461 réponses à ce sujet

[JesseLee202]

Barbantious wrote...

He said it in the first ten seconds.

I KNOW. And the first minute is him rambling "why? why this?! why thats!?!?" I didn't care to keep the video up any longer because of his opening.

And how can you say that "ALL of his points have been pointed out already" if you "Didn't even keep it on for a minute". That just doesn't make sense.

I have heard pretty much everything related to the EC content and have played it multiple times, I think I know it well enough to make that kind of assumption. But please, do tell me what earth shattering revelations he made about the EC in his video?< rhetorical question

Modifié par JesseLee202, 14 novembre 2012 - 08:05 .

[Aeowyn]

Ciryx wrote...

While he makes some valid points, I cant take a binary thinking person seriously. For smudboy there is no inbetween, or things, which work fine in the given context etc.

I dont want to know how much time he put into these videos, its obviously a lot and respect for that. But if you take a step back and think how LONG it would take to even make 10 minutes of a game if you overanalyze every element in every scene... we wouldnt be playing ME1 by now.

I think that he not once praises ME3 for the many things it DID do good, even during the end. (exellent writing as you say goodbye to your teammates/LI etc.)

All in all I am left with the feeling that I just watched an extremly onesided and biased opinion.

Actually, iirc, he does praise some of the things ME3 did well in the first video.

[Costin_Razvan]

Ciryx wrote...

While he makes some valid points, I cant take a binary thinking person seriously. For smudboy there is no inbetween, or things, which work fine in the given context etc.

I dont want to know how much time he put into these videos, its obviously a lot and respect for that. But if you take a step back and think how LONG it would take to even make 10 minutes of a game if you overanalyze every element in every scene... we wouldnt be playing ME1 by now.

I think that he not once praises ME3 for the many things it DID do good, even during the end. (exellent writing as you say goodbye to your teammates/LI etc.)

All in all I am left with the feeling that I just watched an extremly onesided and biased opinion.

There is no such thing as a perfect story with absolutely no flaws in it, but pointing out the flaws is still important. Why? Because by doing so a writer may hopefully realize the problems and improve in his future stories. Even George R.R. Martin makes mistakes and he ackowledges that. However the difference between Song of Ice and Fire and Mass Effect is that Mass Effect is ultimately a piece of crap when it comes down to it's sum total.

It doesn't matter ultimately that the goodbyes are excellent or that through the course of the game there are some very great moments, because for every good thing, for every epic speech by Eve, for every death scene like Mordin's for every peace solution to the quarian-geth conflict, for all these great things in the game there is at least five bad points and ultimately these bad points underscore everything that is good.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 14 novembre 2012 - 08:37 .

[Gruntburner]

Aeowyn wrote...

Ciryx wrote...

While he makes some valid points, I cant take a binary thinking person seriously. For smudboy there is no inbetween, or things, which work fine in the given context etc.

I dont want to know how much time he put into these videos, its obviously a lot and respect for that. But if you take a step back and think how LONG it would take to even make 10 minutes of a game if you overanalyze every element in every scene... we wouldnt be playing ME1 by now.

I think that he not once praises ME3 for the many things it DID do good, even during the end. (exellent writing as you say goodbye to your teammates/LI etc.)

All in all I am left with the feeling that I just watched an extremly onesided and biased opinion.

Actually, iirc, he does praise some of the things ME3 did well in the first video.

The only compliments I remember were of the back-handed nature.

[Seboist]

Gruntburner wrote...

Aeowyn wrote...

Ciryx wrote...

While he makes some valid points, I cant take a binary thinking person seriously. For smudboy there is no inbetween, or things, which work fine in the given context etc.

I dont want to know how much time he put into these videos, its obviously a lot and respect for that. But if you take a step back and think how LONG it would take to even make 10 minutes of a game if you overanalyze every element in every scene... we wouldnt be playing ME1 by now.

I think that he not once praises ME3 for the many things it DID do good, even during the end. (exellent writing as you say goodbye to your teammates/LI etc.)

All in all I am left with the feeling that I just watched an extremly onesided and biased opinion.

Actually, iirc, he does praise some of the things ME3 did well in the first video.

The only compliments I remember were of the back-handed nature.

That's generous given ME3's "quality".

