I guess the backstory's a taste thing. Long cutscenes are annoying, but a sense of a deeper world is all in for me. I guess you'd not be a fan of Elder Scrolls, then?
I really can't think of an example right now. If I can't think of one within a week, I'll file it in the distorted memories box and we can write it off as being not true.
I loved LttP. The textures, the feel, the level design, fantastic. Not my favourite Zelda title, though.
Some related flaws:
Sometimes the exploration felt too random. Sure, sometimes there was a huge arrow made of bushes, or a hint from the fortune teller. But sometimes it seemed a little arbitrary. I'm not into luck and chance, and when I find something in a game I want to go "Ohhh, yeah that DOES make sense!" I can't think of an exact example (it's a big game) but I'm sure there were moments in the dungeons and the overworld where I was going through items seemingly at random until I used the right one.
Not enougn backstory. The atmoshperes of the different areas is cool, but in later Zelda games there was a sense that each section had a place within the story. The sheikah in Kakariko Village, the history of the Royal Family, their connection with the Zoras etc etc. LttP could have had more of that. Instead it was 'here's a world with a bunch of stuff in it, go nuts but don't ask us why, we don't know'.
Oh, fuck the Skull dungeon. I was spared the wallmasters because of the emulator's freeze function (meh heh heh) but getting lost in repetitive sections is never an engaging experience.
Well said. for my part, I'm very fortunate in that my own challenges are mild and I haven't had to deal with some of the problems of my peers.
Maybe the term 'mental illness' needs to be done away with altogether, then. Fifty years ago, there was no dyslexia. You were just a form of dumb. Forty years ago, there was no autism, you were just another form of dumb. We are all indeed stupid in our own ways, and one by one those ways are being documented and named. Eventually there will be an 'illness' for everyone, and the term 'mental ill person' will cease to have any meaning. In light of this, 'mentally ill' is misleading - it suggests that there's something uniquely wrong with you. A more accurate description is that the things that are wrong with you have been studied, as opposed to 'non mentally ill' people who have things wrong with them as yet unstudied. An 'identified mental pattern' is a truer name, therefore. I'm doing the exact word-changing that I rubbished in my previous post, but it is more helpful description.
I do disagree, however, about the masses. The populace in general is often behind in terms of understanding, but I maintain my optimism. There is a will to understand and be compassionate. There is also an instinct to blame and reject. Glacially slow though it may be, the former has gained ground over the latter and will contiune to do so. People will reject less tomorrow than they did yesterday.
This could branch in so many directions - the nature of equality, basis of morality... I'll try to keep my discipline 
A cause or explanation is not a justification. That is my opinion.
I 100%, totally agree.
I also agree that old-fasioned notions of punitary justice don't work. Like what you say about the emotional response, attacking wrongdoers and locking them up is so intuitive, so common-sense, that few people analyse it seriously. And, of course, whether you correct the behaviour or not, there is an immediate need to 'quarantine' the potential cause of future harm (the perpetrator).
Having said that, I don't think your hopes are all that intangible. I'm very optimistic about our culture and its future. A brief look at our history shows a clear march towards compassion. I don't know what the situation is in the US, Norway or anywhere else, but in the UK there is a definite culture of wanting to help criminals. There is still a lot of aggressive talk about justice, but there is an increasing focus on care, retraining and rehabilitation. Even twenty years ago that was not the case. I think this is the real gift of psychology. To understand. Because, like any branch of medicine, blocking the symptoms is not enough, and psychology helps us understand the causes and the most effective cure. And it's usually along the lines of what you're suggesting.
It's easier for a psychologist to be dispassionate. For the rest of us, what do we do with our emotional response? Even leaving aside the immediate family of a victim, people feel angry and smiting when they hear about certain crimes. Will it ever be possible to teach ourselves out of that, when it's engrained in our DNA? What if that instinctive reaction is necessry for social cohesion? Perhaps the best we can hope for right now is a divide between the populace and the proffessionals. The justice system's message would then be "Ok, you did a bad thing and now nobody likes you. But it's ok, because we're going to look after you and you're going to learn to be better".
There's one last thorny issue. I tiptoed around it a little in my OP.
A cause or explanation is not a justification. That is my opinion.
How does this then apply to a mentally ill person's view of themselves? Take someone with, I don't know, dyslexia. Many of them feel as though they're stupid. That makes us upset, because they don't deserve to feel that way. But if an explanation is not a justification, then the bottom line is, they do suck at spelling and grammar. Sure, it's not their fault, but what difference does that make? Perhaps the loophole is that it doesn't need justifying. I've always held that being 'stupid' is not something to be ashamed of, because only your moral conduct should count towards any judgement. But nonetheless, "You're dumb but it's not your fault" is hardly an empowering message. I may be using harsh words like stupid or dumb, but people with difficulties often feel that whatever you replace that adjective with is only ever a politican's synonym. I've heard them tell me that much. And, what do you say to someone who seems to make a cogent case for their own stupidity? What does society say?
