#AND BASED ON HOW METAPHOR TALKED ABOUT HER PLAYTHROUGH | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

thechekhov · 4 years

Note

So glad you decided to play Undertale! I think it would really suit you so I’m so happy you got into it! Could I have your thoughts about the game? I would LOVE to hear them. I’m ALL for long essays and rants, that’s my jam, but even just a small review from you would make me ecstatic!

Alright alright alright alright.

I am ecstatic that someone asked because I have a lot to say AS ALWAYS.

I’m gonna try to keep this readable, I swear. Will add pictures in between to keep things interesting.

However, due to the length this will SURELY achieve, AND due to spoilers (and yes, laugh at me all you want, the game has been out for 5 years) I’ll put this under a cut. Read at your own (f)risk.

Metagaming - the game plays YOU

When I first started Undertale, I ‘knew’ these things:

there’s a stabby one with a knife, their name is chara

there’s a flower everyone hates

something something sans something something

and the last, and perhaps most important thing

you can spare your enemies to avoid killing them

The thing is. The THING IS.

I did not realize how pervasive this strategy was. My thought at first was��‘okay, so I don’t have to kill EVERYONE.’

I had no idea that the reality was that I didn’t have to kill anyone.

I’m sure many others have already said this, but Undertale kind of changes the way you think about other games. It forces to you examine simply fighting your way through the RPG by introducing completely non-murder-y ways to resolve issues. This conversation-based combat style is not the first of its kind, I’m sure, but it’s also incredibly well done. It ties into the story, it ties into your decisions.

It ties into your decisions SO MUCH that it changes everything else in the outcome.

Undertale is a game well known for breaking the 4th wall. However, it does so in a strangely eerie, heart-wrenchingly real way. It teaches us that there are other solutions to conflicts - and it really... it really TEACHES us, you know?

Which is funny because to be honest, it took me a while to get the lesson.

(You may already be fully aware of this but yes, my first True Neutral Route was extremely organic. I legitimately had no idea that there was even more than one ending. I was just stumbling about er... killing. Out of habit.)

The beauty of this is that the game drives home that point even more effectively because I was fully unaware of my own bias. I had assumed that some enemies would require killing - DESPITE TORIEL SPECIFICALLY TELLING ME TO TALK TO THEM, and the entire Ruins tutorial being about Mercy. I killed the Dummy on accident (granted, it was due to me pressing the key too fast a few times) and didn’t think much of Toriel’s disapproval. I killed a few monsters because I saw my level was low and decided to automatically grind a little bit.

By the time I got to Toriel, I was still not comfortable with the mechanic. I knew I could Spare her somehow - after all, she was a kind monster, and clearly an important character - but the Spare option didn’t yield promising results the first few times I chose it. I ran out of patience and decided that maybe... maybe it was like pokemon!

Maybe I had to get her health down to a certain level before she would allow me to pass through.

Funny thing though.... you know what happens if you attack Toriel one too many times? Even if she has most of her health left?

Yeah uh... it activates that one-hit-KO thing from No Mercy Route.

So of course, what happened? I hit her one too many times... and killed her! And of course, immediately panicked and reset.

I got back to my previous save, Spared Toriel PROPERLY this time, and walked out of the ruins only to be confronted with my own reliance on the magical ‘redo’ button which was... apparently... not that magical.

Because it WASN’T a clean redo. Flowey apparently remembered.

The idea that the game would KNOW about my previous attempts beyond the save file snapped me out of my casual Undertale playthrough. I realized that something was up - this game was not going to be like the others.

I think it was from this point on that I tried to be more careful, but again - I still hadn’t quite gotten the memo about not killing. I took down a few monsters around Snowdin. And when I got to Papyrus, I grew frustrated about not being able to beat him (I ended up losing several times and coming back to try again) and went off to grind SOME MORE because I figured that could raise my HP and increase my chances of holding off long enough to Spare him.

(The incredible thing about this game is that actually, raising your level gives you only a slight advantage. You can be level 1 and carrying no items, and as long as you’re relatively proficient at dodging the bullet hell style projectiles you will have no issues.)

Anyway, the point is that I realized I could spare the big monsters and did so readily - but I didn’t bother to spare many of the smaller ones.

I figured it didn’t matter.

And then I successfully evaded Undyne, gave her a cup of water, etc... and then went to her house to meet Papyrus, fully expecting her to befriend me anyway.

And you know what happened?

“She said she won’t hang out with a murderer.“

I think that probably hit me the hardest at that point in the game.

I had a bit ‘....oh’ moment at that point because I realized that the game would punish me for killing even the ‘not-important’ civilians of the Underground. It wasn’t about just sparing the ‘boss monsters’. My actions had consequences beyond just the ‘elite’ characters that we all tend to focus on.

Because yes, it made sense. It wasn’t about just Undyne - why WOULD she randomly be my friend after I killed tons of living beings?

From there on, I spared everyone, but didn’t reset. I decided to see how it would unravel.

The thing I want to talk about, which is a little difficult, is that...

It took me that long to learn that kindness was the answer. And that, in itself, ends up being a metaphor.

It’s difficult to be kind if you have not been show how to be.

It’s difficult to change the way you behave (in a game or out of it) if all you know is using other methods.

It was hard enough to spare Toriel before I realized I had to just be very patient and trust that her attacks wouldn’t hit - though at first I thought she would just kill me!

It was hard to avoid Papyrus’ attacks and I had to die several times before I successfully got through it.

It was near impossible to fight Undyne because I legitimately had no idea Fleeing was an option. I struggled for ages at her stage, and I had to ask for help to understand what I could do.

And that’s actually honestly very true to life as well.

Being kind takes risk. Being kind takes effort. And sometimes, being kind means asking others HOW to be kind.

When you choose to be kind, you risk being hurt, and you risk being trapped (Toriel). When you choose to be kind, you need to expand a lot more energy to succeed (Papyrus). When you choose to be kind, you need to sometimes reach out to others to show you how to properly do it (Undyne).

The rest of the playthrough probably went about as you expect. I completed the game, didn’t kill any Boss Monsters, fought to the end and... got that really unsatisfying Neutral Ending which felt strangely bittersweet.

And of course, after I was done, I was prompted to go back and do a proper Pacifist Run. Which I did. I learned about the background of Determination, about Chara and Asriel... and about how everything came to be the way it was.

The thing that gets me the most about this game is how it serves as a direct parallel to how we use videogames. In fact, Undertale is a videogame... about videogames.

Chara appears to be a direct metaphor for the people that use videogames to escape - to cope with whatever happened to them in The Overworld. Bad family life, or bad relationships or whatever we suffer - escapism through games is not, in itself, a new theme.

Chara arrived in Undertale by dropping themself down a hole in the mountain, perhaps even seeking to end their life. They dropped into a world which offered them comfort and companionship, a new family and a new life - but in the end, their nature was destructive because their means to finding a solution inadvertently used other people as fodder. Asgore, Asriel - they used everyone else to complete their plans. It wasn’t about forming connections - it was about Completing the Quest.

I wonder - did Chara even HAVE access to a MERCY option?

Was their world one without the option of sparing someone? Did they only have the choice of acting - and was Mercy in the hands of whoever attacked them? I wonder how difficult it might have been for them. I wonder how that, in itself, shaped their perception of the world.

I wonder if that’s why, during the No Mercy run, people recognize you as Chara? If they come back and attach themselves to your resonating DETERMINATION?

If this is true, was MERCY perhaps created later, brought into existence once Asriel himself made the choice to NOT fight, to turn back and flee, even after being attacked by humans in the Overworld?

(It would be a nice parallel to Asgore DESTROYING the Mercy option when you enter the fight with him...)

...

In the end, I think Undertale is about many things, including video games.

But it’s also hurting - and being hurt.

It’s about how trauma can shape us, how we deal with feeling grief, and loss, and depression - and not being able to feel anything.

It’s about how we focus on goals and use DETERMINATION to keep going - even when whatever it is that’s driving us no longer has any SOUL.

It’s about how our action have consequences, but they also carry the weight of a choice, and how powerful those choices are, and how powerless we feel when we aren’t given a choice - not to fight back, nor show mercy.

I think that’s probably the reason this game resonated with so many people. It really brings something we love about videogames to the forefront - that ability to fight back, to have full and total control of our own lives...

And it also shows us how having that endless loop of repetitive grinding and fighting with zero consequences can lead to an incredible hollowness and make us numb to how we interact with real-life people.

Anyway.

Good game.

#Anonymous #undertale #flowey #toriel #frisk #chekhov draws undertale #chekhov writes a text post

950 notes · View notes

mybg3notebook · 3 years

Text

Gale Summarised Analysis

Disclaimer Game Version: All these analyses were written up to the game version v4.1.104.3536 (Early access). As long as new content is added, and as long as I have free time for that, I will try to keep updating this information. Written in May 2021.

The majority of sources used for this article are in the game itself (this includes my Gale-solo playthroughs as well as a combination of the videos by munmomuu and selphie1999), and the few dev’s notes provided by pjenn. Gale as origin is not taken into account since it’s not finished and has little to none Gale-related content. There will be little datamining content as well since pjenn said the game contained almost no gale-related notes (only in the Weave and in the Revelation scene).

Additional disclaimers about meta-knowledge and interpretations in (post)

The number between brackets [] represents the topic-block related to (this post), which gathers as much evidence as I could get.

We can infer about Gale by analysing what he approves and disapproves of. Sometimes, we can even lightly infer some information from his neutral reactions, but let’s be honest: this way of analysing a char is pretty poor since it leaves everything to speculation. Neutral reactions can only be analysed, in very rare instances, by contrasting the same situation in other contexts, and seeing what other options Gale approves or disapproves of. With these considerations in mind, we can proceed to describe this character.

Disclaimer: this is a meta with my personal interpretation of the character, sticking as much as possible to the facts and leaving little to “desires” or “projections” of what I want him to be. If I do so, I will state it explicitly in the text for the sake of analysis honesty. I want to be clear about what is canon (facts shown in bg3 EA), from what’s personal interpretation with little proof.

Understanding Gale (integrated text)

We are none of us monsters. We are merely hatcheries for monstrous things. So we fight them

---Gale

Collecting most of the information provided in-game, we know he has a cat, a Library, and writes poetry sometimes. One of the first things that Gale will reveal is that he is a private person. He easily and clearly sets boundaries from the first moment, showing Tav where they stand. The second aspect he makes us aware of is his pragmatic thinking and his preference for diplomatic approaches. A third aspect that stands out on its own: he is a very verbose person, maybe as a result of his academia background in combination with his poetry hobby. He also has a bad posture when talking, but I’m not sure if this is intentional or a bug.

We can assure that Gale certainly is a man of the city [13], and may have a decent social status. It's impossible to say for sure if it's noble or rich or both, or it is just a natural consequence of being a wizard scholar: he is frustrated by the harshness of the camping life, he misses the civilisation of the city which offers well cooked meals, soft beds, and scented baths. Not by chance he is the only companion in the group who would approve of giving Oskar 200 gold to fight “the discomforts of the road” [13]. However, he adapts. Despite the lack of luxuries, he managed to survive in the wilderness.

Gale and his link with magic is unquestionable. Magic is life for Gale, metaphorically and literally speaking since it's magic what allows him to stay alive despite the "orb" in his chest. If we talk about Magic, we have to talk about Mystra and the Weave. The Weave is not only the embodiment of Mystra, it's an extension of Mystra herself. It extends across many planes of existence and is in almost all parts of Faerûn. By dragging power from it, Magic can be performed.

Mystra, for lore reasons and conjectures that I will discuss in the post "Mystra and her Chosen ones", turned teenager/young adult Gale into one of her Chosen, making their relationship more intimate and granting Gale a deeper access to the Weave. This put Gale into the category of an archwizard. It's clear that Gale was and still is a devotee of Mystra, which could give us a hint of his alignment since she is a neutral good goddess and she expects for her Chosen to align around it.

Gale likes confidence, in others and in himself. He is confident in his looks (he has described himself as a “handsome devil” and answered during the romance/Revelation scene that he knew he was beautiful under the light as well as Tav). But beyond these two lines, qualifying him as a narcissist seems extreme. He is surely very confident about his knowledge, and we see he is not just mere words: his Mind Flayer knowledge is at the the same level of what githyankis know. If we compare how Astarion/Tav struggled with the book of Thay, and then we see how Gale manages it (sadly the scene is not complete yet in EA, and there is almost no datamining info of Gale), we can conclude once more that his knowledge and power of the mind are real (he is, so far, the main companion who allows us to explore the lore of the game in a deeper way during his conversations). We also know it's a bit more complicated to intrude into his mind using the tadpole because he has knowledge and mental tools to protect himself (check the post about the Tadpole inside Gale). He is certainly a very verbose and confident scholar, who knows his limits, and in occasions he seems to dabble into an ego-teasing play as an attempt of levity, displaying his “insufferable side”, as he has described himself (his self-awareness of these traits is remarkable, and it is the reason why I avoid qualifying him as arrogant. Arrogant chars are hardly self-aware of their own bad manners or insufferable traits). But we can see it's usually done as a joke or, with an evil Tav, as an aggressive reaction. For a deep analysis of this aspect, check the post about "Gale Hypotheses- Part 2", section: "Narcissism".

Based on his approvals and disapprovals, we can see that Gale has a strong preference in avoiding fights, violence, and bloodshed [1]. He will always prefer diplomatic and persuasive approaches [2]. Reasoning is his best weapon, but if the individual we are dealing with can hardly be persuaded, he would approve of a deception or an intimidation as long blood is not spilt. Here is where we see his pragmatism in action, all the time. His primary goal at every moment is to avoid bloodshed. His philosophy could be summed up in the line “the means [as long as they don’t kill gratuitously] hardly matter if the end is worthy”. And for Gale, nothing is more worthy than life [3]. This doesn't cover only the life of innocents he cares about, it includes the life of the most dubious characters as well, such as Rugan or Crusher. Gratuitous death is meaningless for him. During the scene of Nettie we can have a glimpse of his philosophy towards life: he viscerally hates treating life as if it were nothing:

Gale: How dare she snuff out life with as much thought as snuffing out a bloody candle? […] It's not right to feel the cold breath of death in your neck, then move on as if it was nothing but a soothing breeze. One respects life by fighting for it, and one respects death by fearing it.

Gale: One should never be afraid to live life to the fullest.

Probably the limited amount of life he has due to the "orb" increased his sense of respect for life and its celebration. I personally understand Gale as a character who embodies the perspectives of a seriously ill person, knowing that their life may be short, but they will try to make the best out of it.

He doesn't only respect life per se, he also cares about its dignity. This can be seen in his explicit rejection to undead existences such as Connor (he explains that it would be merciful to put an end to his undead nightmare), or in his disapprovals of humiliation and torture [9]

We could suspect that this emphasis in protecting any life comes from the fact that only people who are alive can (sometimes) be forgiven or/and change. This is not explicit, but since he is a character who talks about being better and wiser than his previous self, about acknowledging mistakes, about forgiveness, this interpretation seems reasonable.