[Someone With Mass]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

There is no such thing as a perfect story with absolutely no flaws in it, but pointing out the flaws is still important. Why? Because by doing so a writer may hopefully realize the problems and improve in his future stories. Even George R.R. Martin makes mistakes and he ackowledges that. However the difference between Song of Ice and Fire and Mass Effect is that Mass Effect is ultimately a piece of crap when it comes down to it's sum total.

Yeah, but I doubt he brings a stunning realization to anyone. All the people that thinks the ending sucks more than likely knows why it does so and don't need any more motivations.

It's just because some people actually liked those videos he made about Mass Effect 2 that he gets so much attention as if he was the first one to notice the flaws about Mass Effect 3, while everyone else would probably call slowpoke times infinity.

Oh and when you need more than half an hour to prove something while other people can do it in less than half that time, learn how to prioritize and sort out the pointless padding. Quality, not quantity.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Seboist wrote...

That's generous given ME3's "quality".

Or stingy, depending on how you look at it. Ending aside, it was at least better than the Witcher 2.

[Seboist]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Seboist wrote...

That's generous given ME3's "quality".

Or stingy, depending on how you look at it. Ending aside, it was at least better than the Witcher 2.

Mediocre GOW knock offs with fake choices are better than TW2 fo'sho.

[Seboist]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Yeah, but I doubt he brings a stunning realization to anyone. All the people that thinks the ending sucks more than likely knows why it does so and don't need any more motivations.

It's just because some people actually liked those videos he made about Mass Effect 2 that he gets so much attention as if he was the first one to notice the flaws about Mass Effect 3, while everyone else would probably call slowpoke times infinity.

Oh and when you need more than half an hour to prove something while other people can do it in less than half that time, learn how to prioritize and sort out the pointless padding. Quality, not quantity.

In your case the butthurt over the ending can be summed up in one line, "Me no get happy ending with Tali!!!!!".

[mass perfection]

Maybe the ending is stupid on purpose and Destroy is the right choice.

[Ciryx]

Aeowyn wrote...

Actually, iirc, he does praise some of the things ME3 did well in the first video.

Fair enough.
Imo the overall consense and intention of the videos are to (overly) criticize while being not really constructive nor fair. While bringing some valid points, the intention of these videos is to "bash" the game in question. Well, at least I have a hard time seeing the constructive side of these videos.

Add to it that some of his own arguments are prone to be discectted or can be nitpicked too... for example: his "gratz, you are bombing earth" example from one of his earlier videos: He claims that the attacking united fleet is bombing earth, since they are firing on the reapers which are hovering in front of the planet, which -in his reasoning- translates to nuking earth. (Since the missing shots would hit earth etc) But if you actually paid attention the weapons the ships are using are mostly mass accelerators (wiki it if you want) which accelerate 4kg slugs to 4025km/s (1.3% the speed of light). The kinetic energy of the impact is roughly equivilant to an atom bomb. (W= 0.5 * m *v² | W = 0.5*4*(4025m/s)² | W = 32401250J or 32401.250 KJ)

The thing is these 4kg slugs of high density metal (thats not even as big as a common football) will just burn up in the athmosphere of earth. So... NO. They are NOT bombing earth. All you would see on earth from the "bombardment" are some pretty falling stars. Would be more make-a-wish-day then judgement-day. 

So yeah, his own arguments are wrong. While being supernitpicky and not really constructive/helpful. There are a lot of words for people like that, I just leave it at the point that I cant really take him or his videos to serious.

@costin

Nothing wrong with critisim, as long as it stays constructive and can genuinely help the person in question to improve his/her work. If i would be an developer at BW and watch these videos I still wouldnt know how to improve my work. And the how is what good criticizm is about. Not pointing out every minor detail.

[Dark_Caduceus]

I wonder why the Mass Effect team has never responded to his videos, or those in a similar vein. Not that they're obligated to or anything, but it seems like they're deathly afraid of any actual response to objective criticism (remember their "defense" of the endings? "Penny Arcade liked it, so it must be good!").

[LinksOcarina]

Seboist wrote...

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Seboist wrote...

That's generous given ME3's "quality".

Or stingy, depending on how you look at it. Ending aside, it was at least better than the Witcher 2.

