Boss battles in the traditional bullet-hell Sonic/Megaman sense are getting tiresome, and usually don't work in the majority of games. Don't get me wrong, there's a time and place for them. But unless they serve a purpose beyond simply challenging the player they come across as nothing more than difficult…

It's hilarious. Principle Skinner calls Ralph up on stage and Ralph runs up screaming "I won, I won!". The principle tells him that he didn't win and hands Ralph his report card. Ralph reads it and after a moment utters the above gem.

It's a classic Ralph Wiggum quote.

Red Dead Redemption does exactly what you're talking about, only in a split second. Your interpretation of a boss battle in one very particular kind of boss battle (a tired and widely used one); some are epic Dark Souls-esque monsters that will mash you to a pulp, others are lightning QTEs, while others are dialogue…

Boobsplosion?

It seems like it's all people compare to in the fantasy realm. It's not that Game of Thrones is bad; it's just a very particular kind of fantasy that if anything is closer to alternative historical fiction than, say, the Guy Gavriel Kay books or Across the Nightingale Floor.

Why is every fantasy product these days compared to Game of Thrones? This isn't a socio-political War of the Roses simulator; it's about a turned-based strategy combat game featuring a band of pseudo-Vikings.

In repetition, maybe. But it's not very credible to not get that kind of response from someone who's just killed someone with their bare hands.

I thought the next two were definite improvements across the board. And Red Dead Redemption has some absolutely phenomenal writing, courtesy of Dan Houser.

There are sites where you can watch that, but you have to be at least 19 to enter.

Meh. It's fun to see a truly unhinged character sometimes. The only predictable quality about him was that he'd do some completely ludicrous and unpredictable, which made him generally enjoyable (in measured doses).

What can I say? I don't hate (or even dislike) a lot of stuff. But trailer-voice guy just rubs me the wrong way. No idea why.

Short answer: yes.

Ideally none. If marketing wasn't so ham-fisted and the audience majority could find it in themselves to focus on the screen more, we wouldn't need overwrought Michael Bay-trailer nonsense in a ton of trailers that don't need it.

Neither, actually. The virtual representation I've chosen is a self-referential recognition of personal imperfection, popular appearance, and the paradox of certain approaches to life.

Dislike in general isn't a very rational thing; as is trying to rationalize and compartmentalize the dislikes of others. You made a choice responding to my comment, and I made a choice complaining about studio pseudo-marketing involvement in my program.

From the studio that brought you 'Honey Boo Boo Child' ... comes a riveting story of hope in which a family of simple, obese Americans ... make fart noises and unplanned pregnancy jokes ... that will move you to tears ... of laughter.

Because I don't need Mr. Allegedly-Epic-Voiced telling me that every time I start Breaking Bad or what have you. It has the subtlety and sophistication of a jackhammer.

And the voice. It's not a perfect rendition of the trailer guy, but the point comes across well. It's funny because of how stupid this kind of trailer will look in a decade or two (and how stupid it already looks).

They're funny because of how close they are to the real thing.