These concepts of kindness and compassion combined with “the mistakes of the youth” are repetitive in his interactions and approvals [5,12]. Of course, they echo in his soul since they are reflections and desires of his own experience. This pattern covers forgiving children in particular [5], and disapproving hard judgements [16], especially on matters whose story is not fully understood by Tav. This means he doesn't like quick judgements when he doesn't know the whole story first. This scenario can be easily seen during Karlach's quest, he reserves his judgment until knowing Karlach's side: There are always two sides to each story.

Gale: I have to say I don't know if agreeing to this hunt was such a wise idea. Who's to say who's the real villain in this tale of devils and masquerades? [...]When we track Karlach down, let's chat before we chop.

Similar concept appears during his Revelation scene, when he encourages and keeps asking Tav to listen to him first before judging. This is also the reason why in his Loss scene he would disapprove if Tav quickly assumes that his loss of Mystra was due to arrogance. Tav judged him without knowing the whole story. However, once Tav knows the whole story, Gale will accept any judgement from them without approval penalties during the Revelation scene.

He approves all actions that imply helping others in hard times and disapproves of them if they were done out of greed [4]. He is an animal lover [6,7]. Being kind to animals and treating them good will increase his approval, while animal cruelty will earn his disapproval. Same goes for humanoids: any display of gratuitous violence that could have been prevented with a trick or a diplomatic approach, any humiliation forced upon others, any torture or situation of slavery, is disapproved [8, 9, 11].

In particular, Gale seems to advocate the philosophy of “give others their own medicine”[18] or in other words: poetic justice. We can see this during the Myconid colony; he approves of helping the Myconid to avenge the young killed by the Duergar, adding the comment: “Wicked killers deserve wicked ends”. He is implying to give them a similar, wicked medicine to the Duergars. Another less deadly situation of this kind is shown during the foot situation with Crusher: Gale is the one suggesting “pungent poetic justice” and telling Tav that they should force Crusher to kiss their feet.

The most iconic scene, however, is during Nettie's, if Tav lies during her interrogation. As a hot-headed reaction, Gale states that he would have poisoned Nettie if this situation would have happened to him. Although, after calming down, he approves of and confirms Tav's actions [if Tav managed to persuade Nettie to give them the antidote]

Gale: A taste of her own medicine is what she deserves! […] But you handled it, and you handled it well.

In this scene we also see a pattern: Gale is shown as a fallible human; his most visceral reaction during the first moment is anger and indignation, giving us a hint that he is not so rational when it comes to emotional states. An extremely obvious, human concept.

The scene of Nettie trying to kill a potential menace (the victim of a MF) reverberated in his consciousness, projecting immediately a fact in his mind: if he ever dares to reveal his "orb" problem, and anyone knows what a danger he represents—no matter how stable it looks—people will want to remove the menace by killing him.

This is the reason behind his words “It's just that, had it been me... had it been...” Gale knows that this simplistic and common thinking in removing what's dangerous would end up turning into a more destructive tragedy in his case than in any infected victim of the tadpoles. So this combination makes us see, for the first time, an emotional Gale. After some seconds, he cools down and returns to his more rational, diplomatic, and moderate self. What we can read here is that Gale would be very prone to rush decisions or to make mistakes under emotional circumstances. We will learn later that the other mistake he made under emotional stress ended up with the "orb" stuck in his chest. A third mistake was done during the party, once more under the emotional stress of a potential abandonment by Tav due to the true nature of the orb.

Everything related to the “orb”—which is his most traumatic experience—naturally makes him more emotional and prone to mistakes. To see how truly traumatic the "orb" is in his life we can notice the following patterns during the meeting scene: he speaks about the tadpole in a relaxed, rational way, despite the traumatising experience. He first asks for an archwizard instead of for a cleric, because his priority is the orb. Gale's main fear is not the tadpole, but the orb. If we remember his words after the consumption of the artefacts, we realise he lives in a permanent state of anxiety and raw fear, and probably pain too, given his facial gesticulation when anything interacts with the "orb" (whether artefacts or Tav's hand). His banter with Shadowheart reinforces the concept that he always has a knot in the stomach. When he accepts the deal with Raphael, it seems to be related to the orb, not to the tadpole. The effect of the "orb" has ceased, but the tadpole is still in Gale's head since we still need to roll against a high DC and not only against a 1DC during this scene, so we can assume he still has the tadpole despite Raphael's deal. See the post about "The Tadpole" in Gale for more details.

Gale is a character that represents human experiences deeply related to growing up: mistakes done in the past, and the acceptance of not being forgiven despite the desire of wanting to. This can be easily seen during the conversation of the second tadpole dream, where Gale's mood is foul and we learn that his deepest desire is for Mystra to forgive him, but he also knows it's impossible for that to happen. He detects the lie in this dream because he has accepted that Mystra will never forgive him. Gale is the story of mistakes done during youth with grave consequences, of acknowledging them and trying to make them right, of surviving those mistakes, and depending on the interpretation, he is also the story of an ill dying man, with a gentle vision and deep care for life.

The great majority of his approvals are based on actions that show kindness and compassion, both reiterative concepts that are so important in his character that they come from his lips when we see the goblin party:

Gale: The shadow within is spreading like poison, corrupting kindness and compassion. [Only after a tough DC of 15]

In combination with: Gale: I don't know myself anymore. All this... It's not who I am. Around you, I'm not who I want to be. I should leave.

These lines show how, in a sudden change to an evil path, Gale would start doubting his own morality, explaining that the cause of it is the "orb" itself, corrupting the most core aspects of his personality. This corruption may or may not be lore-related. It's not completely clear what Gale's "orb" truly is. For more details, check the post of the "Orb".

His constant critical thinking comes from his advocacy to non-conventionality [15]: a true scholar will always explore all the options and hypotheses before reaching a conclusion. Therefore, Gale would approve of any non-conventional way to fix a problem [15] as long as it doesn't potentially cause harm or bloodshed [1,2,3,8,9]. Due to his own background, Gale will always advise to be very careful of the consequences of one’s actions. This can be easily seen when, after encountering the caged goblin Sazza, Gale would advocate to explore the possibility of reaching Gut Priestess to cure the tadpole. However, when Tav helps Sazza to escape, Gale will comment briefly against this action.

Gale: I know I said it's not inconceivable a goblin priestess could help us. And yet... was it really wise to set another goblin free so she can arrange introductions? […] consider the consequences. What if she leads her entire tribe to the grove? Tav: I don't care, I owe this grove no allegiance. Gale: No allegiance, no. Though we don't need to sign its death warrant

Once more we see that Gale is up to using any (unharming) means to get a goal, but not at any cost. He has a clear line he doesn't like to cross: life [3]. Avoiding putting other people's lives in danger is very important for him. We see this concept over and over in most scenes.

He doesn't likerushed decisions, and in that same train of thoughts, he will disapprove any use of unknown magic or tricks when nobody in the group can truly understand how they work [17], for example the tadpoles or Raphael's deal (he is against accepting it quickly, but he will approve of having a more cautious attitude and carefully thinking about it).

Since the moment we meet him, we can infer he is obsessed with the artefacts. It's obviously understandable: he doesn't want to die, but also, he doesn't want to kill all those that will be caught in the eruption of the orb. For this reason he will insist on the loot in the Temple Ruins despite knowing that grave robbery is not correct.

Gale: Bad form, isn't it? Grave robbing? […] Let's have a look at the loot. It isn't for your pockets only.

He keeps pondering life over death: although he respects the dead, he will always value more the living creatures in the present. This is also what pushes Gale to suggest Tav to open Rugan's chest. Stealing from the evil Zhentarins is not something that will weigh on his consciousness too much. Besides, he knows it belongs to a wizard: meaning that the chance for it to contain a powerful artefact is really high. Similar suggestions will be said about the Idol of Silvanus, but talking with him in the camp will show us that he won't approve of taking it, only as a last resort. He keeps pondering the living over a sacred piece of stone, since he knows the druids won't take the stealing very peacefully. Once more we see Gale's respect and care for life, trying to minimise damage as much as the circumstances allow him.

Gale is also a survivalist. He doesn't want to die, he loves celebrating life in its more mundane and small details. He is an emotional character for a wizard, a bit strange since they are usually portrayed as more rational and cold, losing their lives among dusty books. However, Gale has shown in many scenes that he prefers to survive without killing, but if he has to, he will do it, dealing with the weight of it in his consciousness because killing unprovoked affects him (scene in the camp after killing the druids, or the goblin party scene).

His moral in preventing gratuitous death sometimes will conflict with his own survival, especially if he is by an evil Tav's side. He couldn't accept bloodshed when other peaceful options were available and possible to reach. This is clearly shown during the goblin party, where Gale's consciousness suffers and feels the corruption of the "orb" killing the kindness and the compassion inside him. He accepts that wanting to live is a powerful drive, but he doesn't support this massacre, questioning if all that blood was necessary. A Tav killing the tieflings seems to lose the possibility of pursuing Gale romantically, at least in EA so far. For Gale, survival is important, but the means to do it (when they can cause death) matter too. Life is worth preserving.

The usual archetype of survivalist tends to be an individualist one who would survive at any cost without remorse because that's the “law of the jungle”, the strongest must survive. However, Gale seems to embody a different concept of survivalist that it's hard to put in words: a sort of communal survivalist, trying to survive in coexistence with his community: he wants his survival to imprint the least harm possible (even though sometimes it would not be possible), trying to help those around him as long as his condition allows it; for example, despite wanting Gut's potential cure for the tadpole, he would disagree in helping Sazza escape because she will lead the goblins to the Grove, no matter the fact that doing this will grant them their introduction to the priestess.

His list of approval shows that his sense of survival is always pondered with the consequences that it can cause on others (check the post with the "Extensive list of Gale's approvals"). The whole concept of the "orb" has this motivation as well: he wants to live and survive, but he also can't give up because his body would kill many, so he needs to do as much as his moral allows him to keep it in check. If he cannot do it any longer, he promises to minimise the disaster as much as possible by erupting in the deep Underdark or in a desolated corner of Faerûn (and considering his ridiculous list of approvals and disapprovals, we know he is honest in not wanting to kill gratuitously). Gale acknowledges his own mistakes, trying—to the best of his ability—to deal with them without catching others in them. Although all his speeches keep emphasising that he is a mere human, and plans may fail.

At some point, if he wants to survive “not at any cost”, he will be forced to ask Tav for help during the scene of the stew (available only for medium approval or higher). As a gesture of honesty, Gale will set a boundary before making this request, acknowledging its unfairness but giving Tav the decision to proceed or not. He is not denying to explain the details later, but at the moment he can't speak the “why” of his condition no matter how curious Tav is. Tav will decide whether they can keep their curiosity on the matter.

We will understand later that this impediment comes as a precaution as well as consequence of his personal trauma with Mystra and the "orb" (See post about "Gale: Manipulation, Lies, and Trust"). So, he is very clear about setting the conditions in which this conversation will happen from the beginning. The easiest way for Gale to avoid this whole situation would have been by simply lying, but he opted for an honest approach with clear out-loud reservations, knowing he was asking for more trust than he was allowed to, but the intention behind is more than important. There is a clear, huge contextual detail that we can't miss: this scene doesn't happen because of Gale's whims, he is forced to ask for help since his condition “is not a patient one” and will endanger everyone if not kept at bay.

This detail where Gale explicitly asks for an exchange of trust is not present if Gale's approval is neutral or lower. In this case, Gale would not care about giving a context to his strange request: he doesn't trust Tav and he doesn't expect to be trusted either, he only wants the artefacts to keep his condition in check for his sake and the sake of others. We can understand this change of attitude depending on the approval as he doesn't want to give any extra explanation to someone he is not interested in building a relationship with. For more details, check the post about "Gale: Manipulation, Lies, and Trust".

I personally support the idea that nobody in canon Faerûn is free of racial prejudices since Forgotten Realms lore has been created based strongly on fantasy racism. I've read that WotC wants to move forward and improve this aspect in 5e, but so far what they allowed Larian to do with the Tieflings in BG3 seems to show the contrary. So, since apparently we are going to face fantasy racism anyways, I will try to analyse racial prejudices from all chars. When it comes to Gale, it's a bit far-stretched to point out unjustified racial biases. He has a vague comment about Rashemi that some people may consider a faerunian saying. Personally, I think that line is a bias forced into him to have a particular dynamic with Minsc (the Rashemi “silly” companion -we all can see where Larian seems to go with this). Gale clearly sees tieflings, gnomes, and even goblins as people, and has a cautious attitude towards some githyanki (at least that's what we can infer with Lae'zel when we find her in the cage), but given the githyanki lore it's pretty reasonable to see them as dangerous creature that could kill people on the spot. So far, he seems to have no racial preference either [10].

As it was said before, he prefers to avoid killing people, but that doesn't mean he won't do it if his life depends on it. He will prefer persuasive and defusing approaches, but if he needs to kill to defend innocents or his own life, he won't hesitate. So therefore, stories about characters making mistakes or having violent excess in an effort to protect themselves or what they hold dear will be understood by him but hardly approved [19]. He tends more to approve a call out of that excess than approving an excuse for it.

Gale has deep abandonment issues that can be easily seen when he defends Astarion from being handed over to Gandrel. We need to put this in context before going on: for Gale, Astarion represents a danger as a vampire who attacked one of them during their sleep. By the display of meta-knowledge, we know with certainty that their approvals and disapprovals are mostly opposite: What one approves, the other will disapprove and vice versa. Getting rid of Astarion should be something that Gale would approve, however, he doesn't. If we explore his comments we will realise that what Gale disapproves from this situation is Tav's abandonment. After Mystra's abandonment, he knows very well that “Loyalty is such a very rare commodity”, and the few situations in EA in which Tav can display abandonment, resound strongly in Gale.

Gale is a scholar with a strong balanced rational side. But unlike the trope, he also embraces an emotional side that, so far the info we received in EA, it's the side that makes him prone to mistakes.

As an amateur poet, Gale loves words. We can obviously notice this in his verbose attitude, but also in the way he carefully uses words. One of his characteristic words is “spectacle”. He has also shown a reiterative—although not always—uneasy use of the word “fun”. Using “fun” as a way to describe the night spent with Gale gives him a slight uneasiness. “That��s a word for it.” He disapproves of using the word “Fun” after the Mayrina/Connor situation, in which scene Gale alludes that “your new company may be a proof of how depraved and twisted you are to see that tragedy as “fun”. Personally I think this is a direct allusion to Astarion, who considers Mayrina's situation as “entertainment”, in the same way he considered as “fun” the show of Arabella's death (two of several instances where he used that word). Gale also doesn’t use the word sex during EA, instead he uses romantic ones such as love-making, intimacy, art of the night/body. In the most technical case: coitus (used only when he is talking about “goblinoid intimacy” in the expression “post-coital snack”). These details are showing not only his poet/romantic side, but also his interpretation of sex from his perspective: sex can only be possible through a connection. We know he doesn’t engage in casual sex with Lae’zel if he is not romanced, and his romance can only potentially start if Tav shares that deep connection with him through the Weave.

Another detail related to words is that Gale has always used an infection/disease-related vocabulary to explain the “orb” stuck in his chest: infested, taint, shadow spreading

[…] I failed to control [this chaotic magic]. Instead it infested me. […] This Netherese taint... this orb, for lack of a better word [..] […] the shadow within is spreading like poison, corrupting kindness and compassion. [...]