Mediocre GOW knock offs with fake choices are better than TW2 fo'sho.

Stop playing Max Payne 3, I think you are confusing it with Mass Effect 3. 

[Dark_Caduceus]

Ciryx wrote...

Aeowyn wrote...

Actually, iirc, he does praise some of the things ME3 did well in the first video.

Fair enough.
Imo the overall consense and intention of the videos are to (overly) criticize while being not really constructive nor fair. While bringing some valid points, the intention of these videos is to "bash" the game in question. Well, at least I have a hard time seeing the constructive side of these videos.

Add to it that some of his own arguments are prone to be discectted or can be nitpicked too... for example: his "gratz, you are bombing earth" example from one of his earlier videos: He claims that the attacking united fleet is bombing earth, since they are firing on the reapers which are hovering in front of the planet, which -in his reasoning- translates to nuking earth. (Since the missing shots would hit earth etc) But if you actually paid attention the weapons the ships are using are mostly mass accelerators (wiki it if you want) which accelerate 4kg slugs to 4025km/s (1.3% the speed of light). The kinetic energy of the impact is roughly equivilant to an atom bomb. (W= 0.5 * m *v² | W = 0.5*4*(4025m/s)² | W = 32401250J or 32401.250 KJ)

The thing is these 4kg slugs of high density metal (thats not even as big as a common football) will just burn up in the athmosphere of earth. So... NO. They are NOT bombing earth. All you would see on earth from the "bombardment" are some pretty falling stars. Would be more make-a-wish-day then judgement-day. 

So yeah, his own arguments are wrong. While being supernitpicky and not really constructive/helpful. There are a lot of words for people like that, I just leave it at the point that I cant really take him or his videos to serious.

@costin

Nothing wrong with critisim, as long as it stays constructive and can genuinely help the person in question to improve his/her work. If i would be an developer at BW and watch these videos I still wouldnt know how to improve my work. And the how is what good criticizm is about. Not pointing out every minor detail.

There's no point discussing the mathematics of how mass effect kinetic weapons work in a planet's atmopshere (assuming it has one, like earth) because we already understand how they operate based on scenes and evidence in game.

For example Klendagon, which is purported to have an atmosphere (at least the Wikipedia explains) has a gigantic rift due to a mass accelerator weapon; so it's difficult to believe that slugs simply burn up in the atmopshere unless it was an ungodly gigantic slug that if fired.

Also, weren't Reapers using orbital bombardment, at least on Palaven and Thessia? They might not fire slugs, but they do use mass accelerator technology; the Wikipedia states the Thanix Cannon uses a "...liquid alloy of iron, uranium, and tungsten suspended in an electromagnetic field powered by element zero. The
molten metal, accelerated to a significant fraction of the speed of
light, solidifies into a projectile as it is fired..."
Why do Thanix cannons work (which essentially just fire a stream of metal particles suspended in an electromagnetic field), but slugs don't?

Edit: Likewise, the Destroyer Reaper on Rannoch was destroyed by mass accelerator weapons from the orbiting Migrant Fleet; that was the purpose of that stupid part with the targetting laser. If Mass Accelerated slugs couldn;t pass through earthlike atmopsheres, we wouldn't have been able to destroy that Reaper and the game would have ended that much earlier (and thus preserve my sanity).

Also, Alchera has an atmopshere; yet Shepard passed through it and there was still "meat and tubes" left to revive, now, there's no reason necessarily to believe he was moving at relativistic speeds (unless the Normandy was moving at the time, can someone confirm this?) but nonetheless he should have burned away in any atmosphere even close to earth's; so one can only assume planetary re-rentry doesn't work the way we think it does. Otherwise your left with a conflict as to how exactly it does work in the Mass Effect universe.

Edit: There's also the inherent logical problem of mass accelerators not working through an atmosphere, that means that Reapers need to expose themelves to ground level fire if they want to fire on ground forces, that's like a really bad idea, even for billion year old bio-mechanical star gods of ungodly intelligence and power comprised of millions of interlinked minds. Because then you get Cained.

Modifié par Dark_Caduceus, 14 novembre 2012 - 10:55 .

