crayonwarrior1

[crayonwarrior1]

Reviewing Random Stuff I Experienced So They Get Out Of My Head

Deadpool and Wolverine

I've never watched any X-Men movie (especially Logan), Deadpool movie, or any Fantastic Four movie (except that one that was newer and bad). That being said, I used to play the everloving shit out of Lego Marvel: Super Heroes, so I got the gist of it. The combination of buddy cop tropes and super hero movies works well, and Wolverine's genuine contempt for Deadpool is consistently funny. My only real critique is that the Thor joke set up towards the beginning of the film goes nowhere beyond a few callbacks. Overall, it's a very fun movie that's worth seeing.

Deadpool (2016)

After watching Deadpool and Wolverine and enjoying it so much, I decided to watch the original film. It was okay. I'm not a fan of sex in movies (if I wanted to watch smut, I'd watch porn), so the significant number of sex scenes and large amount of nudity really checked me out of the film. The rest of the film is somewhat decent, if not a little boring at times. Every superhero needs a backstory, and I suppose the exposition the movie provides is helpful to understand Deadpool, but superhero backstory movies are generally somewhat boring, and this film follows the trend. It's fine for what it is, but it's probably the worst Deadpool movie (but, I haven't seen Deadpool 2).

Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire

As someone who is certainly not a Ghostbusters fan, it was okay. I've wanted a cool ghost best friend ever since I watched that season of Ninjago where Cole gets turned into a ghost, and that feeling has definitely surged after watching the movie. The main villain looked genuinely cool, but I wish that they didn't ever show the villain closely in focus. Also, the pacing of the movie was definitely off. The main threat only really surfaced in the last 20 minutes of the film. Make the demon take up the second hour of the movie, and maybe it would be better.

DOOM (2005)

This movie is very confusing. Literally nothing happens in the first hour. The Rock is evil for no reason. There's this weird sibling dynamic between two characters that doesn't really matter. The final battle (and several before) are won by grenades (the famous weapon from the famous video game DOOM). The plot is very tangentially related to the game. The film follows a squad of marines instead of one strong one. Overall, it's nothing like the game, and it's not great, but there's worse action movies. It's fine for a mindless viewing.

Weird: The Al Yankovic Story

I've never seen a more dad movie in my life. It's very fun and very weird. I really can't say anything about it, because the plot is so wild. I imagine the Wikipedia page is a fun read, though.

[crayonwarrior1]

A 3 AM Rant On Difficulty In Video Games Written While I Take A Very Tired Shit

I think difficulty is such an interesting topic, primarily because it's changed so much over the past 40+ years, both in usage and necessity. Obviously, older video games had to be smaller, and so they were typically harder, but I also feel that they (generally) were not that much harder than the video games of today—people just sucked at them.

Mario Time

The NES classic Super Mario Bros has been beaten in under 5 minutes by more people than one from that time would expect (granted, the number's probably 0, but the point still stands). And, although only the best can legitimately beat it that fast, the game can still be beaten fairly easily by anyone with any platforming experience, and the amount of difficulty is not that much greater than Super Mario Wonder. In fact, most of the difficulty in the original Mario stems from knowledge—where to find the warp zones, which blocks have power-ups, and which pipes to take in 8-4. So, if someone who had a guide played the game, they would probably perform better than another person going in blind. The remaining difficulty largely stems from less even spikes in difficulty, which was a problem most games from this era faced, considering that their short length didn't allow for a more fleshed out build, similar to the ones seen in modern games. But, do those two qualify as difficulty in a traditional sense, or can they simply be explained away by poor level design that do nothing but add arbitrary challenge to the game? Am I a chump, or is Miyamoto a rat bitch?

What Is Difficulty?

