BrandX
-
Posts
8933 -
Joined
-
Quote:*nod* In the case of the first Star Wars MMO, I agree. Those who paid for subcriptions that far in advanced to have the game changed that drastically deserved a refund (not sure if they got one).Originally Posted by Electric-Knight
I agree.
The one instance I have seen where the "game may change" may have gone too far and could have possibly called for subscription plans to be canceled and reimbursed was with the previously mentioned SWG NGE debacle.
You pay for chess and it turns into checkers, maybe a subscriber should have a tiny bit more of a guarantee...
Anyway, I honestly have no worries about CoH and the market and this sort of stuff.
I agree. It's all for the present and anything beyond that is basically bonus.
Thankfully, CoH has gone through changes, but never THAT drastic. -
Quote:Where you're failing is not seeing the OP's question.Originally Posted by Golden Girl
Being bad is not better than being good
One can be evil and be respected.
No matter how much you try to say "Good is better" doesn't mean "Bad people can't be respected or just thought of as being cool by good people"
What Sam needs to realize it's all in the presentation, and sadly the more horrific you start to make someone, the harder it is to have people think that, without them having some sort of style to them.
It's also easier to accomplish with some over others. Angel as Angelus (in BtVS and Angel) was evil. He still had his charisma and style going for him. Spike in all his evil doing, had the charm and style, and in the end as he said it himself, wasn't in it for the evil, so much as he liked the chaos. Before he went good, you knew he didn't want to see the end of the world (thusly willing to help end apocalypses) even if he did talk as if he did at times.
This was also easier to pull off, since they werent human anymore, so they're able to to be seen in different light by those watching.
Put someone in Angelus's place who's completely human, and it can change the image enough to have people watching going "KILL HIM"
For Hans Grueber, you want him to get beat, but he had the charisma and style to make him likable.
And yes, evil people can be likable. You hear it all the time "I had no idea my neighbor was such a monster. He was so likable. Vollunteered for community service. A church regular. Always held the best block parties." ect ect. -
Quote:The big problem is, people want to beable to use those ranged attacks while not feeling like they're losing damage, and they'd generally like to beable to throw more than just 2 blasts in.Originally Posted by Kyriani
Well for a scrapper they are petty nice actually.. I'm playing in mids now with a fire/fire/fire scrapper built to be a ranged attacker and it actually looks pretty impressive... I may need to consider building this in game >.>
Sure the ranged damage wont be as high as its melee but its still pretty good and its kinda exactly what we are talking about here... "less than a blaster ranged dmg with scrapper lvl defenses"
For the best DPS, for Scrappers anyways, one generally wants to just not use the ranged blasts at all.
It's no different than Super Strength and Hurl. I'd never skip it, but in a serious character vs AV fight, I wouldn't use it either, and that makes some of us sad.
Maybe what they (the devs) need to do is make other epic ATs that fill those voids in the regular character creation (ATs).
The gunfu-martial artist/defense.
The Fire user who has a range of abilities to choose from, instead of limited between the Fire/Fire pairing of a certain AT.
You know, so they have a bit more leveling up fun, rather than waiting till lvl 35 to get their epics open. -
Quote:You say you will, but you'll realize how lousy that damage is later. :/Originally Posted by Mod_Noc
I just want a character with Dominator assault powers (4 melee, 4 range, and 1 self buff) as a primary with stalker defensive secondary numbers, defender damage numbers and with a 1606hp cap. I will be happy with that.
-
Quote:I don't think we (the players) deserve a guarantee exactly. I do think we (the players) deserve some notification to when the game will be shutting it's doors.Originally Posted by Electric-Knight
Hah, agreed and...
*commiserates with DreamWeaver*
I sometimes wonder if mmo customers deserve any kind of guarantee beyond the standard agreements, but I can't think of anything beyond fulfillment -or reimbursement- of paid subscription time.
And for a game like CoH were you can pay for your subcription a year in advance, a refund if you end up paying for longer service than you're recieving.