[Wulfram]

The codex makes it clear that orbital bombardment effects planets

The Citadel Conventions prohibit the use of large kinetic impactors against habitable worlds. In a straight-on attack, any misses plough into the planet behind the defending fleet. If the defenders position themselves between the attackers and the planet, they can fire at will while the attacker risks hitting the planet.

and

Each slug has the kinetic energy of 38 kilotons1 of TNT, enough to destroy the infrastructure of a mid-sized city and kill half a million people.

Because of air friction, planets with atmospheres do not feel a slug's full devastation. Atmospheric drag reduces impact force by 20% per Earth atmosphere of air.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Seboist wrote...

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Seboist wrote...

That's generous given ME3's "quality".

Or stingy, depending on how you look at it. Ending aside, it was at least better than the Witcher 2.

Mediocre GOW knock offs with fake choices are better than TW2 fo'sho.

Well, if you're playing it like Gears of War, you only have yourself to blame.

[EnvyTB075]

Define "nitpicking" and what actually counts as nitpicking. I see a lot of people saying thats what he does, yet no examples or rebuttals as to why its a forgivable detail.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

EnvyTB075 wrote...

Define "nitpicking" and what actually counts as nitpicking. I see a lot of people saying thats what he does, yet no examples or rebuttals as to why its a forgivable detail.

Well, when one of your criticisms is that the game uses a different pistol weapon model in cut-scenes vs. gameplay, chances are you've taken your criticisms too far. Something Smud was pretty quick to point out as an ending criticism, after Shepard gets blown to hell during the trench run. If that's an unforgivable detail, the viewer probably shouldn't be involved in fiction in the first place.  

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 14 novembre 2012 - 11:58 .

[EnvyTB075]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

EnvyTB075 wrote...

Define "nitpicking" and what actually counts as nitpicking. I see a lot of people saying thats what he does, yet no examples or rebuttals as to why its a forgivable detail.

Well, when one of your criticisms is that the game uses a different pistol weapon model in cut-scenes vs. gameplay, chances are you've taken your criticisms too far. Something Smud was pretty quick to point out as an ending criticism, after Shepard gets blown to hell during the trench run. If that's an unforgivable detail, the viewer probably shouldn't be involved in fiction in the first place.  

Well that was in his top 20 questionable things video, which are not all directly plot related, hence it being a top 20 video. Its not a writing issue as it is a lazy technical issue, considering how ME2 managed to do it if you had that weapon equipped so they at least had some idea on how to do it. Same goes for pulling out every single gun out over the shoulder, even when the gun isn't there or is already in Shepards hands. For example on the Firebase Glacier MP mission tie in (hate those missions...) Shep jumps down, gun in hand, lifts it up, then goes for the shoulder anyway.

Now if you're actually talking about the unlimited ammo Carnifex....you seriously don't see the issue here? Its a Carnifex that doesn't need to be reloaded ever despite every weapon since ME1 was swapped over to TC. I shouldn't have to explain just how stupid this is.

Modifié par EnvyTB075, 15 novembre 2012 - 12:05 .

[BaladasDemnevanni]

EnvyTB075 wrote...

Well that was in his top 20 questionable things video, which are not all directly plot related, hence it being a top 20 video. Its not a writing issue as it is a lazy technical issue, considering how ME2 managed to do it if you had that weapon equipped so they at least had some idea on how to do it. Same goes for pulling out every single gun out over the shoulder, even when the gun isn't there or is already in Shepards hands. For example on the Firebase Glacier MP mission tie in (hate those missions...) Shep jumps down, gun in hand, lifts it up, then goes for the shoulder anyway.

Actually, I believe he also mentioned it either in his original ME3 ending video, or in the Extended Cut rendition. End point is the same: he spends far too much time on meaningless details like this and less time on issues of actual narrative significance.

Now if you're actually talking about the unlimited ammo Carnifex....you seriously don't see the issue here? Its a Carnifex that doesn't need to be reloaded ever despite every weapon since ME1 was swapped over to TC. I shouldn't have to explain just how stupid this is.

No, I don't see the issue. It's not integral to the narrative. It's on the level of complaining about the switch over from overheating weapons to thermal clips. On the scale of lore, how guns fire occupies the very bottom tier. It's not a narrative issue, like how Shepard is brought back to life or Cerberus' sudden transition from bad to good to bad guy. These are actual issues to which the writers clearly focused attention on and should occupy our attention as well. The unlimited carnifex is a minor detail which has no narrative significance.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 15 novembre 2012 - 12:13 .

