#(because i am not good at video games)

[vaguely-concerned]

on the one hand I think inner demons could stand to have a bit more romanced rook specific content, but on the other hand the underlying in-built implication that 'yours is the one true voice of comfort and safety in my inner world' is a sentiment and intimacy so way beyond the romantic or the platonic or any secret third thing you could care to name that it makes me lose my entire poor little mind a bit. it's so big and fundamental — near-existential — that in that exact moment at least the distinctions kind of seem irrelevant.

all the people lucanis' mind conjures up along the way are relationships he has that are unavoidably mixed and fraught in some ways even when they're also full of love (they are fraught BECAUSE they're full of love) — the good in them inseparable from things that hurt him at the same time. (it's about: the basic disorganized attachment patterns this poor guy is dragging around with him. careful with those, they're dellamorte heirlooms. what you love also inevitably hurts you and you won't be allowed to have one without the other, you have to surrender parts of your soul to hold on to what little you have left: this is the story up until now.) and the idea that rook isn't that to him — that beneath the fear of wanting them when romanced (which is more its own separate thing because within this psychology, actively wanting something and not just clinging on for dear life to even a meager status quo lest you lose it is in itself dangerous bordering on catastrophic), this is a relationship where there isn't resentment, or guilt, or shame, or dread, or rage, or self-hate, or any of the other emotions that keep him paralyzed, unable to move this way or that. no debts, nothing owed of yourself and your soul's substance except what you can freely and safely and happily give. love and freedom don't coexist — but, I mean, you're almost starting to make me think........... unless...👀👀👀. the unconditional and undramatic 'you are here and I am here with you, you can be exactly how you are right now with me and it's safe for us both even though you're afraid it won't be, I'm not going anywhere' acceptance rook shows him here that he returns to them in the big romance scene, when it's rook who needs it. the way he's just. standing there in the center of it all, like a child desperately helplessly waiting to be found, hiding in the place he hopes you'll know to look first. (rook does know. it's one of the first things they say in there.)

in short the most important room in his little mind palace for the romance is the very first room — the one where rook isn't. where, in fact, rook cannot be, because they disprove the entire structure of the place with their existence and presence in his life. with everyone else he's putting words in their mouths about what they think of him, and rook is the one who actually gets to come in to speak their own words to him — and have him listen. ('he'll listen to you, he always listens to you', 'your voice is a comfort'.) of course rook isn't present anywhere else in there — at the risk of stating the obvious to a tedious degree, they aren't one of the locks, they're bringing the key. in the very finest 'the messenger and the message' sort of way.

[poorly-drawn-mdzs]

A new challenger approaches (slowly)

[First] Prev <–-> Next

[pheroyyay]

i have 2 confess sometimes i quite like dapg as an actual gaming channel because the sheer nonchalance and whimsy with which they approach every game they play makes me remember that actually you can play games however you want. and its okay because the point of them is to have fun and not to follow a certain set of rules that make you 'officially good'

[myokk]

first dada class😳✨

[mod2amaryllis]

*said from deep within my bunker with a sniping rifle trained at the door* sometimes it feels like "cozy games" is just code for "girl games"

[lunarharp]

played dragon age 2...just simple scribbles

[autumnal-rains]

Tell the Two Fingers, That Ranni the Witch cometh, to rend thy flesh

[frobby]

rin 1000000% has a list somewhere of things hes good at that yukio is bad at

[rubbish78]

Team X cutaway scene in X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009 Video Game)

[moonlitwintersky]

Sam's left hand

I've seen people talk about how Sam keeps looking at his hands at the beginning of each Game Changer episode, but as the season progresses I get the impression that he puts more and more emphasis on his left hand as he says "I've been here the whole time".

Which I think is interesting considering his left hand is very prominently featured in the Game Changer Season 6 poster.

And I find it suspicious how he's featured wearing a ring in the poster but doesn't wear one in the show. Now, I checked some videos and he seems to not be wearing it even before this season and he could have taken it off for many reasons (which is obviously not mine or anyone's business) but with each intro he keeps showing his left hand more and more prominently… and I can't shake it off.

Edit: I just realized he's looking at his hand in the poster.