Outside of that, you basically know from the get go, at some point, whether it be a year or many many MANY wonderful years from now, the MMO is going to shut down it's servers. -
Love Wendy's smile and Catbot tied over the roof of the car
-
Quote:And that's what I get for only looking at part of the imageOriginally Posted by Necrotech_Master
well it is under a section called "account rewards" and states in the invention license unlock that you cannot claim the reward if your account already has an invention license
so i would assume its account wide
-
Quote:Actually. Isn't part of the storyline, when you leave AP, the Hellions are under control, the cops are wrapping things up and getting the last of them.Originally Posted by Zemblanity
It makes sense that the players would win in a hero game. Paragon City isn't the right place for a horror survival game.
That's fine with me. You're still leaving out PvP, zones and Arena, the "correct avenue" to shove it to the otherside.
These were very good, because they involved choice. No official canon outside of what each player sets for his own little world. Each player's world IS canon. The premise was different, anyway, you were stuck in a post apocalyptic world ruled by a supposedly benevolent tyrant, and you got to choose your path. You could even shape it to fit your own brand of morality.
There's a reason the Coyote never catches the Road Runner. He'd be eaten. If the heroes win, the world gets to survive another day. If the villains win, the world ends. Galaxy City is gone. Alexis Cole is dead. Short of a retcon, that's it. So a compromise was reached, villains only get to succeed to a point, and heroes sometimes get less than a flawless victory. There's plenty of examples of comic books that messed with that unwritten rule and started killing all of their characters for cheap sympathy ploys. They usually end up either retconned or cancelled.
Of course, City of Villains and Praetoria might survive the death of Paragon City, but for those of us who want to play heroes with any sense of accomplishment, that means game over.
Again, if you want to give heroes grief, try PvP.
True, but why does it look worse at lvl 50 than it does at lvl 1? That seems to indicate that the villains are winning, so for those of us who aren't interested in personal tragedy or self-inflicted pain, there's little motivation to log on a hero right now.
Villains got their happy ending in "vanilla" CoV, they got to beat every hero NPC and even shoved it to the big bad boss, "Hey dude, here's what's going to happen to your helmet in 5 minutes if you keep messing with me!" Heroes never got their happy ending. By the way things are going, they never will.
And as you said, phasing technology allows each player to earn their own accomplishments. Atlas park is still plagued by Hellions - UNLESS your hero decides to arrest them.
Right now you can choose to create your character in 3 different locations, Paragon City (where heroes are expected to win), the Rogue Isles (where villains are expected to win) and Praetoria (where everybody loses, apparently). If the writers let these three worlds collide outside of PvP and then start picking sides, they'll inevitably make some players unhappy.
That's exactly what I was saying. Or ranting ^_^
We all need some therapy, because somebody came along and said "hero" means soft on crime, soft on drugs, soft on corruption, soft on fascism, soft on defense, and we're gonna nerf you back to issue 6 because you don't need superstrenght to pull an old lady's cat out of a tree. And instead of saying, "Well, excuse me, you psychotic, bloodthirsty, goatee-wearing, cigarette-smoking sociopath, go wash your mouth before you end up copycatting the massacre of Columbine", we cowered in the corner and said "Please don't hurt me." No more.
That's how I remember it being worded before i21 anyways.
Sadly, you're never going to see it that way, except maybe on a new character, because the tech didn't exsist that way before, for you to wipe off entire enemies off a map just for you.
Now a new character could maybe have this type of deal setup for what you want.
"I completed this arc!" \o/ "Hellions are no more in Atlas Park."
But then of course doesn't that get ruined by...
"Hey Zemblanity mind helping me stop the Hellions making Atlast Park their playground."
"Wait huh? I just wiped them all out. See before you, no Hellions anywhere."
"You blind? I see them them there breaking into a car. There snatching a woman's purse. Oh and look, there's some just loitering about...oh wait...nevermind on that one, another hero just arrested them for the loitering."
I see what you want. I do. I just don't think we're going to see it in a game with so many players. And if we did, I don't see how something like that wouldn't break the immersion. -
Quote:I consider it a cop out because it would be, to me anyway, the current devs giving players that "OMG I hated Jack, so I hate Statesman, let's kill Statesman off" what they want, when they only want it because they hated a dev, and not want his signature character removed.Originally Posted by Garielle
Out of genuine curiosity, how would killing off Statesman be a cop out? A cop out is usually when someone does the absolute minimum or tries to wiggle out of delivering at all. If it were Miss Liberty who was the answer to "Who Will Die", that would, indeed, be a cop-out because it's a minor character that no one really cares a great deal about anyway. I don't see how killing off the face of Paragon City qualifies though.