[ABCoLD]

kratos0294 wrote...

David7204 wrote...

The world would be a better place if this ****** jumped in front of a train.

lol, this.

Seriously, he is nitpicking way, WAY too much.

Not EVERYTHING has to be explained !

It's not a question of things being explained, it's a question of things being logical.  I know people liked the fire comment about Reapers, my personal favorite bit followed this line of reasoning.

For some reason the Catalyst decides its system no longer works.  It's sought to preserve organic and synthetic life by encasing them in Reaper shells.  It decides that this will no longer work when the Catalyst itself summons Shepard to the top of the Citadel.  So as an alternative means of improving on its plan it offers Shepard the choice to destroy every civilization the Catalyst has tried to save. There is no explanation for why it decides to say 'derp, screw it' and just give up.  There's also no explanation why as the controlling force if this was its intention it simply just doesn't deactivate all Reapers.   The choice just happens to be there, for no reason.

If someone can give me a good reason beyond 'The Catalyst is insane' then I'll listen to it.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

ABCoLD wrote...

kratos0294 wrote...

David7204 wrote...

The world would be a better place if this ****** jumped in front of a train.

lol, this.

Seriously, he is nitpicking way, WAY too much.

Not EVERYTHING has to be explained !

It's not a question of things being explained, it's a question of things being logical.  I know people liked the fire comment about Reapers, my personal favorite bit followed this line of reasoning.

For some reason the Catalyst decides its system no longer works.  It's sought to preserve organic and synthetic life by encasing them in Reaper shells.  It decides that this will no longer work when the Catalyst itself summons Shepard to the top of the Citadel.  So as an alternative means of improving on its plan it offers Shepard the choice to destroy every civilization the Catalyst has tried to save. There is no explanation for why it decides to say 'derp, screw it' and just give up.  There's also no explanation why as the controlling force if this was its intention it simply just doesn't deactivate all Reapers.   The choice just happens to be there, for no reason.

If someone can give me a good reason beyond 'The Catalyst is insane' then I'll listen to it.

See, now this is an issue of actual significance. And actually fuels the ending of the narrative.

[EnvyTB075]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Actually, I believe he also mentioned it either in his original ME3 ending video, or in the Extended Cut rendition. End point is the same: he spends far too much time on meaningless details like this and less time on issues of actual narrative significance.

You're going to have to provide evidence of that, since i know he talks about the weapon animation issues in the vid i quoted. Watched it again because its hilarious.

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

No, I don't see the issue. It's not integral to the narrative. It's on the level of complaining about the switch over from overheating weapons to thermal clips. On the scale of lore, how guns fire occupies the very bottom tier. It's not a narrative issue, like how Shepard is brought back to life or Cerberus' sudden transition from bad to good to bad guy. These are actual issues to which the writers clearly focused attention on and should occupy our attention as well. The unlimited carnifex is a minor detail which has no narrative significance.

You spent the last two games loading a Carnifex with Thermal Clips and then suddenly, at the end, you're given one that you never have to reload and never overheats? Why couldn't i have this gun sooner? Why isn't every gun like this?

The reason this is brought up during discussions about the ending is because it stands out as a logical inconsistency. No, its got nothing to do with the plot itself but if the ending was simply all plot, no gameplay and was a MGS4 sized cutscene, there wouldn't be an issue. It is not comparable to the switch between ME1 and ME2 because even though it was stupid, at least there was some sort of explanation for it rather than getting to the Saren fight in ME1 and suddenly having TC's because reasons.

I agree that the Cerberus issue is stupid, but is more effectively covered by Archengia, and Smudboy states his displeasure regarding Lazarus in the ME3 vids as well as his ME2 vids. Its already been covered. Hes covering the ending section of the game, and this godly pistol appears when everything starts going stupid. I questioned it during my first playthrough, and hes right to bring it up in amoungst all the other crap that goes on.

It makes no logical sense.

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

See, now this is an issue of actual significance. And actually fuels the ending of the narrative.