[cows1012]

some doodles for this daemon au fic which has had a legitimately concerning grip on my mind!! 

[beeangxt]

just found out there was going to be a stranger things video game made by telltale tf

[trappedinafantasy37]

I was in the middle of making a shitpost mocking my own hypocrisy as I criticize good only players even though I do the same thing. But it made me realize an interesting commonality between good and evil only players. For some context, here is my original shitpost that I decided to turn into an essay:

Good only players: I just can't be evil or mean. I don't like it when NPC's are sad.

Me: Pfft, pathetic. They're not real, you can't hurt their feelings.

Also me: *commits numerous moral atrocities cause I don't like it when Minthara (an NPC) is sad*

This is a very common sentiment amongst good only players of being unable to do evil playthroughs or make choices that are less than neutral. The emotions and feelings of NPC's does matter to them and evil choices could hurt these NPC's. And this is something a lot of evil only players, including myself, tend to scoff at and belittle good only players for doing. Well, good only players, I am going to humbly apologize for this specific judgement because I realize you and I are not all too different. (Don't worry, I am still going to judge you in general, just not for this). Good only and evil only players both actually do care about the feelings of pixels and NPC's and made up characters, it is just that good only players and evil only players have different criteria for determining which NPC's to care about.

The biggest distinction between which NPC's to care about is the line that separates good and evil alignment (in terms of DnD, not real world moral principles). Good alignment puts the collective over the individual. So good only players are looking at everyone and everything and seeing that they are all important and that no one singular life takes precedence over hundreds of others. That an NPC's mere existence is enough to make good only players care, no matter how insignificant or useless the NPC is. Evil alignment puts the individual over the collective. Where evil only players really only care about what is right in front of them and that an NPC simply existing does not mean they are owed attention or sympathy. That someone has to be significant to an evil only player in order for them to care. This isn't to say that good only players don't care for the individual and evil only don't care for the collective, it is merely a matter of priority.

A big criticism evil only players tend to get is that we are often called heartless or uncaring, but that isn't true, at least not to the extent good only players claim. Evil only players do care about NPC's, but have a much more narrow set of NPC's they care about. Using me as an example, I care about Minthara (an NPC). And I make certain choices in the game because I genuinely do not want her to be sad or upset. And it does not bother me that the grove has to pay the price because to me they are insignificant, unimportant, and I have no reason to put them over Minthara. Slaughtering the grove makes her happy, but it also is the start of her character arc where she realizes something is wrong. This does not mean I make every single possible evil decision or that I murder everyone on sight. Yes, sometimes I do murder, sometimes I do kill cause it makes her laugh and smile. But sometimes, I do ignore her because sometimes her suggestions are not good for her. And although I want her happy, her long term happiness is my end goal, not temporary satisfaction. The NPC that factors into my decision making is her and her only.

Whereas good only players are the opposite. Even if they did care about Minthara, they also care about the grove. And the collective that is the grove is more important than a single companion. It is why most of them just knock her out because it is the best of both worlds. But a handful do kill Minthara because in Act 1, she is a threat to the grove and her life is not more important than the grove to them. They are willing and able to live without that one special Act 1 scene, because one singular scene truly does not have the same value as all the scenes they'd miss if they killed the grove. One companion does not have the same value as all the NPC's and the companions they'd lose by raiding the grove. And I'll bet many good only players just ignore her murdery suggestions. It isn't cause they don't care about her, but because the people she wants them to kill are just as important to them. For good only players, they factor in all NPC's at the same time, and will overrule the singular NPC who acts against the rest.

But Minthara isn't the only one, I do the same for a lot of the other companions as well. Where I care more about them, than any perceived benefit that an outside group would get. For example, in all my playthroughs, there were only 2 where I became Absolute (both embrace Durge runs). Most of the time, I destroy the brain. Not because I want to save the world, but because I did not want to subject my friends to the cruelty of the Absolute. The world benefiting is just a consequence of a choice born of selfish reasons. A good only player also cares about their friends, but they are also thinking of the world. To them, saving the world is more important and their friends being saved is a consequence of living in that world.