Gale apparently has a particular way to sense magic. I have no way to check this in-game, but it seems very strange how he immediately identifies magical artifacts without casting Detect Magic. There are some extra scenes as well where he says to taste or smell the magic in some objects. Even his encounter with Shadowheart, besides being considered a flirt, could be also interpreted as him detecting the magic that we saw later in her hand or maybe the dark magic that blocks her memories, since Gale pointed out about a curtain covering her soul: “if the eyes are the mirror to the soul, yours have dark curtains across the mirror” (a very ominous flirting if it’s only a flirt)

This makes me suspect that, if the "orb" is not giving him this skill, it may be a consequence of having been Chosen of Mystra (for more details read the post about "Mystra and her Chosen ones"). If this is the case, he may have hindered remains of theirs powers when it comes to detect magic at will.

Gale has a perception of magic with all the senses: he sniffs and tastes magic. During the mirror scene you have an option related to [Arcana] tag where he “Sniff the mirror, trying to understand the nature of its magic”. A wizard Tav will just “Inspect the mirror”. He also said that he could “taste” the magic in the necromancy book and in the runes of teleportation.

What we know of his family is little: when he was a kid there was a housekeeper in his life (mentioned only once during the scene of the harpies) and his mother that seemed to have personally raised and cared for him (mentioned twice: in the ruin temple scene, and in his banter with Wyll)

Tav: Why care about decorum in a long-abandoned tomb? Gale: Because my mother raised a gentleman. Then again, to be alive is to be curious.

Wyll: Between the orb and the bug you've got more than your fair share of unwelcome passengers. Gale: What can I say. Mother always taught me to be a gracious host.

This post was written in May 2021. → For more Gale: Analysis Series Index

#bg3 meta #gale #gale of waterdeep #bg3 gale #bg3 early access #bg3

52 notes · View notes

stylishanachronism · 4 years

Text

So uh, this Got Long, but here, have a couple of thousand words about Edér's narrative (and like... the game structure as a whole, I tried to stay on topic but I've got a couple of dozen essays somewhere (some are even cited because that's what I do with my life) about this nonsense so.) and also his character development, because those aren't actually the same thing. It is probably the Worst essay I have ever written, and that's saying something.

Anyways.

Edér's character thread (not his character development per se but the thing that permits it if I'm making any sense whatsoever) in both games is very much both 'grappling with religion' and 'grappling with choices he didn't know he was making' but also 'grappling with choices he made based on incomplete information' and the consequences of all three. (Honestly, speaking as somebody who, if I had a character thread, it'd be the same damn one, I was really pleased by how well they handled it in both games (the fact it’s not supposed to be his narrative in Deadfire nonwithstanding). Most series don't, but that's a completely different kettle of fish.)

So like, in the first game, when you find him he's basically stuck at the point where he feels utterly betrayed (by his god, by his church, by his community, even by his family, sort of), but also like nothing he did mattered in the short or long run, and despite his best efforts, every time he's tried to help he's just made things worse, so there's really nothing he can or should do, and even if he did, it wouldn't help or matter, so why should he bother? Like he's flat out 'yeah, they're going to kill me next, just killing time 'till that happens, what of it?', which is a hell of a lead off, given you don't find out the rest of it until later and the fact that despite all that, he’s not particularly suicidal. And he's so desperate to feel like he's doing something he wanders off with the first wild-eyed possibly-crazy definitely-sicker-than-a-dog person he comes across, without even squaring up his debts or closing up his house or quitting his metaphorical job, (Obsidian show me your setting bible, I need to know what the Dyrwood exports and if ring lace isn't on that list somewhere I'll make every single developer eat the ring shawl I haven't knit, I have Opinions about this, but also, kettle, fish.), just because they gave him the thinnest, most ridiculous scrap of a hope that he might get answers that make the rest of it okay! And he doesn't! He never gets those answers!

...Well, sort of. He doesn't get the answer to 'What did Woden, the brother I idolize above all else, know that I didn't?' for vaguely bullshit reasons (look I'm just saying if I can articulate 'yeah, that was really Eothas, and yeah, Woden basically had a fucking pentacostal moment and then got his brain steamrolled' (...more on that later, that's actually relevant), the Watcher ought to have been able to do the same, which changes the lack of answers to 'why didn't Eothas just... do something to prove it was him' and/or 'if it was that obvious, why did it come to that?', which are the questions that the narrative's actually concerned with (and also sort of get addressed in Deadfire, but More On That Later), Obsidian Where is Your Setting Bible I Have Questions), but he does get to come to terms with what he actually did, Not Knowing What Woden Knew (and it's a solid ending either way! I liked the consequences! Either he tries to make amends for what he sees as a dereliction of duty, not just to his god but to his community on a spiritual level (the Night Market ending), or he says 'fuck you, I failed but so did you, Eothas' and he sets out make amends for what he sees a dereliction of duty to his community and his community alone, on a practical level (the Mayor ending) and either way he's no longer stuck feeling worthless, and he has a purpose again, more accurately has learned to forge his own purpose, and he's good at whatever it is he's doing!)

And in the meantime, he's been doing good shit! Lasting shit! Even when it all goes to hell he's making progress, which is excellent for his state of mind (and you see that reflected in not only how he treats the Watcher but also how he reacts to shit like giant setbacks (Maerwald! What Happened to Woden! That time Defiance Bay was on fire! Hell even the wolf encounter in White March, that's something Gilded Vale Edér would have wanted to do, but probably wouldn't have been able to bring himself to do or would have but like, Knowing one or both of them would die for it, and by the earliest point you can hit that, he can just… do it) and this is the part where I do not talk about romance novel tropes because that development is also where he starts being the Romantic Lead for realsies. It’s very interesting! But this essay is trying to stay focused.)

Anyways that's… a lot of words to say the heart of his first game character arc is that he learns to live with what happened without ever knowing why, for better or for worse, it did, learns to forgive himself (and everyone else involved, more or less) and any way you cut it, he makes his own purpose, and he ends up okay at the end.

(Going off on a momentary tangent, one of the things I really liked about the first game is how focused it was? Like all the quests, even the stupid ones, asked serious moral questions about various things, and made you stick to the answers. I've talked before about the Dyrford questline, which is ugly on every front, but doesn't pull any of those punches either, and doesn't have a clear 'right' answer, but they're really all like that to some extent, and especially the character quests. Like, Edér's is about religion and forgiveness, Aloth's is about authority and 'divine right v free will' so to speak, Grieving Mother's is about doing horrible things with the very best of intentions and living with that, Sagani's is about deciding what's important enough to hold on to when all else is lost, etc. etc., and even the tiny ones have questions like ‘if murder is the only way out of an abusive relationship, is that the right answer?’ like there's no quest you could cut without actual ramifications to the overall storyline or the worldbuilding, and that was Great.)

...Which brings us to Deadfire, and this is where it might get a little weird? I need to stress that my first playthrough was bugged to hell, my second was... almost as bad, tbh, and I didn't manage to finish any of the DLC (mostly due to charming things like invisible indestructible final bosses, for example, which still have not been fixed), and by the time I hit the third go round (because it turns out turn based is a ton more fun) I was extremely confused about the actual order of events, due to the aforementioned bugs, so some of the conclusions I've drawn might be a bit off base. (Also Deadfire suffers from sequelitis, by which I mean it has a bunch of internal and, uh, intertextual contradictions of established canon, and it’s not particularly tightly plotted, among other things. I still really liked it! But the worldbuilding's cracked a little bit.)

So Deadfire opens with Eothas bursting out of the earth like a really big chick in a really small egg or something, killing a lot of people in the process, and Edér going 'oh shit, my god just more than half murdered my bff!' and, touching back on what @brightoncemore said earlier, racing off after the statue he’s piloting on basically a hope and a prayer, Watcher in tow, on the half chance this might save their life. It's a hell of a thing, but it means that the opening of his Deadfire arc is 'Dear Eothas, why the Fuck do you keep doing this (to me)?', and depending on which of his endings he's coming off of, this is either a further betrayal from someone he'd managed, not to forgive, but to move on from, or a further betrayal from someone he had managed to forgive, and whose forgiveness in turn he'd spent a solid five years seeking. It is not 'huh, wonder what my old flame's up to?' (not that Elafa was his old flame, but more on that later, and alternately if it is the old flame is Eothas and the answer is ‘being a casually murderous dick for inscrutable reasons’), and nor is it a 'my biological clock is ticking and I didn't manage to adopt Vela properly', which to be honest is what I got out of his bit of his actual personal quest, more or less. (Spoilers: his personal quest is actually Bearn’s personal quest, and he’s not even a recruitable companion, which is rude considering Tekēhu, among other companions.)

What happens to the Watcher is rather more intimately tied up in his character arc in Deadfire, which is where the real trouble comes from; the developers Did Not Want the romance, so they kept trying to walk it back (remember I don’t find this particularly tightly plotted), while all of his character development was tied up in the same tropes that make him the Romantic Lead (we aren’t even going to mention the fucking wedding), and frankly it’s a mess.

So you’ve got the shoe-horned in ‘I’m head over heels for someone I literally never mentioned before, whoops she’s dead and her kid, who might be my kid (spoilers: he’s not, the timeline doesn’t work, not that the timeline works anywhere ever), is going to do something Really Stupid’ thing that his Named personal quest, which is just barely even about him to begin with, while meanwhile he’s yelling at gods and making the same big sweeping decisions from the first game as he gets more information about what did/might have/could have happened. Like, there’s one revelation in the base game (Eothas is the reason for his rad magic armor, and despite Edér feeling betrayed and abandoned for almost two decades(!), he really was paying close attention to everything Edér did, and I at least got the impression that part of the reason Eothas is trying to make amends is because of what happened to Edér due to his actions, like he’s here to ‘help’ kith in general, and Edér in particular, and the Watcher makes a particularly convenient tool to do so), and then BoW and FS each have another (that instead of St. Waidwen, it might have been St. Edér, and it was pretty much the flip of a coin that decided it the way it was, and also that Waidwen didn’t know what he was doing but he did it with intent anyways, so they were both betrayed on multiple levels (I left the first game convinced Eothas had just steamrolled Waidwen’s brain the same way he’d steamrolled Woden’s, so it was very interesting to discover that that didn’t precisely happen), and also that there was a distinct difference between Waidwen, who theoretically went into this with his eyes open, and Woden, who didn’t. There’s a whole series of essays in that alone, but again, kettle, fish.), and what ought to have been his ‘defining choice’ (v whatever happened to Bearn), is his whole thing at Magran’s Teeth, where he demands Eothas be better (which, if it had been his personal quest, could have been reactive on ‘I was right, you’re just as bad as the rest’ if he comes to the conclusion Eothas sees all their lives as playthings, and he doesn’t actually care he just wants to be Right, or the canonical ‘Do better you fucker’ if he comes to the conclusion that Eothas just Doesn’t Get It, with a reprise at Ukaizo, because I loved the narrative callbacks that actually exist and it would have been a really good place for one.), instead of what we got (I went and looked them up, what the fuck), which was… completely backwards for his character, holy shit. Either he goes and camps on Elafa’s grave because her kid was a moron (well… kettle, fish, here is another essay and this one’s already too long, we don’t need a discussion of cults and Bearn’s equal desire for a purpose, which is a narrative foil they could have done something with but never did), or he decides to parent this kid who he firstly doesn’t know, secondly doesn’t know him, and thirdly in a place that’s been pretty wrecked that he’s completely unfamiliar with for what’s seriously no reason (Bearn is…. arguably 17? 18? The timeline never works, but that’s about where he’s written, also kettle, fish, arguments that don’t go here.) since the boy is almost an adult to begin with, none of which has anything to do with his need to have a purpose, or the fact he explicitly follows the Watcher around as part of that, and they’ve gone back to the Dyrwood either way. Like it’s just… such a reversal from his growth in the first game, basically dropping him back where he started at the very very beginning, mired in hopeless, apathetic guilt over something that he actually had fuck all to do with this time around.

Anyways, the whole thing where the developers rooted his endstate choices in something that, to be really frank, could have been deleted without doing fuck all to the narrative (remember how all the quests in the first games were important? Yeah, no, a solid chunk of the quests serve little to no real purpose in Deadfire, even the ones I love.) is unfortunately a Thing. Tekehu’s lack of a quest is the Watershaper’s Guild questline, it straight up should have been his personal quest, he’s got the only solid one in the game, Xoti’s feels like it was supposed to be a callback to Grieving Mother’s, but in reverse, and while I loved it, it doesn’t go anywhere, not for her character (either she does a shitty thing for a good reason and goes crazy and can’t regret her choices, or she does a good thing for terrible reasons and doesn’t learn from that either, so far as I can tell) or for the narrative as a whole (there is also an essay about Gaun’s place in the worldbuilding here, kettle, fish), Seraphen either asks the important questions and Gets It, or he doesn’t and he… doesn’t, and either way it’s literally never addressed again, Maia’s has backwards consequences for some reason, which completely defeats the purpose of a character development quest on top of being basically Sir Not Appearing in this Game to begin with, Aloth’s doesn’t really do anything for his development either (his is all elsewhere in the game, too), and as much highly appreciated narrative context Pallegina’s provided, it didn’t make any sense for her character where it was (in either state) in Deadfire, not to mention it was confusing as hell. (Also, narratively speaking? Rekke should have had one, as should Ydwin, on the bias (she’s bugged to shit, and therefore keeps vanishing from my playthroughs, but what I’ve managed to see of her opens a lot of doors, so to speak). They’re both more plot important than some of the *actual* companions, and it’s terrible.)

And like, I get it, Deadfire had a *lot* more moving parts than Pillars did, having character quests that were any more timeline/location dependent would have been a terrible idea, it’s already so easy to fuck up the order of events without even trying, simply because you can just travel anywhere at any point just by picking a direction, and I have the very strong feeling that a lot of the existant character arcs were not intended to be as important as they ended up being, but still. Still. I expected a lot more out of… pretty much everything.

Speaking of: the very last sequence of the game. Eothas, doing the thing. Breaking the wheel. Murdering the world. Ending the Game. Whatever you want to call it.

Dear Obsidian: what, pray tell, the Actual Fuck.