Everything becomes an issue when there is the least bit of incoherence in the part in the game when you're meant to be making sense of everything the player has done.

Modifié par EnvyTB075, 15 novembre 2012 - 12:27 .

[BaladasDemnevanni]

EnvyTB075 wrote...

You're going to have to provide evidence of that, since i know he talks about the weapon animation issues in the vid i quoted. Watched it again because its hilarious.

No problem, but just to point out: him bringing it up in that video does not mean he did not bring it up in others. He actually takes the time to point out how much he hates the human Reaper in multiple videos, for example.

You spent the last two games loading a Carnifex with Thermal Clips and then suddenly, at the end, you're given one that you never have to reload and never overheats?

Indeed I was. I fired the gun, shrugged my shoulders, and kept going. If this was the biggest problem the Mass Effect 3 endings had, Bioware would have considered themselves lucky. I killed the three husks and the marauder and moved on.

The reason this is brought up during discussions about the ending is because it stands out as a logical inconsistency.

 
Logical inconsistency and nitpick are not mutually exclusive. Actually, quite the opposite, since nipticks are typically logical inconsistencies which are regarded as being so trivial as to not being worth scrutiny.

No, its got nothing to do with the plot itself but if the ending was simply all plot, no gameplay and was a MGS4 sized cutscene, there wouldn't be an issue. It is not comparable to the switch between ME1 and ME2 because even though it was stupid, at least there was some sort of explanation for it rather than getting to the Saren fight in ME1 and suddenly having TC's because reasons.

It's not comparable to anything. It was either an oversight by the designers or they simply didn't care and I doubt most people did either. As I said before, Mass Effect's focus at no point was on gun mechanics.
 
If Smudboy really wants to get into criticizing all the gameplay, he's going to need about a hundred different videos to sort through what exists in the codex vs. gameplay. Biotic entries for example tell us that Bioticis get tired out more quickly and require frequent rest/nourishment, but through all three games we watch Shepard, Kaidan, Jacob, whatever shoot off back to back biotics likes it's nothing. But I don't see Mass Effect being much improved, on any level, by having to watch Shepard chug energy bars. 

I agree that the Cerberus issue is stupid, but is more effectively covered by Archengia, and Smudboy states his displeasure regarding Lazarus in the ME3 vids as well as his ME2 vids. Its already been covered. Hes covering the ending section of the game, and this godly pistol appears when everything starts going stupid. I questioned it during my first playthrough, and hes right to bring it up in amoungst all the other crap that goes on.
 

This does not mean he is not nitpicking. Your post stated that you didn't understand how his criticisms could be seen as nitpicking. If someone has covered all of his sections, but handled them better, then there's really no point to Smudboy's videos. It's like complaining about a small cut on your leg when your arm's been completely blown off. I was here in the first week following ME3's launch, when the **** storm first launched. The last topic on everyone's minds was the infinitely reloading carnifex, of all things.

If Smud's goal was to be comprehensive, then he accomplished it. But that comes with a price, which is shown by the fact that some consider a comprehensive review to be unnecessary and pointless, and a very fair point to criticize his videos by.

It makes no logical sense.

As I said, people recognize that a nitpicks typically involve a logical inconsistency. That's part of their identity as nitpicks. But not all logical inconcsistencies are equal in importance.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 15 novembre 2012 - 12:42 .

[ABCoLD]

Sidenote on Nitpicks: There are major logical flaws and minor logical flaws and major narrative failures and minor ones and they're not all interconnected.

I'm watching his Bookends of Destruction Part 5 video and one of its original complaints is a valid one "How could Shepard survive a close encounter with a Sovereign-class Reaper's main cannon?" That's a valid point because it's not logically consistent within the game.

His second major problem was the mechanism of how the Bridge worked, this is actually a minor narrative flaw and is really a big nitpick as we've already accepted the existence of a similar device in the form of the conduit from the first game.

His third major problem was how the station rearranged itself. He tries to portray this as a major logical flaw, because we've never seen walls rearrange themselves before. bit ignores that this would be a relatively easy to achieve mechanical effect and doesn't need any special engineering.

So out of those, the first one is an actual criticism, the other two are nitpicks, imho. Of course in the case of the other two, it's because I can solve them with head-canon without hurting myself too badly.