't find it funny, then maybe you'll learn something instead. Knowledge is power.

Entertaining. Similar to Killing Eve but with less romantic pining.

A campy romance with vampires, as a treat.

This game leverages an intentionally poor UX through minimal scaffolding (gradual teaching), a sunk cost fallacy (time investment) to endear it's players to their "accomplishments", and time playing the game. If you are someone who doesn't have a lot of time to unwind, or has a disability that doesn't allow extensive play, this game cannot have it's difficulty lowered to allow you to learn and progress at a pace you might expect from most other games. The game relies on letting you figure things out "the hard way" as it's key premise. Everything is "hard won", if it is won at all. Time is one of our most valuable asset and the game would love to shamelessly eat all yours up in exchange for small wins. Even after successfully defeating bosses or figuring things out, the amount of time taken to do things might be a weight on your shoulder as you try to enjoy this game. The game is especially punishing for completionist and perfectionist (achiever) type players. It also has several quirks like intentionally poor UX for inviting friends, and a deliberately and disappointingly limited coop experience. I'd only recommend this game to people with previous souls experience, or people who are very patient.