Same when it comes to Shadowheart's Dark Justiciar choice. I care more about her than I care about whatever happens to Last Light. Sometimes I have her embrace Shar, other times I have her reject Shar, it really depends on what I am role-playing. I don't care about the Nightsong, I don't care that Last Light gets saved or not, and I do not care about the morality of the choice. I care about Shadowheart and only Shadowheart in this instance and outside NPC's do not factor into my decision (even when I have her reject Shar). But to good only players, not only is Shadowheart important, but so is the Nightsong and so is Last Light.

I feel like a lot of people misunderstand what evil in RPG's look like and perceive it as murder and only murder. That you're just an asshole and spit in people's faces and live to make NPC's cry all the time. No, that is comically evil (which I refer to as Chaotic stupid). Evil is just as nuanced and complex as goodness, and it isn't defined by murder (because sometimes, even good aligned characters kill too). Sometimes evil is selfishness, which doesn't always result in death or murder, although it often does. One does not need to kill to be selfish. But sometimes, selfishness can indirectly lead to deaths, even though you quite literally did nothing. Sometimes, evil means putting one's own personal benefit over the collective benefit. But acting solely for one's personal benefit does not necessarily result in harm to the collective because sometimes the collective can still benefit from someone being selfish.

[icewindandboringhorror]

I've referenced before how I have a big google document to keep track of every media I've ever seen in my entire life (just for reference because I like to track everything possible lol… I am the Data Collector), but recently as I was updating it, I thought of actually evaluating them to find out random percentages (like for example, out of Total Shows Watched, what percentage did I finish vs. stop watching, what percentage did I like or dislike, etc.)...

Evaluating these things is made easier by the fact that I already place everything on each subsection of the list into 6 broad ranking categories, so I don't have to go back and guess to figure out how I feel about them or anything. The categories are: Ranking 5 - overall best* (despite some criticisms of course because I'm too much of an Analyzer to ever find anything Perfect lol) Ranking 4 - more positive than neutral, but not good enough to be 5 Ranking 3 - either the good + bad negate each other, OR it's just not memorable/interesting in any way enough to be ranked higher or lower (this is the Default category ALL things are placed in if no other rank applies) Ranking 2 - maybe a few redeemable elements but largely more negatives than positives Ranking 1 - So bad that it circles around to being fascinating to observe in some way (not necessarily Funny, or Good, but just interesting somehow) Ranking 0 - Bad in a genuinely frustrating or obnoxious manner

*("best" primarily defined here as most interesting, rather than most good in a technical sense, or some other measure. I tend to value more highly whether there's something novel or thoughtful about the worldbuilding, tone, writing, base premise, etc - than about whether it's actually executed perfectly.)

And here's the amount of shows that have so far been placed into each category -

TV shows ~ Rank 5 (highest) - 20 shows ~ Rank 4 (mid-high) - 28 shows ~ Rank 3 (neutral/default/meh) - 114 shows ~ Rank 2 (mid low) -33 shows ~ Rank 1 (low low but intriguingly so) - 14 shows ~ Rank 0 (iredeemably low) - 2 shows

This would make for a total of 211 TV shows overall. However, there are 57 shows within these list marked as "didn't finish" (typically meaning I quit on the very first or second episode - but log them still to keep a record that I at least had a brief view of them).

So my total of genuinely fully watched shows would be more 154. 211 Total, but a More Accurate Total of 154.

Counting them all and using the Total Number Of The List (211) -- that means roughly 9.5% of all total shows I have ever watched (or at least attempted to watch) have been Mostly Good, 13% have been Moderately Okay, 54% have been either entirely Forgettable or some mix of good + bad that lands them right in the Neutral Middle, 15.6% have been Mostly Bad, 6.6% have been Bad (but in an interesting way), and 0.9% have been Terribly Bad.

Additionally, I didn't even get past the first two episodes of about 27% of the total.

Sooo, discounting ones I didn't finish, my total TV shows ever watched in my life would be about 154 (maybe give or take a few, assuming I might have forgotten some from very long ago).