*stands with riot shield at the ready*
I've never played LttP on a SNES.
[quick aside - why has capitalising 'lol' become so unfasionable, and SNES has retained it's capitalisation? Seeing as it's pronouced 'Snez' and not 'ess - en -ee -zee', you'd think we'd all call it snes. Oh language.]
I first played it on my brother's GBA. I think that might have been a good thing, though. Because I grew up with 3D Zeldas, and playing the old 2D's seemed lke a quaint novelty. But in the handheld world it was the newest technology, so it felt a lot more current. Addictive game. I visited him a lot more in those days, so much he started complaining. My bro then sold his GBA (which solved his problem) and I've been restarting and having to drop it on emulators ever since, until a couple months ago when I reinstalled the emulator on the laptop and finally completed the thing. I think emulators are great. I don't own a SNES, and probably won't, or a handheld for that matter, and the emulator gives a good big-screen experience.
Obviously, I'm not entirely uninvested in this topic. But in exploring what mental illness is all about, we're forced to confront some uncomfortable questions about the way our society wants to be.
The problem comes from the definition of what a mental illness is. The wikipedia definition is fairly standard:
A mental disorder (also called a mental illness, psychiatric disorder, or psychological disorder) is a diagnosis, most often by a psychiatrist, of a behavioral or mental pattern that may cause suffering or a poor ability to function in life.
Clearly, that's the vaguest of definitions. According to this, anything that you ever do wrong in life can be classed as mental illness. A person with a pattern of making the wrong decisions (whether it harms others or only themselves) can be called mentally ill, based on this definition.
Take my own condition as an example. It's a processing disorder, which means I cannot process information efficiently. That counts as a mental illness, when contrasted with people who can process information efficiently. Confusingly, this doesn't work in reverse, when I compare my strengths to other people's weaknesses. I have a very good ability to retain information. Does that mean that people who don't, who aren't academically minded, have a mental illness in that they can't do what I can? A great many people's self-esteem is coroded by their lack of academic prowess, as well as the great deal of joy denied to them that is available to me. Perhaps they are not regarded as mentally ill because they are the majority rather than the minority. If being a minority is a requirement of mental illness, then any weakness that you may have which is relatively unique to you can be called an illness. We are all, therefore, mentally ill.
I think we all implicitly accept that a 'mental illness' is no more than a short-hand for a list of mental categories. What the difference is between a mental illness and a personality type or a skills profile is beyond me, as every individual carries their own unique set of challenges. But so far, so irrelevant.
Where this all gets very thorny is when you get into mental conditions which affect the people around you. I would argue that making moral judgements of people is (sadly) necessary for society to function. It's a way of confirming to each other that we, as a culture, agree that certain things are wrong. The lady on the news who abused her children. The murdering rapist. They are targets of hatred and anger. They also, by any definition, have a mental illness - their mental disposition has certainly given them a poor ability to function in life. But our rules say we're not allowed to judge people for having a mental illness. Or my ex, who was a nasty piece of work. It was pointed out to me that I shouldn't be so hard on her, because she'd been diagnosed with a psychiatric condition. My reponse was: "So not only am I right about her, it's been scientifically proven." It wasn't the most popular of statements.
We seem to be forced into a logical dichotomy: Forgive mental illness and live in an amoral society, or to enforce ethical standards and, by definition, judge mental illness.
I reminded for a moment of Origin (the anime movie). It's not the storyline that catches me but the poetic expression. I feel as though the older I get, the more incapable I become of expressing anything that isn't clinical. It reminds me of a time gone by when I was a little less dead and boring. My hat off to you, sir.
That's awesome.
But sicne you mention comedy, I guess Shaun of the dead is a horror-comedy I enjoyed quite a bit.
Most of Simon Pegg's stuff is pretty neat. Hot Fuzz wasn't all that, but I laughed a hell of a lot through World's End.
It would also explain why the trailer above is so horrible. I mean, we've all hit ourselves with a spoon right?
.... right?
Oh, the memories! Longest trailer ever, but a classic.
Hey Dotty! Welcome to the site.
So what's your favourite Zelda title?
@'zilla , if I could pick your brain on that one. Is dark energy something that's been proven as an energy, or simply a deus ex machina inferred from the accelaration of the universe's expansion? Like, "The universe is accelarating! I must need energy to do that! Let's call it dark energy."