One of the things that I got out of the first game, like not even extrapolating it’s right there in black and white in the text, is that the Wheel? Co-opted by the Engwithans, who essentially bolted a tap onto it to power their gods, but who neither invented nor really affected it in any way, shape, or form. Like, I think it’s Iovara who says that the gods are built on an existing system, parasites on a natural process? I’m not citing this and I don’t remember, but it’s in the last sequence of that game somewhere, and I’m 99% sure it’s one of her revelations. Anyways, smashing the physical wheel should have done fuck all to the metaphysical process, even with the Valians eating all the adra, like the question of ‘what do we do now???’ should have been about ‘how do we keep the gods alive, and do we even want to?’ not ‘oh shit, how do we keep the fucking world running’, that’s not the thematically relevant question. Like the game spends the whole time asking nitty gritty questions on the theme of ‘do we need the gods or do they need us?’ (Pallegina’s whole quest, for example, everything about the godlikes ever, a solid chunk of the underpinning of all three DLCs, the weird shit in Cignath Mor, like it’s woven through e v e r y t h i n g.) The fact that the final deciding question is instead ‘who gets the leftover power’ (and that you can’t talk Eothas out of the thing, or tell him to tip it back into the wheel in like, a useful way) honestly felt like a cop out to me. Like suddenly the narrative weight is on a random god and/or group of people who spent most of the game squabbling over stupid shit while the Watcher tried to save the world again, this time with Real Actual Obvious signs of shit going down. Like in the first game? The Watcher doesn’t figure it out until almost the end of the game, but what you stumble into stopping is both highly subtle and *really* awful on every level, and the consequences are going to be worse, but nobody knows anything about it and you’ve only got the clues you have because you made a bunch of stupid decisions a dozen lifetimes ago, like, you don’t have proof and there’s no way to get it until everything’s over and done with. Deadfire? People have seen Eothas! He’s wandering around, wrecking ships and causing tsunamis and basically being Obvious as Fuck that he’s the thing causing all these problems, and letting him keep going is a Bad Idea, And Yet. Literally nobody in the entire fucking game can focus on the real problem for five seconds until it’s too late, and even then they can’t let go long enough to fix it. And yes, I know, the developers intended it to be more politically minded, they’re not focused on Eothas because he’s far away and this particular thing blowing up in their faces is right here, but…. that’s not how it worked as a narrative? Not even a little? Eothas is on top of your super secret laboratory and he ate your lighthouse or whatever, but that’s not important right now because oh no there’s a different lighthouse that’s a weird color (yes I know the diseased adra pillar is not a lighthouse give me the metaphor) really, really doesn’t look like being politically minded, frankly it looks like, well, real life right this second, and let me tell you, if I had a god I was hell bent on yelling at for being a dick telling me I had to pick who ended up in charge of the fate of the world, I’d be yelling him into not doing that using any trick I had to. And obviously that wasn’t applicable when Deadfire came out, but the sentiment remains.

And what complicates this is that I loved most of Ukaizo. Like up until the final two minutes I found it really narratively fulfilling, more or less (I remain cross enough about said last two minutes it’s rather scrambled my actual impressions of the rest, but I remember being very excited), and then that happened (and the game crashed because I had technically defied the gods again I guess) and then I was very cross.

If this was a real essay, I’d have something to say here about looking at the narrative as it is, not how I’d like it to be, or maybe about how Edér ends up with multiple narrative foils that literally never see any use, and that’s another essay right there. If I were editing this into something readable, I might have actually come to a point at some point, and I could talk about that instead, but I guess I’m just going to say that I wish the developers had owned what they’d built, instead of trying to head it off. Like, cheers, you built one of the more rewarding romances in modern fiction, tell me more about Edér’s relationship with god, don’t murder a perfectly good female character to give him something to be sad about so you don’t have to acknowledge that.

#pillars of eternity #this desperately wants footnotes and I have none #I spent all of five minutes editing it (mostly for content I kept going back to shit instead of just finishing a topic)#let me know if you have questions/something you'd like me to expound on this is really a very shallow look at the thing #it's something to the tune of 3.5k and I wrote it mostly in one sitting and it shows

41 notes · View notes

wardencommanderrodimiss · 4 years

Text

the-owl-is-not-amused replied to your post “beastenraged replied to your post “Finally, on my fourth playthrough...”

But... Isn't Seteth Byleth's grand-uncle? Rhea's silence on the matter doesn't really change the geneology.

I.....no? I don’t see how he would be? The children of the goddess I don’t believe would be technically related to each other, given that Sothis just created them out of dirt or whatever - one could easily presume that Flayn’s mother is also one of the children of the goddess, considering that Flayn’s ears are also a problem. (Sitri’s ears are hidden, a la the ways the other Children wear their hair, but Byleth has normal human ears, so it seems like the human genes are the ones that are dominant in that regard.) There’s notes made on the Saints statues about how they’re siblings actually related to each other, no inclusion of Seiros, so it doesn’t really stand that all the children of the goddess consider each other siblings. Seteth and Rhea aren’t siblings. “Children of the goddess” feels more like a species/race indicator than an actual “they’re all related.” Sothis just yeeted them all into existence, so they aren’t really technically her blood.

Furthermore, Seteth doesn’t make things weird about the fact that Byleth has this connection to Sothis. Rhea makes it weird - like, if Rhea didn’t spend so much time acting under the assumption that Byleth is Sothis, and talking to them like it, and hoping that Byleth will turn back into Sothis, then I could be okay with it. Seteth, spending a long time not knowing what’s up with Byleth, treats them wholly as their own person, and even once he has a guess, he still really seems to understand Byleth is Byleth. Rhea makes it so weird, because she’s the one who’s always using the “mother” label about Sothis - Sothis is everyone’s metaphorical mother, but Rhea really hangs herself over and over “I am bringing back my mother, you are supposed to turn into my mother” and that’s what makes it weird. (And then Sitri makes it weirder, but I’m mostly looking at what we gather from the base game.)

#the-owl-is-not-amused #replies #roddy plays fe3h

2 notes · View notes

theseerasures · 5 years

Text

Conspicuous Media Consumption, 2019

i mean, everyone's doing these write-ups, right? might as well hop onto the bandwagon

towards the end of last year i had one of my typical existential crises about my media consumption: am i slowly disappearing up my own ass because i no longer care about most of the pop culture people like to discuss ad nauseam? but on the other hand, isn’t it more responsible to find the niche items made by non-mainstream and marginalized creators? on the third hand, wouldn’t i be much happier if i just watched FMA Brotherhood over and over again, preferably while starting a new Mass Effect playthrough at the same time?

the answer to all these questions is probably “yes,” but i decided to try something different going into 2019. for every week of the year, i would try to get through a year’s worth of content for some kind of media, be it comics, video games, TV, etc--they didn’t all have to be recent, or even new to me, but once i was done with that week i’d be done, even if i didn’t finish the content, and i’d make a judgement based what i’d seen on whether i want to continue. mostly, i was trying to avoid what happened to me with video games in 2018, when i was hating every second of playing Uncharted but still felt obligated to finish because everyone and their houseplant liked Uncharted or listlessly doing the Master Hunter achievement in RDR2 because the main quest made me miserable.

the actual outcomes of this Project(tm) are a little more complicated than anticipated--some media i could finish in a day, while trying to play through ALL THE CONTENT OF AN MMO understandably took much longer than a week--but it all kind of evened out. in the end i did 48 weeks of this, and used December as my catch-ups month to follow up on some things i didn’t get to finish. i thought i’d give my thoughts on each of the things i consumed this year as part of this project below in a concise manner--and yes, i know the people who’ve read even one (1) thing i’ve written are probably laughing right now, particularly given how long i took in this introduction just to get to me point, but i really am going to try!! it’s all an exercise in shameless self-indulgence, basically, but hey: if any of you want to chat at length about any of this stuff below, hit me up.

(quick note: you’ll only find media that i chose for this particular project below, so things i watched socially with friends--like certain film properties slorping me back into Disney’s gelatinous monolith--are not included)

Devilman Crybaby (anime, finished 1/5/2019): honestly i should have twigged onto what the year was going to be like when the first thing i drew from the metaphorical barrel was demon tiddies and apocalyptic existentialism. i was determined to dislike it for most of the year due to fundamentally disagreeing with its main thematic thrust, but i kept THINKING about it even months after. at this point i’ve kinda mellowed out. it’s definitely not a must love, but there’s enough queer metaphor and philosophical richness in it to make it worth checking out.

Attack on Titan (manga, 3 volumes finished 1/12/2019): this is the second time i’ve tried to get into this franchise and...yeah, no. i still don’t see the appeal. the fascistic overtones juxtaposed with absolutely no one having a sense of humor wigs me out to no end.

Young Justice (TV, 2.5 seasons finished 1/31/2019): honestly, what even is there to say? they’re my kids. they’re back and grown up and making even more terrible decisions. i screamed when i saw Babs in her wheelchair.

Black Leopard, Red Wolf (book, finished 2/10/2019): i tried VERY HARD to like this book, given how much i liked Brief History of Seven Killings, but it just...didn’t click for me. which honestly is fine, since i don’t think it was made for me either.

Dragon Age (3 games, finished 2/28/2019): i feel like there’s always a part of me that’s going to think of this series as “the other one,” but y’know. it’s good. it’s my second playthrough (as a mage for all three) and it’s good! i even went around killing all the dragons in Inquisition because Knight Enchanter was a blast. appreciate the higher queer content vis-a-vis Mass Effect, even though i couldn’t care less about any of the plot. Dragon Age II is the best one, do not @ me

Bitter Root (comic, 4 issues finished 3/1/2019): i love intergenerational dramas and i love stories about vampire slayers, so this was aces. my only complaint is the pacing was a little slow for a story that was going on hiatus after five issues.

Pearl (comic, 6 issues finished 3/3/2019): i know that he’s done great things and grudgingly admit that he’s probably a net positive in the industry but Brian Michael Bendis can suck my entire dick

Lazarus (comic, 5 trades finished 3/ 4/2019): i really thought this was going to clench the position for comic of the year. it’s Rucka doing Highly Relevant Dystopia! it’s a corporate Lannisters AU! it’s a highly personal story about a woman with high privilege and little agency! what more could you want

Immortal Hulk (comic, 2 trades finished 3/ 4/2019): i vibed with the horror feel, but i don’t honestly think it’s THAT exceptional. being set in 616-verse means there was still ton of baggage i didn’t know or care about, since i’ve now swung more to the DC side of things

thank u, next (album, finished 3/5/2019): didn’t Ariana Grande get canceled this year for some reason? oh well, i liked her album

When I Get Home (album, finished 3/13/2019): i vividly remember listening to this for the first time and feeling vaguely disappointed that it wasn’t more like Seat at the Table until i realized that i was covered in goosebumps. still don’t understand the magic but it is Good

The Bird King (book, finished 3/23/2019): pretty much everything you’d expect from a G. Willow Wilson book--spirituality, the female lead finding Themselves and the Answer and learning they’re the same thing, etc etc. i’m slightly resentful that her Wonder Woman was so lackluster while this was so good, but whatevs

Psychodrama (album, finished 3/29/2019): possibly my favorite album of the year? dense and emotionally raw in a way i really appreciate. Dave has a Mercury and he’s younger than me

Mass Effect (4 games, finished 4/7/2019): wow guys did you know that Mass Effect is good! it is. all of it is actually, even the Mass Effect 3 ending, another controversial finale to a big franchise that i will obstinately defend. even Andromeda, which isn’t AS good as the trilogy but still has a lot of heart. all its bugs have been exhaustively patched since launch anyway

Crazy Ex-Girlfriend (TV, 4 seasons finished 5/13/2019): i’m...still kind of mad about this finale, but can’t exactly deny that this show is one of the best things to ever happen to me, or television probably. i didn’t even mind new!Greg that much! tho he was probably the nail on the coffin of me jumping onto the Nathaniel train.

Knights of the Old Republic/The Old Republic (3 games, finished 7/4/2019): did you guys know that KOTOR II was my first ever video game? i feel like that...explains a lot about me. anyway, the first game is a classic and the second is a deconstructive classic and playing either of them is basically a fun way for me to turn off my brain these days. even the MMO wasn’t as much of slog as i worried it would be. the Imperial Agent storyline had some nice surprises and i dig the general atmosphere of ruthless pragmatism and crushing loneliness.

Wanderers (book, finished 7/13/2019): Chuck Wendig is a very well-intentioned man in dire need of a strict editor. still good tho! some VERY punchy emotional bits and an ending that still leaves me with vague existential terror.

Code Geass (anime, 2 seasons finished 7/20/2019): i feel like this is on the polar opposite of the spectrum as Devilman Crybaby, because i don’t think Geass is GOOD on like, any basis, and i actually find its central moral message kind of abhorrent? but some part of my lizard brain LOVED the High Imperial Family Drama (it’s been a good year for me and Lannister types, hasn’t it? well, with the obvious exception of--never mind), so...yeah. have i discovered the true meaning of guilty pleasure

The Farewell (movie, finished 7/23/2019): how could i not a) watch this and b) love this and c) feel emotionally cold towards this at the same time because the situations depicted were so similar to mine that i ended up feeling kind of alienated

The Nickel Boys (book, finished 8/8/2019): i STILL haven’t read Underground Railroad, but here i am a book late and a dollar short to appreciate Whitehead’s new book. the man’s stylistic versatility is jaw-dropping and i appreciate the plotting in contrast to like, 90% of the litfic out there that’s just “protagonist sad in different milieu”

Durarara (anime, 2 seasons finished 8/31/2019): it’s fucking bonkers and i loved pretty much every second of it? even the second season, where i finally got the BruceNat AU i deserved??? the first anime i’ve seen where everyone was relatively soberly dressed. the answer was love and having feelings and asking your middle school best friend to hurl you like a projectile so you can chop your girlfriend’s head off with a demon katana

Lover (album, finished 9/1/2019): i feel like with all the Discourse surrounding Taylor Swift re: she’s the devil incarnate or re: she’s good, actually the fact that she makes fucking bops gets kind of lost in the conversation. i have no vested interest in her as a person but i liked Lover, even though London Boy was “what if Style but stupid”

Are You Listening (comic, finished 10/2/2019): my actual choice for best comic of the year if i were giving out awards like that. it’s coming of age! it’s grief! it’s queers! it’s trauma! it’s magical realism! it’s cats! it’s expressive gorgeous art! Tillie Walden has an Eisner and she’s younger than me

High School DxD (manga, 2 volumes finished 10/10/2019): i don’t even know how to talk about this series?? i actually kind of came around to the whole “main character is a perv but goes hard for consent” by the end of the second volume, but it’s still...bad. i only can have lingering conflicted feelings about one Japanese adaptation of Christian mythology per year

Ghosteen (album, finished 10/18/2019): much like Immortal Hulk i thought it was fine but over-hyped. it’s Nick Cave doing his Nick Cave ethereal music thing. i still can’t tell what any of the lyrics mean, except Jesus is there sometimes

Watchmen (TV, 2 episodes finished 10/29/2019): i am nOT FUCKING CAUGHT UP so please watch out for spoilers. it is on my high priority list of things to be caught up on tho--i appreciate that the plot is blatantly unsubtle but still manages to give me aneurysms and i appreciate the political overtones just kinda...balances on a razor thin wire and also gives me aneurysms. i wanna say i have no expectations and would be fine if it does a full dive into the horrible bland depths of the both-sides porridge, but i’m sadly a fool who wants to believe in Damon Lindelof

Syllabus/Making Comics (2 comics, finished 12/24/2019): it’s funny--even before Making Comics came out i was like “man i miss Lynda Barry” and then BAM. it’s incredible how her work just makes me feel taken care of, even when we’re wrestling with tough topics or she’s demanding that i draw a Batman in 30 seconds. kudos for immediately shooting to the top of my gift list for my sister also

Allegiance/Choices of One (2 books, finished 12/24/2019): fun and largely inoffensive, but i was honestly hoping for more. the level of Empire apologia going on was too much for me, someone who thinks Mara Jade is the best Star Wars character of all time (still?????? still). it reeked a little of Zahn believing his own hype as the only valid guy in Star Wars Legends of whatever

Aldnoah.Zero (anime, 1 season finished 12/24/2019): turns out i also can only have “trash but my trash” feelings about one Japanese mecha show with higher art pretensions and patriotism verging into jingoism per year, and this one ain’t it. it’s not as good as Code Geass and Code Geass ISN’T GOOD. at least Geass attempted character complexity and moved at enough of a breakneck pace to distract me from its questionable bits. Aldnoah is just...bland, and nothing gets accomplished or revealed in 12 episodes, except the baffling and contradictory motivations of the main bad guy.