I guarantee that practically nobody thought about this before, but there's a weirdly large number of answers to that question. For instance, take game knowledge. In The Legend of Zelda (the first one), most of the game consists of knowing what walls to bomb and where to go—pieces of knowledge that are almost never given to the player within the game itself. Is the game hard, because an unknowing player would have to guess at where to go? Or, is the game easy, because a player who paid for the strategy guide would instantly know where everything is and trivialize the game? If the player plays a modern port without the manual, they would have a disadvantage to a player who had read the manual. And, with the advent of the internet and the information age, it's easier than ever to just search for a solution, which turns every puzzle game into a mindless "monkey see, monkey do" simulator. To summarize, how does one factor in external knowledge?

Another example of the definition of difficulty varying is in settings. In Fortnite, there's an accessibility setting that displays the direction of all shots, footsteps, chests, and other noises. Some of these sounds would be so quiet otherwise that hearing them would be near impossible, and discerning the direction of the shot is even more unrealistic. The game is certainly easier with the setting enabled, but this setting is off by default (at least, it was, but they changed that in the last update). Or, for a more traditional example, Super Mario Odyssey (I promise I play more games than Nintendo games and Fortnite, but they help prove my point) has a mode called "Assist Mode" in which Mario is given six hearts instead of three. Obviously, that makes the game easier, but it's also obviously not the intended experience. The easiest example of this is any game with several difficulties. Which one is used to determine how hard a game is?

Furthermore, a third example is found in what is considered. Many games feature extra challenges not required to complete the game's main story. For instance, Persona 5 Royal has several secret boss fights that offer extra challenge for a reward. The game also consists of multiple endings. Some endings are easier to get than others, and whether or not a player chooses to fight Lavenza can change the game's difficulty significantly. Or, take an open world game like The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom. That game, much like its predecessor, can be beaten without completing certain story objectives. It makes the final boss fight much harder, but it's technically faster. Plus, that game has a lot of extra challenges to conquer that are not necessary to beat the game (much like every other open world game) (seriously though, I'm still not over that time I walked into a random room and had to fight 5 Lynels back-to-back). How does one consider optional challenges, multiple endings, and branching paths?

A fourth example is found in games that have no real ending. For instance, most simulator and sandbox games have no real conclusion, rather lasting until death or bankruptcy or perhaps infinitely. How do you define the difficulty of a game that doesnt end? How hard is Garry's Mod? Goat Simulator? Cities: Skylines? A big example that has been neglected until now is found in Minecraft. Yes, there is an ending, but it really isn't the point of the game. Many find enjoyment in Creative or Peaceful mode, or just building, farming, fishing, and experiencing the world rather than killing the dragon. How do you classify games that don't end or can be experienced without an ending?

The last example that I want to write about is player experience. Some people are just naturally good at video games, where others are bad. And, as video games continue to exist, people have more and more experience with them, which helps them tackle other games easier. For instance, in the 1980s, video games hadn't been popular for very long, and so people had less experience, and so they were, on average, worse than the average 2024 gamer. Plus, someone who plays a lot of games may have more experience in one genre than another. How do you factor in experience and skill into a difficulty rating?

In Conclusion

I don't know. The easiest answer is to just average out everybody's scores, and assume that the resulting number is fairly accurate for the average gamer playing on the normal difficulty doing average things. However, I still think that reviews and numbers don't matter more than general guidelines. Play what you want. This post only spawned because I still suck at Cuphead 7 years later and I'm salty about it, so don't listen to me.

[crayonwarrior1]

i was so wrong. oh god how could i be so wrong. joe hendry is going to appear to me in my sleep and strangle me with a pillow.

say what you will, but if i was murdered to any wwe theme song, it would definitely be dolph ziggler's. just real psychopath vibes coming from that song.

[crayonwarrior1]

i watched the weird al movie

first of all, what the fuck

there is no second point

[crayonwarrior1]

say what you will, but if i was murdered to any wwe theme song, it would definitely be dolph ziggler's. just real psychopath vibes coming from that song.

[crayonwarrior1]

My rankings of Wrestlemania 40 matches (from somebody who knows very little about wrestling)

DAY 1

Rhea Ripley vs Becky Lynch - 4.5/5 stars

I'm going to be honest, I really didn't know what this match would hold because I wasn't a big fan of woman's wrestling, but I would like to publicly say that I was wrong. It was too standard to go any higher than I rated it, but for what it was, it was brilliant.