Killing Statesman is like killing Superman. A dumb idea.
Now I'm sure there are people who don't care for Statesman strictly because of the character (though he's nowhere as powerful imo as he was originally displayed to be) but it's so soured by those who have wanted him dead for so long because of that, I think killing Statesman off would just be cop out.
"Oh. Let's kill him off, as most people won't care or be happy about it."
Sadly, this leaves little room for other characters they can kill off without someone saying "OMG [insert trope here]" judging by some current threads. -
Quote:I disagree. But then by that statement, it's the hero who would put Katie back in the network, while the vigilante lets her make up her own mind.Originally Posted by Twigman
To those that think a hero would try to save Ms. Liberty and skip the missles, you're sadly mistaken. A hero does what is right for the innocent, the vigilante does what he's paid to do. Saving millions is the hero thing ... saving who he's paid to protect is the vigilante
And my character I do picture as a vigilante, in so much as she preferes to decide her own rules rather than be a superpowered police officer.
Kill people? No. Wait around for a warrant? No.
-
Quote:The game engine allows it to an extent.Originally Posted by Zemblanity
I don't see a problem with this, in fact the game engine allows it. In Praetoria, you can choose whether you want to kill or spare Cleopatra, Schrodinger's cat and all. Would it be that problematic for a hero to have a different outcome from the "cannon" version? They do write both hero and villain missions for these signature arcs, so I don't see why they can't diverge eventually, particularly in a game that allows for multiple dimensions to coexist.
I won't play the rest. On hero side at least, episode #3 was my last. You're basically telling a bunch of kids playing cops and crooks that the cops have to lose, just because. And that if they don't like it, then they should just play the crooks instead. I just thought I should share that sentiment with the devs and the community, and either gather support for a different, lighter toned writing direction for the scripted blue-side missions, or stand alone and suck it up. It seems the later applies.
I couldn't care less about the trick, I care that the script forced my hero into a series of vigilante-like actions that break his character and culminated in the death of the person I was meant to protect. As you said, if I knew the episode was designed to be played by an incompetent vigilante meant to fail, I wouldn't have played it. That's not how they advertized it, though.
No, it's like playing Street Fighter 2 with Ken all the way to the last boss, only to find that Mr. Bison is scripted to be unbeatable. Afterwhich you're appeased by a text-box saying "Sorry, you have to play Ryu to beat this game. For plot reasons." Would you like that?
So make it happen outside my character's sphere of influence. People die. There's plenty of missions where we are sent to investigate murders. Only those murders don't happen on my character's watch. What was my character doing that was so important instead of rescuing the woman? Beating up an old man?
And I wouldn't mention it if it was an isolated case, but nearly every hero mission since the launch of Going Rogue has ended tragically for no apparent reason than to add to the drama. Katie Douglas. My alter-ego from Jenny Adair's arc. Alex Cole. Calvin Scott. DeVore.
Heroes and villains can both succeed, just not at the same time. I'm urging the writers to stop pushing villain accomplishments into blue-side missions, because there's no fun in playing a hero if you know you can't win.
If you play a villain and want to give a hero player grief, try PvP. In PvE, I'll demand at least a small chance to succeed.
This isn't a comic, it's a game, and if you involve a player's character you have to account for the possibility that the evil plot to murder a signature character might fail. Scripted victories might be boring if they're too easy, but scripted failures are totally unnacceptable and take away any desire I might have of playing this game.
Don't hold your breath.
The problem with what you want is they then need to create two different story arc paths, and from there create even more multiple story arc paths, to the point where it keeps branching off twice from every new story arc.
You're basically asking them to account for every possible choice a player could possibly make their character make. That isn't going to happen, and yes I can accept that, because if they didn't people would never see new content.
Figure it's this simple...
"Who Will Die" is 7 arcs long. If they just gave players two different possible endings for the first arc, and then kept branching it off with every new arc, the original 7 arcs would turn into 132 different arcs, that all have to lead back to the same conclusion. A member of the surving 8 dead.
For this arc, Miss Liberty had to die. Thankfully for the villains, they got the choice in their character doing it or not. And for some, they might not have even been the kidnapping type, and may have at that point went, "Whoa whoa whoa. Gonna have to stop you now."
Basically, I realize sometimes you're going to have to change some of the storylines in your head to help them fit into how this will work for your character.