Baldur’s Gate (game, unfinished): yet again something i really wanted to like, given *gestures at all the BioWare above*. i think it’s mainly the Seinfeld issue, where it actually predates my own experience with video games and was so formative for the Western RPG genre that what was innovative just comes across as kind of staid now. i didn’t DISLIKE it, and will probably play the sequel since it’s supposed to be more character-driven, but by the time i finished the vanilla campaign i just didn’t have it in me to squint at more tiny avatars on the screen, so the expansions ended up a no-go.

most prominent thing i noticed about this list is that only one 2019 movie made it on the list and ZERO 2019 video games did so. the former i’m okay with because i currently live with two film people with whom i’m happy to tag along to the cinema. the latter bums me out a little more, because there WERE a few things i wanted to play this year, but all of them came out just as my semester was reaching its catastrophic boil, so i had no time. maybe i’ll use my free time after the New Year festivities to catch up on those.

to conclude: this worked out pretty well! i ended up finishing all but one of the things, and only a few were bad enough that i have no interest in seeking out more content. i’ll probably do this again in 2020--we’ll see if the scheduling can withstand a full year of grad school hell

#let's break out a new tag for this since this isn't really meta #conspicuous media consumption

12 notes · View notes

commentaryvorg · 5 years

Text

Danganronpa V3 Commentary: Part 5.4

Be aware that this is not a blind playthrough! This will contain spoilers for the entire game, regardless of the part of the game I’m commenting on. A major focus of this commentary is to talk about all of the hints and foreshadowing of events that are going to happen and facts that are going to be revealed in the future of the story. It is emphatically not intended for someone experiencing the game for their first time.

Last time, in chapter 5’s first day of free time, which should by all rights have finally been a segment with barely any Kaito focus, multiple invitation dialogues had me talking about heroes and sidekicks, we hung out with Maki and heard adorable stories of her best friend from the orphanage and the sacrifices she made for her… and then Himiko’s FTEs somehow managed to be an incredibly fitting metaphor for what’s been going on between Shuichi and Kaito, which may or may not be on purpose on the writers’ part but I sure had way too much fun with it regardless.

Shuichi: (It’s nighttime. I *would* have been training…)

You could train without Kaito! You’ve done it before. Buuuut I don’t know how much good that would do to take Shuichi’s mind of his problems in this situation, because his biggest problem right now is intrinsically connected to the training itself, so he’d just be constantly reminding himself of it and worrying about it more.

*ding-dong!* *ding-dong!*

Unnecessary hypothetical tangent time! I’ve seen a few blind Let’s Players respond to this by wondering if it could be Kaito having come to talk to Shuichi. To which my immediate thought was “don’t you know it obviously can’t be Kaito; the doorbell didn’t ring a million times”.

But! Then I thought about it some more. If this was hypothetically Kaito having mustered up the courage to talk to Shuichi about what happened in the trial, he would still be convinced that Shuichi feels let down by and ashamed of him. Kaito would believe that Shuichi wouldn’t want to talk to him, and therefore that Shuichi probably wouldn’t answer the door if he knew it was Kaito. So Kaito would not want to make it clear it was him at the door by ringing it incessantly and would only ring the normal-person amount of times, to make Shuichi think it was somebody else. Which would be a fun reversal of the time in chapter 3 when Maki deliberately mimicked Kaito’s doorbell habits because she still felt that Shuichi wouldn’t answer the door if he knew it was her.

Anyway, that’s all a total hypothetical and Kaito does not in fact have the courage to face Shuichi whatsoever. It’s Maki at the door.

Maki: “Kaito asked me earlier… to show him my research lab.”

Shuichi: “Huh? Your lab?”

Maki: “I might as well show him, since I know he won’t take no for an answer… So you have to come, too.”

She just says Shuichi “has” to come without explaining why that’s so apparently necessary. This is all about her trying to get Shuichi and Kaito in the same space so that they can potentially talk to each other and sort things out between them, but she’s not mentioning that here. Maybe she thinks that if she tells Shuichi that then he won’t want to come.

She then leaves after saying this without checking if Shuichi is actually coming with her. Clearly she has learned that if you tell Shuichi to do a thing in an assertive enough tone, he will probably do it. Kaito taught her that one.

Shuichi: “…” (Maki invited me, so… I should go.)

Implying that he’s only going because Maki invited him and he doesn’t want to disappoint her. Meaning that he doesn’t want to go for Kaito’s sake and the chance of making up with him, like he’s just expecting everything between them to continue to be painful and awkward and there’s nothing he’d ever be able to do to fix that.

Tsumugi is hanging out in the courtyard looking up at the stars, and reminds Shuichi of what Gonta said once before about them looking different. She could have reminded us of this at any time up to this point, but she’s choosing to do so now. It’s almost like this is finally the chapter where all of the hints about the space thing are being dropped at once and she’s deliberately adding to that.

Tsumugi: “With all the horrible things happening, I was always looking down… I need to thank Gonta.”

She’s still committed to her thing of caring about Gonta, at least. She didn’t drop that once he died (even though she’s one of the people responsible for his death). I guess he really was her favourite character.

Shuichi: “Ah, sorry I’m late…”

Kaito: “Hm? O-Oh… so you came, too…”

Kaito was not mentally prepared to suddenly be in the same room as Shuichi right now, was he.

Shuichi: “Y-Yeah…”

Kaito: “…”

Shuichi: “…” (Silence.)

So much for Maki hoping that this would magically get them to talk to each other. They are both still convinced that the other doesn’t want to talk to them, so this was never going to happen just because they’re in the same room.

Maki: *sigh*

(As if utterly bored by the painful silence, Maki started up a conversation.)

She is so frustrated at her friends continuing to be idiots like this.

Maki: “Why did you ask to see my research lab so suddenly, Kaito?”

Kaito: “Well… I just wanted to see what kind of weapons were here.”

Maki: “What? Why would you want to see my weap—”

Kaito: “But wow! There’s a ton of stuff here!”

Because he’s going to need a bunch of weapons for his brilliantly heroic plan that he’s been working on, of course! It’s a little surprising that he doesn’t mention that that’s what this is for here, especially the way he seems to deliberately cut off her question about it. Maybe he’s worried that Maki is going to try and talk him out of doing something reckless if he tells her the plan right now.

Kaito: “But there’s no swords of any kind here – Japanese or western – right?”

Maki: “I don’t use swords of any type. Not after I botched a mission with my katana.”

Which Kaito should already know, but that was an optional scene so we’re awkwardly pretending like he doesn’t.

Kaito: “Either way, I don’t feel like weapons really suit women.”

Aaand here’s the final Misogyny Bullet to hit its mark. This one I can’t actually prove to be something that is objectively out of character for Kaito to think, because we’ve never heard anything about his thoughts on weapons at all up until now. But based on the fact that every other comment of Kaito’s like this was provably out of character, we can assume that this isn’t something we should take to heart as being a defining point about him either.

(This final one is literally only the fourth instance of this in the whole game. Four single lines. Just picture how absolutely tiny that molehill is, compared to the mountain of everything else Kaito ever says and does throughout five chapters of being one of the most prominent characters, all of which thoroughly contradicts him being that kind of person.)

Maki: “Care to explain why you wanted to see my weapons?”

Kaito: “Didn’t I tell you this morning? I’ve got a plan all figured out. Oh! What’s in that black case over there?”

(As if backing away from the conversation, Kaito headed to the far bookcase…)

He still seems to be trying to avoid talking about his plan as much as possible, probably because he doesn’t want Maki to question him on it and learn that he does not, in fact, have anything “all figured out” at all.

I also get the sense that Kaito “backing away from the conversation” like this is him finding a distraction that’ll give him an excuse to not have to talk to Shuichi either. Kaito knows perfectly well why Maki invited him, after all.

Kaito: “Hm, so when you put them together, they become a crossbow. Looks interesting.”

Kaito is so curious and interested in anything and everything! Even when it’s a weapon, which he just said… well, let’s pretend he just said he doesn’t really like weapons in general. (It would make sense for Kaito to think that, since he’s all about people working together and communicating and using human creations to achieve great things, not using the fruits of human ingenuity to hurt each other.)

And Kaito’s really only interested in the crossbow for curiosity’s sake, rather than in terms of his plan, because he doesn’t include any crossbows in his big pile of weapons in the gym tomorrow.

Kaito: “Hey Maki Roll… can you teach me how to put it together?”

He’s not even planning to use the crossbows on Monokuma and he has no idea he’s going to want to use one later either! He just wants to learn a cool thing!

Maki: “And then, put that other part in the opposite way… Ah wait. That’s wrong.”

Kaito: “Oh, my bad. It goes this way.”

Maki: “Mmhm. Then, next it’s—”

It’s pretty cute to see Kaito being the one in the role of student, messing up sometimes and having Maki guide him and fix his mistakes. That’s a role Kaito is not usually comfortable putting himself in at all. Presumably he’s okay with this here because this is just an intellectual thing and there’s always more to be learned in that regard. This is quite separate from the kind of emotional and personal growth that he is always supposed to be in the teacher role for and definitely never need any help with himself.

Shuichi: (While watching those two, the memory of a similar scene came to my mind.)

Shuichi’s talking about himself and Kaede, specifically the time she held his hand and encouraged him to be braver about his issues of facing the truth. Which… doesn’t have anything to do with Maki teaching Kaito how to build a crossbow? The only vague similarity is that Maki is giving Kaito guidance, but I just talked about how it’s a completely different type of guidance from emotional support and therefore not really that analogous at all. Any moment in which Kaito was encouraging Shuichi or Maki to fight their “enemy” earlier in the story would have been a far more appropriate moment for Shuichi reminiscence about this – after all, Kaito, rather than Maki, is the one who’s really parallel to Kaede.

The only other similarity is that there happen to be romantic feelings involved in both cases, which is clearly what the game is actually trying to get at. And that’s annoying. It makes no sense to try and link them together just because of that when they are otherwise completely different – they both involve two people bonding in some way, perhaps, but they’re completely different kinds of bonding and neither are inherently romantic and could just as well have happened if all the feelings involved were nothing but platonic. Maki certainly isn’t thinking about what she’s doing as some kind of peak romance. She’s just teaching Kaito how to build a goddamn crossbow. The fact that she incidentally happens to have feelings for him is completely irrelevant, and there’s nothing in her behaviour that suggests that’s on her mind right now.

The narrative’s treatment of Maki’s thing for Kaito can occasionally get a little amatonormative, which frustrates me. (It’s still pretty minor, though – I see far, far worse all the freaking time.) But Maki herself never makes as big of a deal about it as the narrative does, which is appropriate for her character and which I appreciate. The writing is slightly awkward about it, but it’s not the writing of Maki which is awkward, just the writing around her, so I don’t have an inherent problem with the fact that Maki feels this way.

Kaito: “Whoa, since I built it, it became an extra-cool crossbow!”

Naturally. A Luminary of the Stars crossbow! He’s such a dork.

(And, given the state of mind he’s been in lately, he’s almost certainly completely faking his overblown opinion of himself now.)

Kaito: “It seems like it’s a bit complicated… but I think I can do it by myself next time.”

You’re not even currently planning on there being a next time, Kaito!

Maki: “…Shuichi, do you want to learn, too?”

While Maki started teaching Kaito because he asked, she offers to do the same for Shuichi out of nowhere. I get the sense that she’s trying to include him in what’s happening and give him and Kaito some common ground to maybe, just maybe, actually start a conversation over and slowly begin to close the gap between them.

(And the fact that she offered this to Shuichi goes to show that teaching someone how to build a crossbow is, funnily enough, not some kind of deep metaphor for romantic feelings.)

Shuichi: “Ah, no, that’s alright… I sort of understand from watching anyway.”

…But it seems Shuichi doesn’t quite want to be included in this way and possibly brought closer to having to maybe talk to Kaito. Dammit, Shuichi, you’re not helping the situation here.

Maki: “Then let’s put it away. You can easily take it apart by reversing the steps.”

Kaito: “Wait, do I have to do it?”

Maki: “Who else is going to do it?”

Kaito: “Yeah… s-sorry… I don’t… feel too good again…”

Maki: “…Huh?”

Kaito: “It seems like I’m not at 100%! So I’m gonna go back first!”

This is not about Kaito not wanting to put the crossbow away. He has never actually been as lazy and flaky as he can sometimes come across – and most of the times that he has come across that way, it’s really been because of his illness. This is because of his illness too. He’s probably started to feel another blood-coughing fit coming on and desperately doesn’t want to be around them for it (and we are indeed going to see him coughing up blood soon after this). So he’s using not wanting to put the crossbow away as his cover for leaving – and since being lazy and unreliable is not something it’d be in his character to admit to so he can’t just claim that outright without it sounding like an obvious excuse, he’s making it sound like he’s using his illness as the obviously-fake excuse to get out of that.

He’s making the truth sound like a lie in order to convince everyone that it’s not really the truth at all. That is some Kokichi-level deception there. Kaito is getting really desperate.

Shuichi: (Ignoring Maki trying to stop him, Kaito fled the room.)

“Fled”. That sure is a word to describe it, Shuichi. Somehow I don’t think having to put a crossbow away and tidy up after yourself is something anyone would ever have a reason to flee from.

Maki: “I knew he wasn’t the type to clean up, but I never thought he’d run away with a crappy lie…”

It worked. He convinced them that the illness part was the lie and not the other way around. Maki even remarks that it doesn’t seem like him to lie about that, yet she still bought that that’s what he did. God damnit, Kaito.

Maki: “…How frustrating. He’s the worst.”

I love her pouty face as she says this. Why does she care about this idiot so much. (Because he still saved her, even though he’s an idiot.)

Shuichi: “Ah, well, that’s just Kaito…”

Is it, Shuichi? I thought you were always the one to stand up for him when he couldn’t train because he was phobia-sick and Maki acted like he was just making pathetic excuses. Shouldn’t you be standing up for him here in that same way, since you know Kaito never really makes excuses like that? Apparently not, because that would mean suggesting that Kaito really is still sick and that wasn’t just an excuse. Even though it was clear at breakfast that nobody was convinced Kaito was really back at 100%, Shuichi still does not want to suggest out loud that this could be the case.

Maki: “I’m sure you know why I invited you, right?”

Shuichi: “Y-Yeah… I do. You were trying to get Kaito and me to make up.”

Of course Shuichi knew that as well. They both did – they just didn’t want to acknowledge it because that would mean admitting that they should be trying to talk to each other.