Six-Pack Tag Team Ladder Match - 4/5 stars

I love a good match gimmick, and ladder matches are pretty much always great. Now, I can acknowledge that, from an objective standpoint, the match could've been handled significantly better in a few regards. First, it felt like not all 12 participants really played a role in the match, and so I feel like less people were necessary in the match. Second, the Smackdown titles were grabbed really quickly. I get that A-Town Down Under are supposed to be douche heels, but still, the match could've benefited from a few more minutes without a title being claimed. Third, it felt like New Catch Republic were doing work and got nothing, which was sad. So, why is it so high? One reason: I love The Awesome Truth. R-Truth got so many fun spots in the match, and I was cheering him on all the way. Also, although I knocked on the match, it was a fun match regardless and still was full of cool spots.

Rey Mysterio and Andrade vs Santos Escobar and Dominik Mysterio - 2.5/5 stars

Look, I like the Mysterios. But we already watched this match last Wrestlemania, and making it a tag match didn't nearly change enough to justify seeing it again. Yes, it was enjoyable. Yes, I didn't hate it. Yes, the interference from the Eagles players was enjoyable. But we really didn't need this match.

Jey Uso vs Jimmy Uso - 3/5 stars

When we get a Bloodline story match, a certain expectation of quality is held by the crowd. This match was short, mostly just kicks, and didn't really hit that Bloodline mark. Frankly, I was disappointed. But, the Usos always deliver a fun performance, and I was entertained for the (albeit short) duration of the match. Honestly, when I read that the two of them were facing off, I envisioned a spot in my head where they both superkick each other at the same time (I have literally no clue if it's been done before, but I think that would be dope). Also, Lil Wayne didn't really add much to Jey's intro, and, despite a certain commentator's remarks, he is not "the greatest rapper of all time".

Jade Cargill, Bianca Belair, and Naomi vs Damage CTRL - 3.5/5 stars

When I say that I know little about wrestling, this is a match where that fact is wholeheartedly applicable. What I will say is that this match, along with pretty much every other match so far (minus the first one) suffer from their short length. Because of the longer main event, the matches leading up to it don't really have time to fully develop. Also, I feel like this match would be better if I knew Jade considering that the match was essentially a squash match for her. It was a fun viewing experience, if not a little confusing at times.

Sami Zayn vs Gunther - 4.75/5 stars

This was a classic underdog match. One commentator (I forget which) compared the match to Rocky IV, and I think that was a big inspiration for the match. Sami Zayn's comeback was brilliant and awe-inspiring. The match was great, but it lacked that big surprise to promote it to five stars.

The Rock and Roman Reigns vs Cody Rhodes and Seth Rollins - 5/5 stars

If nothing else, this Wrestlemania had some of the best main events in history. The Rock's commands to the ref ("You count, you're fired.") really helped bring the long tag team match together, making it more like a no disqualification match than a standard tag team match. Cody and Seth both played great heroes, and Roman and Rock both played great villains. Unfortunately, the outcome was predictable in order to get Sunday's main event to be the match stipulation it was meant to be. But, it's a great match, and it really sets an excellent stage for the next main event.

DAY 2

Drew McIntyre vs Seth Rollins (plus Damian Priest vs Drew McIntyre) - 4/5 stars

Seth Rollins had an admirable showing after his beating the previous night, and although he lost, it was much closer than a lot of us (and Drew McIntyre) expected. Damian Priest's cash in was a favorite moment, especially considering McIntyre and CM Punk's feud and fight crescendoing into a cash in. Ultimately, you have to love a cash in.