Of course, I play on virtue with lots of RPers, so in the end I also tend to view all storylines it as "yes this happened but not done by any of the characters I'll ever interact with" or else it becomes a matter of "200 people killed her?"
So, maybe I just know when it comes to solo RPing along with the content, I have to change some things to fit, as obviously the writers can't account for everything, even with the tech they have. -
Quote:180 merits? That's 2-4 TFs a month as long as they're decent TFs and not trying to get them off of running non stop Katie Hannon TFs.Originally Posted by Oneirohero
So free players can acquire reward merits without owning any extra paragon reward tokens? I thought they had to fill tier 4 to earn reward and vanguard merits if they're not a VIP.
If that restriction is still in place, it only really helps out those who haven't filled tier 7 for Perma-inventions and pointless to get a auction-house license because Tier 4 grants you perma-auction-house anyway.
It still opens up inventions a bit more, but it's still relatively restricted and judging from the amount of merits, extremely expensive. You'd probably have to work all the Taskforces every day in order to have enough to purchase the next 30 days of Invention use.
Of course the question is, is this a global unlock or a per character unlock? -
Quote:My deffinition of WIR is that for the most part it's a joke trying to find issue where there is none.Originally Posted by Smersh
So, you're saying my opinion is invalid because... I haven't held it for long enough. The number of reasons why that might be the case is as long as my arm - Maybe I didn't read Spiderman until four or five years ago. Perhaps I was unaware of the WIR phenomenon until four or five years ago. Perhaps my opinions have changed as I've had life experiences and further educated myself.
In any event, that's a nonsensical argument and not worthy of consideration. I don't care how long you've held your opinions, whether it's been two weeks or twenty years.
And your point is?
I'm not an expert in comics, nor do I claim to be.
Nor do I hew exclusively to the definition of that site, or that of TV Tropes. I've stated my definition at least twice in this thread, I see no reason to repeat it here. But I will say this: The original blog post about WIR tries to cover two scenarios, and the definition I use only covers one. Storm, Raven and the like having horrible things happen to them would be something to look at in terms of possible mistreatment of female characters at the hands of male authors, but they are not in the working definition I am using for WIR. I accept the blog post and TVTropes as illustrative, but not definitive.
What I haven't seen is your definition of WIR, and whether you believe it to be an issue or not.
I've made my declarative statements; I've laid my cards on the table. If you want to make a statement that you don't think it's a problem, we can discuss it on that level. But, if you make that statement, you don't get to tell me that my definition is wrong. I've defined what I think is happening, and you're saying "no, that's not happening."
If you do agree that it is happening, but feel my definition is wrong, we can discuss it on that level. (That is precisely where a discussion of Gwen Stacy lies.)
If you prefer to grant my definition (even if just for the sake of argument) of WIR and want to say that I'm applying it incorrectly in certain cases (i.e. Gwen Stacy) and want to refute my application based on story elements in the text, we can do that too.
All of the above are perfectly reasonable areas of debate, and I am willing to speak to any of them.
What I will choose not to do is to engage you if you're unwilling to meet halfway for debate. If you want to engage in ad hominem (YOU HAVEN'T THOUGHT GWEN STACY WAS WIR FOR LONG ENOUGH, YOU'RE WRONG ABOUT EVERYTHING!), if you want to say that "it isn't happening and your definition is wrong and Gwen Stacy isn't in a fridge, but I won't state my definition of what constitutes a fridging that I don't believe happens anyway," I will bid you good day and not respond to you further in this thread.
I won't be subjected to goalposts being moved on issues not germane to my argument.
I'm sure there's been a few "lets kill off the opposite gender because I'm pissed at said gender right now" happenings in comics.
But most of them (like 99%) I'd say it writers trying to be edgy, do something people havent seen before, or good old fashioned shock value.
Shock value sellls. It's that simple.
The reason some of these has happened so much, is because they've been around so much.
Comics are nothing but a soap opera. So bad things are going to keep happening to main characters, and bad things happen to their supporting cast. Now when the main character is male, the closest one to them tends to be the girlfriend.