Really, Maki was going about this in a very unhelpfully indirect way that was just giving both of them plenty of excuse to continue to awkwardly ignore each other. What she really should have done is just talk about it, explicitly bringing attention to the fact that they should be talking to each other and try to force them to do so one way or another. If she was willing to be less indirect, I can honestly see her just declaring that she’s not letting them leave until they’ve talked to each other, then shutting them in here and guarding the door from outside. Granted, Kaito would probably immediately decide he’s not going to say a word in the hope he can out-stubborn Maki and get her to give up and let them out, because doing that would seem less painful to him than actually talking to Shuichi about this. But Shuichi at least would attempt to talk to Kaito for lack of anything else to do (he doesn’t think he can out-stubborn Maki), and in the process Kaito would start to realise that he’s completely misunderstanding Shuichi’s whole state of mind here and they might actually get somewhere.

If only Maki had realised that just them talking to each other in any shape or form would immediately start to fix things.

Maki: “It’s not like he hates you or anything.”

Very correct! I’m glad she knows this much at least. (If she thought Kaito really did (inconceivably) hate Shuichi now, there’d have been no point her even trying to get them to make up here.)

Maki: “He’s just being stubborn.”

…Less correct. Stubbornness would mean that this is about his principles and he’s stubbornly sticking to them even if it means shunning Shuichi. As I went over countless times during the trial, that was never truly the point. But the fact that Maki thinks it is explains why she doesn’t realise how easily talking would solve things – she thinks talking would just make it worse as long as Kaito’s still in this stubborn mood and it’s instead a case of needing to slowly wear down his stubbornness, hence her completely unhelpful indirect approach.

Shuichi: “But… I just don’t know what to say to him.”

He doesn’t say anything else before this “but”, so he never specifically agrees that he knows Kaito doesn’t hate him. Shuichi, please tell me you at least know Kaito doesn’t hate you. You can’t be that painfully wrong, surely?

Shuichi: “I-I had no choice! Gonta… If I didn’t do something, everyone would have died… I… I don’t think it’d be right to apologize for that…”

*very deep breath*

EXACTLY! Of course you shouldn’t apologise for that when you didn’t do anything wrong! This is precisely Kaito’s opinion on apologising! It is not possible that he could be expecting an apology from you!

This right here is the other reason I kept stressing Kaito’s principles on apologising so much – because it proves beyond a doubt that it does not make any kind of sense for Kaito to be angry at Shuichi here and wanting some kind of apology before he’ll talk to him again.

This isn’t something that necessarily requires multiple playthroughs to appreciate, either. I noticed during this moment on my first time through that what Shuichi said matched Kaito’s previously-stated opinions exactly and therefore Shuichi was wrong to be assuming Kaito wanted him to apologise. This is the biggest, most unambiguous clue that would let someone pick up that there’s more going on with Kaito here than meets the eye, but apparently most people still don’t, and it makes me sad. I’ve watched several blind LPs of this game – probably something like ten by now – and out of all of them, only one eventually sort of vaguely wondered if there might be more to this than just Kaito being angry. The real truth of this situation is so compelling, and it doesn’t deserve to be written off as its apparent face value and nothing more.

There’s also the part where Shuichi was almost certainly witness to the time Kaito most clearly expressed his opinions about apologising, to Kaede back in chapter 1 after the tunnel incident. You may recall how I awkwardly went out of my way to point out that despite how Kaito and Shuichi each leave after having their optionally-ordered conversations with Kaede there, it makes the most sense to think that Kaito canonically said his bit first and so Shuichi would have overheard it. This is the future point at which that is relevant that I promised back then. Buuuut, even though Shuichi probably heard Kaito’s speech that time, apparently he forgot about that, because if he remembered then he should be able to realise that Kaito can’t possibly want him to apologise here. I guess we can put that down to the fact that at the time his dependency was focused on Kaede and he wasn’t really paying attention to Kaito that much, so the things Kaito said weren’t necessarily likely to register or stick in his mind.

Something else interesting to note is that while Shuichi had a tendency to apologise unnecessarily in front of Kaede a lot, he never did so in front of Kaito, not even earlier on. He can’t have done, because if he had, Kaito would have given him the whole don’t-apologise-when-you’re-not-in-the-wrong speech and he’d definitely have remembered that. “Don’t make yourself feel bad unnecessarily for something that isn’t your fault” was in fact the general gist of a lot of the advice Kaito was giving Shuichi near the start, since that was Shuichi’s biggest problem. But Kaito never specifically mentioned apologising during any of that advice, so Shuichi never picked up on that part of his philosophy in particular – and I wonder how deliberate that was on the writers’ part in order to get this chapter to work.

It’s also quite remarkable that Shuichi is self-assured enough to be able to stand by what he did here and be sure that he shouldn’t apologise. That chapter 1 Shuichi who apologised too much to Kaede, and maybe also the early-chapter-2 Shuichi who blamed himself for Kaede’s death, would almost certainly have caved into telling himself he was in the wrong about this. And that growth from Shuichi is most likely thanks to Kaito’s influence anyway, albeit in a more indirect way that he’s less consciously aware of. Shuichi’s become able to think this way at least in part because some of Kaito’s general conviction and self-assuredness has rubbed off on him, even without him needing to follow specific words of advice.

Shuichi: “I’m sorry, Maki. I just… need more time…”

You’re not the one who needs it, Shuichi. The responsibility to fix this isn’t on you. If you could figure out what was going on in Kaito’s head and manage to help him, that would be really good… but you shouldn’t have to.

The reality of it is that Kaito was the one whose actions in the trial were in the wrong, not Shuichi. Kaito ended up making things more painful for Shuichi in a way that could have been avoided if he hadn’t acted the way he did. It’s like a worse version of the time he punched Shuichi at the end of Kaede’s trial, which was him losing control of himself and lashing out when he never really wanted to, and he apologised for that the morning after. Kaito is the one who owes Shuichi an apology here, and there’s no way he’s not aware of that. This is the one time in the story that Kaito shows an exception to his principles about apologising in the opposite direction from usual: not apologising when he has done something wrong. It’s not that he doesn’t think he should – it’s just that the thought of how badly he failed Shuichi during the trial hurts him so much that he doesn’t have the strength to accept it and face Shuichi and admit that he messed up.

The problem isn’t that Kaito is being stubborn, but rather that right now he’s basically being a coward. Which has a very different ring to it than all the times I’ve called Kokichi a coward, because Kokichi is almost always a coward and nopes away at the slightest sign of anything he doesn’t like. But Kaito is usually able to be pretty damn brave and face unpleasant things head-on – that even seems to be one of his general principles, like when he was encouraging Himiko to face up to Tenko’s death. So the fact that he can’t bring himself to face this even slightly just goes to show how absolutely terrified he must be about admitting this failure to Shuichi.

(Ready for an even-more-overthinking-it and somewhat personal tangent? Kaito concluding that he’s obviously failed Shuichi is very much a result of his issues about heroes and sidekicks, and I don’t want to sound like I’m about to diminish the importance of that. But the fact that this perceived failure is then apparently so unbearably painful to him that he simply cannot face it suggests to me that Kaito is also dealing with a thing called rejection sensitivity dysphoria, which amplifies this type of emotional pain to far more intense levels (and has a somewhat misleading name because it can also be about failure as well as rejection). This is one of the lesser-known symptoms of ADHD, and once this occurred to me, I then thought of everything else about Kaito and realised that huh, this actually makes a lot of sense. So ADHD Kaito is a pet headcanon of mine, one which totally doesn’t have anything to do with me having realised that I have ADHD and researched more about exactly what it is while being hyperfixated on Kaito. I have a lot more thoughts about this that don’t belong in this commentary because they aren’t really relevant to the story – the only point at which this headcanon potentially impacts the story, hence why I’m even mentioning it here at all, is right here in early chapter 5. I can confirm from experience that RSD sucks and makes even seemingly innocuous things hurt like hell, so if Kaito really does have ADHD and this really is contributing to his pain right now, holy crap I do not blame him one bit for not being able to face this.)

Maki: *sigh* “I didn’t realize you two would require such high maintenance.”

I love the way Maki puts this, like she’s unintentionally wound up taking care of two very difficult children. She’s such a good child caregiver!

Shuichi: “S-Sorry…”

Not your fault, Shuichi. Well, okay, slightly your fault for being so oblivious, but one can’t really blame you for what you’re not aware of. It is definitely far more Kaito’s fault for not having the courage to do what he knows he should be doing to put this right.

Shuichi: (I didn’t realize… Maki would be so concerned about us.)

And speaking of you being oblivious, Shuichi! How do you not already know by this point that Maki is a very caring person who would obviously worry about her friends when they’re being like this?

Shuichi: (In the end, I was the one who ended up disassembling the crossbow.)

So Maki did end up teaching him how to do it (albeit backwards) after all. Sort of beside the point though when the reason she offered in the first place was to try and encourage him and Kaito to talk to each other here, and it’s too late for that.

Shuichi: (And then there’s the… thing with me and Kaito…) “I need to make up with him… For us… and for Maki.”

Shuichi is still assuming it’s his responsibility to do this and not having it even remotely occur to him that actually maybe Kaito’s the one who needs to take action. But it’s nice that he sees it as even more important to do now he realises it’s not just hurting the two of them but also Maki as well. This is definitely something Kaito would realise too after tonight… not that that’s going to be enough to give Kaito the push he needs to do something, so he’s just going to be feeling even more guilty and awful about his cowardice now.

Shuichi: (I fell asleep thinking about it…)

This is the first time in a while Shuichi has gone to sleep while thoughts of his current problems have been going around and around in his head. Kaito’s training was supposed to help him not do that! But here we are again… thanks to Kaito’s mistakes.

Meanwhile, Kaito is helplessly coughing up blood outside, presumably in some hidden corner of the courtyard where Shuichi and Maki wouldn’t have accidentally happened across him on their way back.

Kaito: “Wh-Why…? Why… now? Why… me?”

This “why me?” is the closest Kaito ever gets to expressing the sentiment that it’s not fair that he’s the one who has to go through this. No-one else is dealing with anything like this; he’s the only one who has to carry this unimaginably heavy burden on top of everything else. Kaito would never directly voice the idea that he doesn’t think it’s fair, because that would centre things around himself – he’s bad enough at thinking that his suffering even matters at all, never mind putting it above everyone else’s. He is far too painfully selfless to ever consciously think that way, even beneath the façade he puts on for others – Kaito would sooner go through this a thousand times over than wish it upon anybody else in his place. But even so, there is a tiny part of him that does still feel that injustice that manages to come through here, just subtly enough that he probably doesn’t even register it, while he’s alone and no-one will ever see him feeling this way.

Also, though, why Kaito indeed? There’s three different answers to this question depending on the level of fictionality you look at it through.

In the most fictional sense, in terms of the in-story story about the meteorites and the virus that everyone on the Gofer Project was supposed to be immune to, it’s because he’s the astronaut. If they’re going to be flying in a spaceship and reaching a new world, an astronaut is the one talent they’d benefit from more than anything else, to the point that they’d be willing to take compromises over the immunity thing in order to get Kaito on board. An astronaut who’s only partially immune to the virus and who will be sick and drop dead a few weeks into the trip is still better than no astronaut at all. If any of the students was going to turn out to be only partially immune to the virus despite having been chosen for the Gofer Project, the most plausible one for it would be him.

In a less fictional sense, on the level of this being a story written by Team Danganronpa, it’s because Kaito was written to be the figure of support for Shuichi’s character arc of being a weak Ultimate Detective who grows strong. In aid of that, they wanted Kaito to give him that push in the first place, but then for Shuichi to have to slowly learn to stand on his own without Kaito. First they did this by extremely lazily nerfing Kaito’s effectiveness in chapter 3 with his arbitrary phobia. And now they’re nerfing Kaito in the most comprehensive way there is, by killing him. It’s possible that he would have gotten killed by the killing game at some point anyway, but the in-universe writers couldn’t leave that to chance and wanted to be sure Shuichi would eventually lose him, so they made sure Kaito was dying no matter what for an external reason that could be conveniently tied into their backstory.

(Oh, man, if Kaito ever learned that the reason he’s dying, on the truest level that matters to him, is simply that the mastermind just wanted him out of the way and out of the “story” so that Shuichi could take the spotlight and be the real hero who doesn’t need his help anymore… fuck, that would be vicious. That’d stab Kaito exactly where he’s already hurting the most. Maybe it’s a good thing he never actually learns the truth.)

But on the not-at-all-fictional level, it’s because the real, out-universe purpose of Kaito’s story isn’t just to be the mentor for Shuichi’s development, but also to be a deconstruction of those kinds of heroic mentor characters. (I can think of four other characters in other works of fiction who remind me of Kaito in that they seem like perfect heroes but know that their best friend can become even stronger than them and inspire said friend to reach that potential – and all four of them die.) In order to deconstruct that, Kaito needed to be, on some level, not okay with only being there to inspire Shuichi and then die, and to do that he needs to know that he’s going to die. Kaito would already have been messed up to some extent by his percieved inferiority to Shuichi even if he weren’t dying, but the helplessness caused by his impending death and how he tried to deal with it by clinging to the feeling that at least Shuichi needs him only to lose that too has made his breakdown far more spectacular than it would have been otherwise. Kaito’s entire character arc is delightful and his looming inevitable death is a vital part of it, and the out-universe writers know exactly what they’re doing. (The in-universe writers don’t, though. I really believe they only see Kaito as a disposable crutch for Shuichi’s development and not as someone to have a character arc of his own. Boy were they wrong. Boy are most of the best parts of this story not something the in-universe writers had planned at all.)

Kaito: “Damn it… I’m running… outta time.”

Not for himself. He already said this morning he was going to get “you guys” and not “us” out of here. He’s running out of time to finally make a difference and be a hero to everyone else after how badly he feels he’s failed so far.

Kaito: “I can’t die like this… Like hell am I gonna… die here…”

“Like this”, meaning he can’t die the way he currently is, as a failure. “Here”, meaning he can’t die while everyone’s still trapped in here and at least wants to see them escape and know they’re going to be okay before the end.

Kaito: “I… I still… haven’t gone… t-to space… Damn it…”

Final reminder: Kaito cannot die before he has gone to space. Five times he says something to this effect. It is So Important.

…But this time, I don’t think Kaito really believes he’s going to manage it. I think this is him brokenly lamenting the realisation that he’s never going to make it to space after all. Everything else he wants is for others. This is the only thing he wants that’s purely for himself, and it’s the one thing he knows is already a lost cause.

I really like how the illustration here is framed such that the background behind Kaito is the stars he thinks he’ll never get to reach.

This is almost the same illustration as the scene at the end of chapter 3, except there’s a lot more blood, and his expression is even more anguished, to the point that he’s crying. The previous times Kaito cried, it was for other people who’d died, for all of the pain that everyone had been feeling in general. Here, Kaito is only crying for himself. So it’s only natural that he’d only ever do this when nobody else will see him.

Also, mad props to Kaito’s voice actor for this scene. You can hear every bit of his fear and helplessness beneath his desperate attempts to still sound determined, and it’s wonderful.

(His Japanese VA’s performance here is equally good, mind you; do recommend checking out both.)