But instead of entire life, let's just say this is the total for 'About 20 Years' (so, not counting very early childhood when I likely wouldn't remember things I saw/have no detailed recollection of them (like for example, I'm sure at some point when I was like 4yrs old I must have seen an episode of Spongebob or something, but I have zero distinct memories of it, can't quote anything of it, and barely recall the premise - so I don't count it on the list, etc.)).

In that case, 154 divided by 20 would be roughly 7.7 shows a year.

Which is actually surprisingly low considering that I often have stuff on in the background for hours whilst I make sculptures and do costumes and stuff (maybe I should have also marked some distinction between 'things I fully paid attention to' and 'things I kind of half listened to whilst sculpting', but that would further split the categories too much probably lol), but I guess a lot of that is youtube videos or random documentaries, so .. eh.. maybe I get it being lower.

Now, doing the same thing for movies-

Movies ~ Rank 5 (highest) - 4 movies (3.4% of total) ~ Rank 4 (mid-high) - 12 movies (10.3% of total) ~ Rank 3 (neutral/default/meh) - 91 movies (78.4% of total) ~ Rank 2 (mid low) - 8 movies (6.8% of total) ~ Rank 1 (low but interesting) - 1 movie (0.8% of total) ~ Rank 0 (irredeemably low) - none in this category (0%)

That makes 116 for a Total (Actually Remembered) Movies Watched In Lifetime (Or At Least In 20 Years).

116 divided by 20 is roughly 5 or 6 movies a year (I feel this has probably been skewed though by adding everything since like elementary school onwards, as I remember a lot more movies from child/teen years.. Whereas, the past 3 years I feel like I've barely seen maybe even 5 movies?? lol). I also have "Didn't Finish" marked on 18 of them. Which means I quit halfway through about 15% of the total movies.

So, a for broader summary stuff..

I seem to be less forgiving to movies than tv shows, by far. Which makes sense to me, I guess, because I love elaboration and details, so "short form" things that only last an hour or two are often lost on me a bit. My biggest complaint with movies is indeed usually walking away just wishing there had been more exposition, more scenes where characters are doing nothing, more "mindless bantering" conversations, more Quiet Downtime and Lore Elaboration and so on lol, so... of course most 1-2hr films end up feeling a bit Not Enough To Draw My Interest/Nothingy to me.

If you count 5 and 4 as "like" and rankings 2 to 0 as "dislike", then for TV shows I at least somewhat liked 48 of them, and at least somewhat disliked 47 of them.. So it's almost exactly the same lol. I'm just about equally as likely to find something bad as I am to find something redeeming about it. But overall, the largest chance is that I just won't really care much for it at all and it will be tossed into the 'neutral' pile, forgotten forever. Movies have a bit better of a balance, "liking" 16 of them, and "disliking" only 9 of them. So I'm slightly more likely to enjoy a movie than to find it annoying - though still VASTLY more likely to just not find it anything in particular, possibly not even finishing it.

ANYWAY.. this is vague and literally pointless, but like I said, I just really find information fun. Like my document where I've rated every apple flavor I've ever tried (like 40 of them now?), or reviewed every oreo flavor (32?), or ranking data from my entire 10 years of Trying To Make Friends process (out of 100 people, roughly 8% chance of a moderate compatibility, 3% chance of high), or etc. etc.. I love to have random pointless things to analyze I suppose lol.

I doubt anyone tracks things in their life in this same exact way, but I'd be interested in hearing any at least somewhat similar data !!! (like, how many TV shows you watch a year on average, and what percentage of those you like vs. dislike (if you keep track of that sort of thing), etc.)). I guess it might be easier with movies, since I think some people use those websites where you curate a list of movies you've seen and you can rate them or something, so maybe the numbers are already available on those places. :0

[cosmicallybound]

S h e survived because the f i r e inside burned b r i g h t e r than the fire around her.

#goddessrisen [ . . . ] an indie and highly selective blog for an original character. the study of godhood and rebirth. what growth is to some is a grotesque metamorphosis to others. change is a necessary process, but what monstrosities are left in its wake ? ?

adored by luna. 18+ content ahead, kindly read the rules before interacting

Credit

[frenchy-and-the-sea]

There is a very exquisite agony in playing a game you love so so so so so much, and realizing that one of the other players is trying to play a totally different game than you.