If they had more comics out there starring female characters, you'd likely see just as much "kill the boyfriend" as "kill the girlfriend"
And a lot of this conversation started because people didn't like the death of one character in a story arc. When what the story needed was someone to die to get Statesman all riled up. Statesman has two characters to do this...Miss Liberty and Ms Liberty. Miss Liberty is the one that isn't a signature character. Miss Liberty is the one they can kill off without having to replace in AP or relink missions to a new contact.
Bucky died in the new Captain America to make Cap think, "This is my choice." at the end of the movie. If Bucky had been female people would be saying WIR.
WIR is trying to find sexism where there is none. Killing off supporting characters is just standard fare for most works of fiction.
Now some of it will be recieved better than others. Spider-Man for instance. This was just a great moment in comic history. Yes it sucked but it was just an "OMG NO!" moment.
Saddly, in the SSA it was more of a "Huh?" or "Meh!" moment for those who've seen it, as really, the character of Miss Liberty really has no meat to her. She's a character no one really knew anything about and before now, never really cared about her.
In comics it just becomes tedious as writers start to over use it, or one writer uses it in a comic, then is replaced by a new writer who then uses it as well.
This I blame on the editors not really thinking to say "You know what? We just did this, let's not repeat it for awhile so it doesn't get over used." -
I just can't help but think it's the developers of that game going "lets just wipe it all and move on"
-
Quote:Well then, lets go with CatWoman, Black Cat, and Gambit...thieves who are likeableOriginally Posted by Golden Girl
She's way more pitiful than likable
-
Quote:Harley Quinn is very likable!Originally Posted by Golden Girl
Bad people just aren't likable
As to Sam...have you ever thought of making villains who just aren't VILE?
A thrillseeker who's capable of doing good, but finds more thrills out stealing?
Or a chaos loving, lets cause some destruction, should be locked up in the mental ward, who can show some good from time to time.
That's what's worked for me in my villians that I create to play. Are they villains? Yes. But somewhere in them they're capable of acts of heroics.
One of my favorite heroes was more of a villain (admittedly she was made as a joke at first) in that she took "serving out justice" to extreme psychotic levels. Like dangling a villain from a top of a skyscraper, while singing to the toon of "Somewhere over the Rainbow" with new words, before dropping them to their death.
Now purely writing a very VILE character can be fun, but in actually playing one, and I know this isn't true for everyone, is just two different things.
And in playing redside, I find I have more fun in playing a villain who's capable of some sort of heroics, tends to work best, and it tends to help one (again imo) feel a little more like they can go along with the redside storylines, and do the other content.
"Why am I always helping heroes?!" becomes less of a worry on the co-op content as well, as you have that window that says the character you play isn't going out looking to commit evil just for evil's sake. -
Quote:That helmet still looked better than the original film one, no matter who was wearing it.Originally Posted by Noble Savage
Yes--loved it! They did a good job of preserving the look of each character without getting into Fruit Loops colors. Really well done, and my only quibble artisticallty was that the Magneto helmet looked completely ridiculous on Sebastion Shaw.
-
Quote:If it wasn't for the lack of mez protection in an Epic pool (you know, like TROLLERS get), I'd say DP/TIME is exactly a Regen/Super Reflexes hybrid. But it lacks the mez protection :/Originally Posted by SinisterDirge
Sorry, I think as this play style is already in the game, and is easily achievable, i would be more interested in new AT's that give a more unique game experience than what is already available.
Your DP/regen? Traps would again be more suitable as with a couple triage beacons out, that is basically what you are. Stone/ice/ice tanker fits your other example. Fire/shield/fire scrapper your next, arrow/fire/fire blaster your last. Add in incarnate powers and the lines blur even more.
OP: it's an idea that has been floated around a few times. Until it is realized you at least have a few options that can give you the play experience you are looking for. If it is obtuse for pointing them out, so be it. I hope you find what you are looking for. -
Quote:Sure! Melee/Support! Ranged/Defense!Originally Posted by Jibikao
Honestly, do we really have another "unique" AT left?
The only one that I think of is a melee/support AT.
I don't think we'll see another core AT but we may see another Epic AT like VEAT or HEAT with fixed sets. -
Quote:*shrug* People have been wanting a Melee/Debuff AT, that was just a thought on how to do it.Originally Posted by PunkRolex
That sounds more like a fix for the inherent crappiness of Stalkers than a completely new AT.