Also also, props to the out-universe writers for even including this scene? This is one of not many times that Shuichi’s POV is broken, and that usually only happens during chapter opening/ending stingers. And we already know full well by this point that Kaito is definitely dying, so it’s not like this tells us any new plot information that we didn’t otherwise have. We’re shown this solely because it’s important for us to understand how Kaito is feeling about this, that the façade he puts on in front of the others is very much a façade for the others and he isn’t able to lie to himself about the way he really feels. Even if he has trouble admitting it to himself in words, because that would be tantamount to giving up, he is clearly quite consciously aware of how bad things are beneath it all. (This is, of course, in contrast to Kokichi, who was still thoroughly lying to himself about everything when we saw him alone at night.) The writers care so much about getting Kaito’s character arc across as much as is possible considering how much he hides from the surface and how oblivious Shuichi is to it all, and I’m so glad they do.

On a related note, it’s time for my favourite Monokuma Theater! Which happens to be the only one of the actually-meaningful ones whose meaning should be readily apparent on a first time through.

Monokuma: “Recklessness is a beautiful thing.”

Because he’s obviously talking about Kaito.

Monokuma: “It’s so beautiful, I want to print the words ‘Reckless Beauty’ on a t-shirt.”

(I low-key want there to be Danganronpa fan creators out there who have actually made t-shirts like this.)

Monokuma: “Because recklessness is the stuff that dreams are made of.”

Dreams like going to space, no matter how impossible that might seem!

Monokuma: “It’s what makes you run at full speed, with no regard for your limitations.”

It’s what makes you cheat your way in and take a test you know you’re too young for, with no regard for what might happen if you get caught, all so that you can get to space that much sooner! It’s what makes you keep giving it your all to support your friends, with no regard for the fact that you’re dying!

Monokuma: “It’s what makes you excited by anything.”

Like space! Like snow! Like crossbows! Like every single kind of human endeavour imaginable! Like magic and made-up kids’ games you know aren’t true but who cares because pretending they are is fun!

Monokuma: “Some say it’s foolish, but recklessness is what causes new events to unfold.”

Like encouraging everyone to risk using the first Flashback Light when most of them were too scared to try it! Like reaching out to a lonely assassin who would have remained alone without your help because nobody else wanted to risk getting close to her! Like taking action to fight back even though you have no idea what you’re doing, because if you don’t then no-one else will!

Monokuma: “So while you’re still alive, live your life so recklessly that it makes you immortal.”

And maybe if you live so recklessly in the time you have left, with such brazen disregard for your limits and weaknesses, maybe it’ll help you feel like you aren’t really weak and dying at all.

Monokuma: “And if haters laugh at you, let them. They just don’t appreciate reckless beauty like you do.”

Stick to your convictions! Be true to yourself! Never stop being you, no matter how much everyone else tells you you’re an idiot! You know your recklessness is beautiful, so who cares what others think!?

This whole thing is clearly written to celebrate so many of the things that are great about Kaito, and I love it.

---

[Next post]

#danganronpa #danganronpa v3 #drv3 #ndrv3 #chapter 5 #daily life #commentary

5 notes · View notes

consilium-games · 6 years

Text

A Rambling and Brain-Fried Post on Hermeneutics

It's a godless and blighted hour (11AM) as I write this, and scheduling heartache has left me swirly-eyed and sleep-deprived. Lately I've absorbed a pretty specific combination of media that's led me to think dazedly about hermeneutics, basically "systems of interpretation of a work of media" such as stories. And in light of my past couple games, and a game whose premise I haven't finished chewing on, I think getting some thoughts down (and maybe even some discussion?!) might help someone. I don't know, maybe me?

Inciting Events

By now anyone reading this has heard of Undertale. Spoilers happen here. The creator of Undertale recently released a . . . possibly-related videogame called Deltarune. I say possibly related with good reason, and I don't intend to directly spoil the game as it just came out, but it gave me interesting questions about narrative interpretation--hermeneutics--more generally. I also will probably talk a bit about Doki Doki Literature Club! which you might not have encountered or played. Some high-level spoilers will occur. This post will contain zero 'fan theories', as that has nothing to do with my game-design beat--rather, academic theories on "how do people approach interpreting stories" has a lot to do with my pretentious narrativist game-design ethos!

Also of note, I've watched a playthrough of a videogame called Witch's House, and without spoiling that, it struck me that one of the puzzles will behave drastically differently, depending on whether the player reads one of the ubiquitous hints. Meaning, not only do the hints constitute a mechanic, but discerning how to trust hints becomes a game objective. And further, since "reading a hint" is an in-game action, but recalling a hint is not, the game may behave unpredictably to the player who reads a hint, doesn't save, dies, and reloads--and doesn't read the hint again.

Lastly, I've revisited some analyses of Don't Hug Me I'm Scared, and it put me in mind of discussions about This House Has People In It and The Cry of Mann, and in particular: discussions about those discussions, arguments about how presenting interpretations can color people's formed interpretations. And last warning, I'm still pretty brain-fried, I'll blame that if I end up rambling incoherently.

Setting Out

There's a lot of literature about literature, and literature about literature about literature. Perhaps some day people will spill ink about ink than anything else. Fortunately, we haven't yet entered a boundless singularity of self-referentiality. So I can afford to stake out a couple terms I expect I'll mutter:

hermeneutic: a specific approach, strategy, or philosophy to understanding a work. This can be totally informal ("Christian songs are easy to write, just take a pop song and replace 'baby' with 'Jesus'") or very rigorous ("Derrida's analysis of identity puts it to blame for religious and nationalist fanaticism"), but just treat it as technical shorthand for "approach to understanding a thing".

auteur theory: mostly used in film analysis, in our backyard it means "the author of a work arbitrates its meaning". So, eg Stephen King can definitively and canonically say "Leland Gaunt is an extradimensional alien, not Satan, the Adversary and the Prince of Darkness, from orthodox Christianity". And if King says this, that makes it true and the audience should understand Needful Things in light of this fact King told us with his mouth but not with his story.

Death of the Author: by contrast, 'Death of the Author' means that once a work has an audience (the creator published it, or put it on Steam, or hit Send on Twitter, or just played a song on their porch), the audience has liberty to interpret it however they please, and the creator's word about What It Means has no more weight than the audience. Which would mean that if King tells us Leland Gaunt is an alien, and Needful Things is closer to Lovecraft than King James, that's cool--it's a neat theory, Steve, but I think it's about . . . (Note: I don't know if King has made this claim, but Needful Things does have a few weird neat textual indications that Gaunt is some kind of Cthulhu and not the Lightbringer.)

code-switching: technically from linguistics, borrowed into social sciences, in this post it means a creator of a work putting something into the work that implicitly or explicitly prompts the audience to consciously alter or monitor their interpretation. As a very simple example, suppose someone says with a straight face and deadpan delivery, "I'm a law-abiding citizen who supports truth, justice, and The American Way." Now, suppose they make air-quotes around 'law-abiding'--it rather changes the meaning, by prompting the audience to reinterpret the literal wording.

Okay, I . . . think that'll do. So hi, I'm consilium, and as a goth game designer it should come as no surprise that I like my authors with some degree of living-impairment. Interpreting a text has an element of creativity to it that the creator simply can't contribute on the audience's behalf. More than that though, there just seems something off about the idea that, say, a reader of Needful Things might read about Sheriff Alan Pangborn, and interpret the specific way he defeats Leland Gaunt as allegorical of how cultivating creativity, community, and empathy can help prevent the dehumanization of consumerism and capitalism--only for King to say "no, Alan was just a parallel-universe avatar of the Gunslinger and thus could defeat Gaunt, who was just an extradimensional eldritch predator". If King were to say such a thing after audiences have gotten to know and love Alan on the terms presented in the text, and King were to come back with "maybe that's what I said but that's not what I meant"--my response would have to be a cordial "interesting theory, but it doesn't seem supported by the text".

So, I generally like Death of the Author! But . . . but. I've taken to gnawing on this idea in this game-design blog because--of course--It's More Complicated Than That. Roleplaying games as a medium work about as differently from other media as, say, sculpture and songwriting. And despite essentially just putting bells and whistles and protocol on top of possibly the oldest human artistic medium--storytelling--RPGs have a lot of weirdness they introduce for analysis and critique.

For example, my reservations on Death of the Author! Specifically: taking "in-character, in-game events and narration" as the work of interest, and "the other players at the table" as the audience, what happens when you describe your character Doing Something Cool--based on a mistake? We need a teeny bit of "creator as arbitrator of meaning", so we can at least say, literally, "oh, no, that's not what I meant"! Otherwise, the other players' "freedom of interpretation" leads to your character doing something nonsensical and now they have to have their characters respond--they have a worse work to create within.

This gets at something pretty foundational in treating RPG stories as art: almost any other medium has a creator create a work as a finished thing, and only then does an audience ever interpret it. Whether plural creators collaborate or not, whether the work exists as apocryphal oral tradition and mutates through telling, whether some audience members take it up as their own with flourishes (such as with a joke), there still exists this two-stage process of "author creates" and then "audience interprets". Except in stories within roleplaying games as generally practiced.

In RPGs, the creators almost always constitute the entire audience (I'll ignore things like "RPG podcasts" and novelizations of someone's DnD campaign here, as they make up a vanishingly tiny minority). The audience of the work not only creates it though--they experience the work almost entirely before you could ever call the work 'completed'. Even if we falsely grant that every game concludes on purpose rather than just kinda petering out because people get bored, leave college, have other things to do, or whatever else killed your last game, players experience the story in installments that don't exist until the end of the session. So "interpretation" gets . . . weird.

Basic Hermeneutics

On a surface level, the story of an RPG usually doesn't demand a lot of depth and analysis: some protagonists, inciting incident, various conflicts, faffing about as the PCs fail to get the hint, some amusing or tense or infuriating whiffs and failures along the way, and charitably, some kind of resolution to the main conflict and dramatic and character arcs. Usually metaphors tend to be explained straight up ("my character's ability to 'blur' things reflects her own weak personal boundaries and over-empathization"), and motifs often even moreso ("guys, seriously, what happens every single time your characters see spiders?"). A lot of this comes from necessity of that very immediate, improvised, as-we-go nature of the medium! You have to make sure your audience gets what you intend them to get--because in mere seconds they'll create some more story that depends on the bit of story you just created. And back and forth.

But, quite without realizing it or meaning to, we can't really help but inject other chunks of meaning into stories we help create. Maybe even chunks of meaning that contradict others' contributions at the table. Spoiler alert: I do not have a theory or framework to address this. The Queen Smiles kind of digs into this, but this goes beyond my current depth. So, what can we conjecture or say, what scaffolding could we build, to build a more robust "literary theory of game stories"? I have some basics as I see them:

Auteur theory (creator arbitrates meaning)

This can only apply to one player's contributions, not across plural players.

Necessary, for both basic clarification and because perfectly conveying the ~*~intended meaning~*~ frankly just doesn't work as a thing you can do off the top of your head when your turn comes to say what your character does.

GMs (where applicable) shouldn't use this to defend poor description or ill-considered presentation of "cool things for PCs to care about and cool things to do about it"--just because the GM intended the cop to be sympathetic doesn't make him so, and if he's not sympathetic . . . the protagonists will not treat him so.

Dead authors (freedom of interpretation)

Players can try this out on their own characters, and should, but should ask other players about their characters if something seems odd, confusing, intriguing, or otherwise. "You keep making a point of meticulously describing your character's weird nervous tic. The exact same way every time. How come? What's it mean?"

Players of course can answer engagement like this any way they please, including stabbing themselves with the quill: "you figure it out, if your character were to ask mine, mine would supply her answer which I may or may not know".

GMs (where applicable) should really lean on this: improvise, throw ideas and themes at the wall, and frantically build on top of the audience's ideas, since those ideas clearly resonate with the audience.

Code-switching (deliberately modifying interpretation)

We all do this all the time: the dragon is not telling you to roll for your attack, after all. The GM is, by switching between narrating the world, and communicating with a player.

More subtly we do this when switching between "what our character believes" and "what we players reasonably expect". Your costumed superhero might think of herself as righteous vengeance incarnate, but you hope everyone at the table knows you think she's conceited and delusional at best, and a full-bore psychopath at worst. This hopefully doesn't mean you play your psychopath superhero any less sincerely, but it does require a bit of ironic detachment, you know something about her that she can't know about herself (beyond that she's a fictional character, of course).

Even more subtly, sometimes weird game interactions (of the rules, other PCs, other players) imply things we wish they wouldn't, but can't quite control, and often everyone knows this. "Why can't you muster up your courage one more time?!" "Because I ran out of Fate points," your character doesn't say. Instead, your fellow authors share a look over the table, and gingerly tiptoe around an obvious, character-appropriate thing, and seize on some other thing to say or do, hopefully just as obvious and character-appropriate. But, everyone switched codes, from "characters doing things for reasons" to "the rules inform our story, and we follow them because they help".

Prepaid analysis (game-specific themes or arcs)

A lot of games have some baked-in themes right off the shelf, and provide good starting points and directions of inqury for interpreting a story born out of playing them. Monsterhearts deals with teenage cruelty and queer sexuality. Succession deals with faith, one's place in the world, and how these relate to morality. Bliss Stage tumultuous coming-of-age and taking care of one another, or failing to. If you use eg Lovesick to tell a story that you can't approach or interpret in light of "dangerous, unstable, desperate romantics"--you probably picked the wrong game. You should pick a better game.

Besides these themes, many games also have more abstract ideas--arcs or processes--that they really enshrine. Exalted gives Solars (mythical heroes patterned after ancient folklore) a mechanic called "Limit Break" which mechanically funnels a Solar toward destroying themselves with their own virtue. Likewise, even if you somehow excise Monsterhearts' focus on teenage cruelty and sexuality, you really shouldn't play if you want to avoid social stigma as a theme, because most of the mechanics hinge on it.

We players often deliberately bring in some themes and ideas we'd like to play with, too. "I want to play a character whose determination will be her own undoing--and probably everyone else's." Or even just "I really like themes where physical strength is tragically and stupefyingly unhelpful". Those make for great starting points and prompt good questions to interpret stories!

I know someone with more literary theory and less sleep deprivation could add a few basic givens, but I think this at least goes to show we have ground to stand on and territory to explore. And probably more importantly, it points out some useful kinds of questions we can ask about the story of a game and how to interpret it. So, why did I ever bring up Undertale back there?

Audience Awareness

The following works have something in common: House of Leaves, Funny Games, This House Has People In It, The Cry of Mann, The Shape on the Ground, Undertale, and Deltarune. Besides "being very good", they all explicitly pose the audience as an entity within the story--but, they do it in a very unusual way.

See, the story of a Mario game is about Mario even if the player controls Mario--and though it's a subtle distinction, this also applies to eg Doom, where you play as an explicitly nameless faceless protagonist, intended to be your avatar. Even in the most plot-free abstract game, if we can salvage out a story (if perhaps an extremely degenerate and rudimentary one like 'how this game of chess played out'), the 'story' happily accommodates the audience within it.

That's not how the list I gave does things. Not at all.

Instead, the works I listed single out the audience as something else: in House of Leaves, unreliable narrators call out the unreliable interpreter reading the narrative. In Funny Games, the audience doesn't participate--but the audience watches, and the film knows this, and singles the audience out as complicit in the horrible events that unfold. This House Has People In It casts us as the prying NSA subcontractor watching hours of security footage and reading dozens of e-mails, and makes it clear that even our Panopticon of surveillance doesn't give us a complete account of reality. The Cry of Mann casts us as gibbering voices from an eldritch plane of cosmic horror. The Shape on the Ground poses as a disinterested and clinical psychological test, but it clearly has some ideas about what would lead us to take such a 'test'.