The Street Profits and Bobby Lashley vs The Final Testament - 3.5/5 stars

The match was very standard in structure for a match, with heel domination, a flip, and the heroes defeating the villains in the end. It was fine, but it really felt like a match that solely existed for Bubba Ray Dudley to referee and ultimately assist in defeating The Final Testament. I like the Dudleys, but I wish that a bigger focus would be placed on the actual talent. Also, I'm not really sure why Snoop Dogg was involved with the commentary other than the advertisement. It just felt random. And all the marijuana jokes really took away from the match and weren't funny. Sorry, Snoop.

LA Knight vs AJ Styles - 4.25/5 stars

LA Knight's rise to popularity is meteoric, and his first Wrestlemania match didn't disappoint. I do wish that the match was fleshed out more, but LA Knight beat AJ Styles. Who can argue with results? Both wrestlers had a good showing, and the crowd was invested throughout. It's not going to be a classic, but it was very enjoyable for what it was. Also, why was LA Knight a sellout to Slim Jim at the beginning? It just seemed odd for the egotistical narcissistic personality of LA Knight to bow down to the corporate masters of beef jerky.

Logan Paul vs Kevin Owens vs Randy Orton - 4/5 stars

I'm about to say something that may be seen as controversial. I like Logan Paul. I think that the man plays a great heel, and that he's been playing a great heel since he made his YouTube channel all those years ago. Frankly, though, I'm not really a Kevin Owens fan. He's just not really original in any aspect. Pretty much all of his moves are just moves from other wrestlers. And, although I like Randy Orton, he's getting older, and I'm sorry, but I don't think he should really have a US Championship run at this point in his career. Speed's role in the match was entertaining, and Logan Paul really sold his character well, but I just wasn't fully invested in the participants, so it fell on deaf ears.

Bayley vs Iyo Sky - 3/5 stars

This match probably deserved more stars than what I've given it. But, by this point in the show, I was just falling asleep. I don't know if it was the match's fault or my own poor sleep schedule coming back to haunt me, but it just failed to engage me fully. I'm giving it 3 stars because the crowd seemed engaged and what little wrestling I could stomach was good.

Cody Rhodes vs Roman Reigns - 10/5 stars

I'm not joking with that review. This is genuinely, in my uninformed opinion, the greatest match ever wrestled. The pacing, the story, the interference from other wrestlers, and everything else was perfect or nearly perfect. If you didn't watch Wrestlemania and somehow stumbled upon my 0 follower Tumblr account, go watch this match now. Don't search anything else. Don't even finish this review. You'll lose it, I promise. Now, for those of us that have seen it, my only real note was that I wished Dean Ambrose would've joined Seth Rollins in his Shield entrance, but he's a AEW guy, so I get why that wouldn't happen. Other than that, though, the match is perfect.

OVERALL - 4.75/5 stars

This Wrestlemania felt like it suffered from success with its main events in the sense that, because they were so long with so much star power, every other match was overshadowed heavily and many matches felt far too short. But, for being the first Wrestlemania of the "Paul Levesque era" (Stephanie McMahon said that), it was exceptional, and it really started the show and sent the viewer home every night with a bang. It gets so many kudos for those main events, even if other matches weren't quite up to snuff. Overall, I think I speak for WWE fans everywhere when I say that I'm excited for more Triple H writing.

[crayonwarrior1]

The True Love Triangle

people always tell me that a love triangle is when 2 characters fight for the affections of a third character. that's not a triangle. what you've described is a love angle, as pictured below.

a love angle. note the lack of a third side.

in an actual love triangle all 3 people in involved must be attracted to each other. that way, the triangle has three sides. yknow, like a triangle tends to do. check this out:

a real love triangle. note the three sides and gays

so. what does this teach us as a society?

a real love triangle must always end in polyamory

a love triangle HAS to be bisexual.

tvtropes has been lying to us

the only true love triangles are between gay mormons. QED

[crayonwarrior1]

truth

don't nobody mess with the big man

[crayonwarrior1]

be honest. fuck marry kill biden trump obama

fuuuuck man. uhhh fuck trump for the payout marry obama (duh) kill biden probably

[crayonwarrior1]

Tumblr

what the heck, let's get this thing freakin viral