Before I wouldn't have cared for it. Now...Titan Weapons/Time Manipulation ^_^ I want the AT! -
The VEATS solo fine, but you're right, they lack in concept. Fixed origins arent so much a problem as that you're just stuck with Backback, claws, rifle or psi powers as your weapons.
The fact that they have team buffs are not a problem tho, as they also buff themselves.
However this did get me to thinking...
Melee/Debuff
Inherent: Mez Protection (Hold, Immobilize, Stun, Sleep)
This covers the mez protection aspect of being in melee, without having to change up the Buff/Debuff sets.
Still be knocked about yes, but that's what Acrobatics, defense, KB resist IOs are for, or of course a combination of them. -
Quote:that's kinda my point. Bad things happen to everyone in comics. Bad things happen to people in soaps. It's part of how they keep going and going and moving on and changing.Originally Posted by Scythus
Don't forget that the TVTropes page has a fair number of gender-flipped fridging in its examples. So all Smersh has to do is look at it and see how it doesn't apply only to women dying or losing their powers.
Oh... hey... what about the ol' "No More Mutants" thing? A lot of guy mutants got depowered. I seem to recall the Blob trying to hang himself and failing miserably.
They probably consider it WIR when the female loses her husband to further her character growth, but because it's a woman that means it's WIR because something bad happened to her.
Basically, I think WIR is a stupid trope that tries to find "unfairness" in something that isn't there. Yes, I'm sure there's been some writer who said "God, I hate women right now" and decided to take it out on a female character, same with women writers int he reverse, but normally, that's just how it goes.
Kill someone close to main character, let them angst, let them grow, then let them reset, and do it all over again! -
Quote:WIR might have started 12 years ago. Gwen's been dead for FAR longer.Originally Posted by Smersh
I've made my definition of WIR. By my definition (which I stated upthread and is primarily interested in the attitudes of the authors), Gwen Stacy *was* WIR. I have my threshold for it, which I have stated. I have also admitted that Gwen Stacy is a threshold case - I recognize that, while I put her in that category, not everyone will, and that she is a subject for debate on the issue.
(For the record, if female characters are defined primarily by their relationship to the male protagonist and are killed off primarily to spur character growth, I consider that a fridging. It's more egregious if the character exists in the plot only to die and spur character growth, but that is not the only example. The awesome rampage of John Clark in Without Remorse? Caused by a fridging.)
You may choose to debate my definition of fridging. But since you are not the final arbiter of what constitutes a refrigerator (nor am I), you don't get to say with impunity that I am wrong. Show me I am wrong. Prove that I'm wrong. Don't assert it without backing it up.
Also, I consider twelve and a half years to not be new. Therefore, you are wrong about everything you say, if that's the standard you wish to apply.
Forgive me if I didn't take notes about when I decided to categorize a particular comic book story under a particular trope - it's not something that I mark on my calendar. It has been some time, perhaps four or five years.
To put it very simply: I can think of a half-dozen examples off the top of my head wherein a male protagonist comes home to find his wife/girlfriend/daughter tortured/kidnapped/violated/dead with a taunting note from the antagonist. I cannot think of a gender-flipped version off the top of my head. Hence, women in refrigerators.
(It's arguable that Uncle Ben was, in fact, stuffed in a fridge by my standards. That's another debate entirely.)
And yes, Uncle Ben did die for the whole find character growth that happened with Peter. And if that's the case, so did Bruce's parents. Both dead so he can become Batman.
Yup. Superman has a whole planet of people dying so he can become Superman.
This is why WIR is a dumb trope. And looking at that link. Raven, because she's sometimes evil? I've always thought that was just part of her character.
Storm. You know for someone who lost her powers, she seemed to kick a lot of butt without them.
By the deffinition of that site, Gambit's in a refridgerator for going blind, being turned into a horseman, ect ect. -
I'd like to get their glow back please. The new patch seems to have robbed us of the glowie effect that comes along with the purchased set. And I rather miss it.
-
Quote:Or there are those who just find Kristin fairer than Charlize. :OOriginally Posted by Mandu
To quote the mirror.
"You are the fairest. But there is another destined to surpass you."
So the mirror is foreseeing a time when Kristin will get plastic surgery... or maybe when she is 60 and Charlize is 75.
Sadly, it's the one thing that's the problem with all movies when you have "Oh they're better looking than me!" or "Oh this person is better looking than this one"
It's usually subjective and there's always at least a few people who disagree.