Also, is dark energy the same as dark matter? Perhaps the latter is being transferred into the former.
I could go and find these answers for myself... but then, as you're here 
That's a nice nod to the Zelda heritage. I think it'll be sad to lose the big adventurous music of previous games, but I have to admit ambiental music is more fitting to the gameplay they've got going.
You mean KKnD?
uhh, maybe.
Enjoying a bit of cheesy anime-themed nightcore.
https://soundcloud.com/different-heaven
I've a mate who's obsessed with horror movies. I don't mind a good horror. I liked The Ring (US version), that creeped me the hell out when I was younger. The Rob Zombie Halloween remake was hilrious. Anyone remember Sleepy Hollow? That was a hoot. Deathwatch was pretty good too, despite the corny name.
Well, it seems like this rumour might be getting more plausible. We've got the 100 mini dungeons confirmed, there's a definite technology vs fantasy theme, dynamic weather seems to be included...
Zelda rumours are always a funny business. I think what you say here ^ tags right into what @Kaynil said - that these confirmed rumours could easily have been figured out from the trailers, and designed to put the '4 dungeons' rumour in a more plausible light. Still, it's hard to know either way.
Here's a question - do you like the idea of only 4 main dungeons? At first, I didn't like the sound of it, but I loved MM. Having only 4 dungeons meant each compass point area could be expanded into an epic quest of its own, and reaching the dungeon felt like so much more of a climax. In games with many dungeons, it's a bit like "Oh, it's another dungeon. Whatever."
I feel the need for a mini-rant on this, and rather than start a whole new thread it seems appropriate to slot it in here.
The Theory Of Self (and why it's evil)
In psychology, the Theory of Self (ToS) is used to explain basic empathy. It's a subconscious assumption that goes like this: everyone is like me. If you stub your toe, I expect it to hurt because it would hurt me. If you grimmace and say 'OUCH!!', I know you're in pain because that's what I do when I'm in pain. It's the fundamental basis that allows us to interact meaningfully with the people (and even animals) around us. But, taken beyond this basic principle, it is damaging and a cause for much of the world's evils. How many times have you assumed someone was being hostile, when it turned out they weren't?
When someone says "xyz music is rubbish, why do people listen to it? It must be peer pressure." They are unwittingly making the assumption that because they don't experience anything positive from the music, therefore nobody else does. And when they realise that maybe people are different, that precious subconscious tool that is the ToS feels threatened, and so they convince themselves there's something wrong with these different people. Contradictory statements like "bad taste" start to come out, which confuse tastes with morals. But it gets darker than music. This instinctive intolerance is applied to clothes, hair style, religion, culture, sexual orientation, the toleration of sexual orientation...
In short, beware the Theory of Self. It is the cornerstone of hostility.
I loved the Matrix trilogy. M1 came out when I was 11, so for me it was just cool action sequences. M2 was higher budget and tres cool, but lacked the sense of threat and fear that drove the first. Also, it failed to realise the ambitious promises of the M1 outro with Neo in the phonebox. M3 felt a bit sloppy, to be honest. But more than anything I loved it for creating such a vivid and tangible universe. There was nothing about that felt anything like the Matrix - sure, it had influences, but in many ways it was its own genre. But, although a lot of thought went into the Matrix universe, by the end it felt like they were cramming it all in. It was like one of those marvel films that tries to cram in the entire Marvel heritage into a couple of movies. It all become a bit fleeting (and a bit Dragonball Z).
Also, if The One can 'reprogramme' the Matrix at will, why are his powers only expressed through physically logical superpowers? Why fly when he could simply input a new location co-ordinate for himself into the program and just be at his destination? I get that superpowers are cool, but they might have explained his limitations better.
Also, do human being really create enough energy to warrant all the maintenance and effort? Surely it's more logical to harvest the geothermal energy at the Earth's core, or emmigrate to some other planet and take power there, like the geothermal energy of Jupiter or the solar energy of Mercury.
I never got that it was that philosophical. Conmplicated, maybe. The only real question posed is whether the machines are good or bad, which becomes a little greyer towards the end, and when you watch the Animatrix. You could pose a question of happiness vs. freedom - if life can be happier in the Matrix, what is the value of freedom? But the movie pretty much forces the answer at you that freedom trumps all. Also that killing innocent people is ok because it's self-defence and it looks good. So, there are questions you could pose, but I got the sense it wasn't the intention of the film - these things were just flavouring for the Matrix universe.
Having said all of that, the brand and universe is so vivid and fascinating to me, it bring me up to 'love'.