And then there's Undertale and Deltarune. Last warning, I'll say whatever I find convenient about Undertale and probably '''spoil''' something about Deltarune in the process. I do not care.

Hostility to the Audience

If Undertale itself had a personality, one could fairly describe it as "wary of the player": it plays jokes and tricks, but it knows the player is a player, of Undertale, which Undertale also knows is a videogame. It gives you ample chance to have a fun, funny, and sometimes disturbing game, with a lot of tempting and tantalizing unspoken-s hiding juuuust offscreen. But Undertale's point as a work involves giving you the chance to not do that while still, technically, engaging with the game.

Namely, the Genocide Run. By killing literally absolutely every single thing in the game that the game can possibly let you kill, the game very purposely unfolds entirely differently--and on multiple playthroughs, the game will outright take notice of multiple playthroughs, and challenge you for--in effect--torturing the narrative it can deliver by forcing it to deliver every narrative. Let's think about that for a moment:

Most videogames have some kind of excuse of a narrative, and lately, many have really good, nuanced stories to tell--and many of those even go to the (mindbendingly grueling) effort of delivering a plurality of good narratives that honor your agency as a player--maybe even a creator, as best a videogame can with its limitations.

But, what can you say about a story that has multiple endings? Or multiple routes to them? And what can you say about a story that, in some of its branches, simply goes to entirely different places as narratives? It strains the usual literary critical toolkit, to say the least.

Now, a game like Doki Doki Literature Club! approaches this exact same idea of addressing its story as manipulable by the player, of the player as an agent in the story, but in a pretty straightforward way as far as "a narrative that works this way": the narrative already describes "and then the player came along and messed everything up". All of the player's different routes serve this one overarching narrative: the game has an obsessive fixation on you and wants you to play it forever (which, given its nature as (roughly) a visual novel . . . perhaps asks quite a lot).

Undertale takes a step back from even this level of abstraction, though: the implicit and often hidden events of its world and narrative unfold / have unfolded / will unfold, and a given player's "story" consists of "what the player does to this multi-branched narrative-object". The game judges you to your face for contorting its weird timeline-multiple-universe meta-story . . . but lets you do it, to prove the point it wants to prove.

And without much controversy, we can conclude that point roughly summarizes to "playing games just for accomplishment and mastery doesn't give as rewarding an experience as immersing in the story and characters". The subtler point under that, though, comes out through multiple playthroughs: "immersing yourself in a story and cast of characters too much will harm your life and your enjoyment of other things". Undertale, were it a person, would probably look nervously at you after several 'completionist' playthroughs to "see all the content", and it explicitly describes this exact behavior to the player's face as something objectionable--even calling out people who watch someone else play on streams and video hosts.

"Just let it be a story"

Which brings us to Deltarune. I've no doubt dozens of cross-indexed internet-vetted analyses and fan-theories will arise in the next few months (and I look forward to them), but on a once-over the game seems to have one specific thing to say to the player's face: "you are intruding on a story that isn't about you". The game opens with an elaborate character-creator (well, for a retroclone computer RPG), then tells you "discarded, you can't choose who you are, and you can't choose who the character is either". It has fun with giving the player dialog options--then timing out and ignoring the input. It even tells the player in in-game narration that "your choices don't matter". The story itself doesn't even care very much about the player's character, instead hinging on the development and growth of an NPC, following her arc, without much concern for the player's thoughts on the matter. And at the very end, after playing mind-games with the player's familiarity and recognition of Undertale characters--the close does something both inexplicable and disturbing. This is not your story: it's not about you, your choices don't affect it, and it doesn't care what you think.

As an aside, it seems like quite a good game--but I think that comes in part because of this very drastic intent and the skill with which it executes that intent (ie, bluntly at first, subtly enough to almost forget, and then slapping hard enough to prompt a flashback).

And holding this alongside Undertale's stark (even literal) judgment of the player for 'forcing' the narrative to contort to accommodate the player's interaction with that narrative, it seems clear to me that where Doki Doki Literature Club! has fun with the idea of "player as complicit in something gross, and as motivating something cool", Undertale and Deltarune seem much more interested in making the player take an uncomfortable look at how they engage with narratives.

Defensive Hermeneutics

On one hand, Funny Games, The Cry of Mann, and Undertale and Deltarune stare back at the audience, judge them, treat them as an intruding, invading, even corrupting force from outside the work, criticize the audience for enjoying the work, and even call the audience out for engaging in detailed critique, like some kind of cognitive logic-bomb, or a cake laced with just enough ipecac to punish you for eating more than a slice.

But on the other, House of Leaves, This House Has People In It, The Shape on the Ground, and Doki Doki Literature Club all want the audience to participate, to scrutinize, to interact with the narrative and question it, as well as themselves. What does that first camp have in common besides wariness and hostility to the audience, and what does this second camp have in common besides treating the audience as creative of the work's meaning? I'll call it "a defensive hermeneutic".

Notionally, the audience has hermeneutics: ways of understanding a work. But, a creator can't help but have some understanding of the likely mental state and view of a(n imagined) audience, approaching the text in some way. A creator can thus bake in or favorably treat some approaches over others, and can even use this to guide criticism about their work.

That first group, which I'll call "defensive", has one striking common feature: the 'surface level' plots either don't matter, or have very simple outlines. Funny Games' plot is exactly as follows: two psychopaths terrorize, torture, and eventually murder an innocent family. The Cry of Mann shows us what looks a lot like a small child trying to mimic a melodramatic soap-opera, before Things Get Weird (and any extant 'surface level' plot goes under the waves). And Undertale and Deltarune give us the stock "hero appears in strange land, arbitrary puzzle-quests ensue, climactic final confrontation restores peace to the land". This serves as the set-dressing and vehicle for the actual plots--or sometimes simply cognitive messages--to get into the audience's minds:

"What, exactly, do you get out of slasher torture-porn movies? Why do you create the market for things like this?" "Are you sure about where your sense of empathy and identification points you? What makes you think you have a grip on reality enough to judge who's right and relatable, and who isn't?" "Don't just passively consume games like they were kernels of popcorn. But don't gorge yourself on the same dish, either--there's more out there, but you have to look for it."

In short: these works don't want you to nitpick the works themselves. Their entire message consists of second-or-higher-order interpretation. To put it another way, they want to make sure you don't pay attention to the handwriting, because the gaps between the words spell out a poem and the words themselves only create those gaps.

Participatory Hermeneutics

By this same token, I'll call the second camp "participatory": they treat the audience as a kind of creator in their own right--Borges did this a lot and with relish in his later years, and Doki Doki Literature Club! makes it a game mechanic. A creator using this "participatory" hermeneutic essentially doesn't consider their work 'finished' until the audience interprets it. This should sound familiar. The audience contributes meaning to the work, by interpreting it, and a "participatory" work counts on it. And, to contrast with the "defensive" camp: they use complex (sometimes even overcomplicated) plots, which matter and inform interpretation, and tie into the second-order meaning that the work attempts to convey. The "surface level" plots don't solely carry a tangled "interpret this" into the audience's brain. Instead, the surface plot has enough complexity to have a plot-hole, enough character depth to have problematic characters, and enough weight on its own merit to have unappealing implications. In other words: even without convoluted postmodern hoity-toity highfalutin' hermeneutic jibberjabber, a member the audience can find a story they can just enjoy on its merits.

Before anyone angrily starts defending the characters in Undertale or complaining about the directionlessness of This House Has People In It, I hope I've made it really clear, I lumped these works into these two categories based on an overall tendency and commonality, in approaching this one really abstract concept, and as with any work, any binary you can think of will have gradations if you look among "all works, ever". And, even more importantly:

I really love all these works, and I love what they do and how they do it. They all also have flaws, because flawed humans made them, and flawed humans enjoy them. That all said: the "participatory hermeneutic" has everything to offer for my purposes, while the "defensive hermeneutic" . . . might get a post of its own someday.

So What Now?

In aeons past, I wrote about feedback and criticism, and this seems like a good time to dust off that idea with a new application. In particular, that old post talks simply about players (and GMs where applicable) helping each other to contribute their best, and get the most enjoyment out of a game. Here, we'll look at some basic questions players can pose each other as creators of a work, rather than participants of a game or members of an audience.

So let's take that 'player survey' and repurpose it for Dark Humanities and getting a toehold on literary criticism:

Can you describe your approach to your character?

What do you want to convey about your character?

What was one thing you want to make sure we all understand?

How do you interpret my character so far?

What theme or motif do you think our characters express together?

What misconception or misunderstanding would you like to clear up or prevent?

What themes do you want to explore?

And just like the 'player character questionnaire', everyone should update and refine their survey every few sessions. As a given game goes on, for example, you might get to know one of the PCs so well that you never need to worry about "misconceptions or misunderstandings", regarding that character's motivations and personality and thematic implication. But, that character's connection with eg themes of parental abandonment might change, and when that topic comes up, you can devote a question or three just to asking things like "might your character be treating this person as a surrogate mother-figure?" Maybe the player never thought of it that way! Maybe the player thinks that would be a great idea! But neither of you will think about it without pausing a moment to consider things like this.

And once everyone has shared a bit about their characters' themes and clarified everyone else's, you can discuss deliberately pursuing an idea, through your characters. Obviously your characters have no motivation for this, but your characters don't even exist, so they don't have any say in the matter.

For example, cyberpunk naturally deals with corporate oppression, alienation, dehumanization, and technological obsolescence. But, when one PC regularly takes recreational drugs, and baits another into joining them, a third concocts elaborate revenge fantasies, and a fourth picks up broken people like stray cats and tries to parent them into being functional . . .

Maybe they all share a more specific theme of "dysfunctional coping mechanisms". The drug-user is nice and obvious--and their partner joining them in partaking perhaps has a need to belong. The vengeful obsessive might be compensating for feelings of powerlessness and vulnerability by hurting or preparing to hurt others. And the self-styled Good Samaritan and would-be Guardian Angel might be doing the opposite--just as unhealthily.

Importantly, everyone keeps playing their character, the character they made, the character they want to play. But, with some good chewy discussion about story, everyone can also look for spots where, indeed, their character might just so happen to--do something to further this sub-theme of "dysfunctional coping mechanisms", on top of the background of alienation, obsolescence, and dehumanization.

Academic, critical, literary discussion of roleplaying games as games seems like a sadly underexplored subject. But critical discussion of the stories themselves, the ones happening at each table, might as well be completely unknown--so here's hoping someone can build on this!

#deltarune #undertale #theory #game design #critique #analysis #postmodernism

12 notes · View notes

solimavi · 7 years

Text

An Analysis on the Sexualities of Tweek and Craig

Quick Introduction Spoiler: This analysis reaches the conclusion that both of these characters are gay. But not just that they’re gay. That homosexuality is “the point”. If I were to start this analysis by saying their sexualities don’t actually matter in the grand scheme of things, I’d be a liar (based on my observations made in this analysis). And I’m not just talking about their homosexuality mattering in terms of representation. Their homosexuality matters in terms of mattering to South Park. Don’t get what I mean? That’s what this analysis is for and that point will be made especially clear in the last section.

Before I can get to that big chunk of meta, I will also be going over the character sheets.

First of all. I will NOT touch anything pre-Tweek x Craig. This is why I dislike my old analysis, it draws too many points from old episodes. To try and make a statement about modern canon using old information is to assume there is intended continuity that goes years back. And in this case, it also assumes Matt and Trey seriously thought about the sexualities of these two minor characters before Tweek x Craig. And being honest, I don’t think Matt and Trey thought about Tweek and Craig much in general before TxC. Craig didn’t have his modern characterization fully established until “Pandemic” (he was mostly just a rival to the main four before then) and Tweek just straight up stopped existing for years.

I also won’t go into Tweek x Craig because I think plenty of people have hit upon that episode already (including myself in my old analysis on Tweek). If you want to see the points I made on Tweek from that episode, here you go .

Them as Superheros and the Character Sheets

On to the character sheets! These (obviously) aren’t all of them, but they are the only ones relevant to this analysis.

It’s obvious these sheets aren’t completely accurate. The only straight Cartman is and will ever be is a straight up liar. But I don’t think that makes ALL of these sheets inaccurate. Making a superhero persona =/= always making a character completely distinct from who you actually are (though you COULD do that). Think of an actual superhero with a secret identity. When we talk about something like Batman and Bruce Wayne, are we talking about two distinct characters or are they ultimately the same character leading a double life? Easy. The latter. So it’s fair to say some of the kids treated their superhero personas that way. But how do you determine how the kids went about their superhero identities?

Let’s look at Kyle. He went all out with making his character and at one point, even directly says he dropped some of his personal information in favor of making his superhero more believable as an alien.

That makes the rest of his character sheet questionable as to whether or not the information applies to KYLE, not Human Kite. Maybe he came up with an asexual gender-neutral alien race? Or maybe Kyle really IS asexual? It’s hard to say. The point is that this character sheet is for sure not completely accurate to who Kyle actually is. He treats Human Kite as someone distinct from himself as an actual person. Because of that, the things on his character sheet should be taken with a grain of salt.

Now let’s look at Tweek and Craig. These two, unlike the others, tie in their superhero personas to who they actually are. How can I say that for sure? Because they literally put their actual names into the names of their superhero personas.

Because they keep their real names in their superhero names, that’s a pretty big indication these superhero personas aren’t meant to be completely distinct from them as people. And there’s nothing from the superhero histories they came up with or in the game dialogue to suggest they’re meant to be distinct. They’re just Tweek and Craig, now with super powers.

Though of course, those sheets and this explanation of them aren’t quite solid enough proof to end this analysis at that. But I do think the argument is solid enough to not toss the character sheets aside as completely invalid. They make excellent tools for comparing what’s claimed on the sheets and what the characters show in behavior.

But I’m not done here with their superhero personas. This IS an analysis on the sexualities of Craig and Tweek so it would be criminal not to bring this up. Wonder Tweek most likely based his costume and powers more on Wiccan than any other superhero, despite naming himself after Wonder Woman. Here is a fantastic post on that

Why does that matter here? Because Tweek skipped over modelling his costume and abilities after the big name superheroes and wanted to be more like Wiccan, an explicitly gay superhero who isn’t well known. Kids often admire and make role models out of characters they can see a part of themselves in. Tweek found this powerful superhero character that shared something big in common with him, so he wanted to use Wiccan as a model for his own superhero persona. Like how many little girls like dressing up like Wonder Woman. Which, to me, is very adorable and heartwarming.

The Subject of their Sexualities within the Series

On to the last point. The idea of them liking strictly boys is something the series likes to come back to. Even if they’re things meant to make you laugh more than anything. Whether it’s Craig bringing the subject up for no apparent reason and bluntly saying “I’m gay” in his monotone voice, or Tweek not bucking out extra cash to impress a flirty waitress who wears her shorts extra tight and short and then at another point proclaiming his love for “sausage” - the writers bring you back to the idea that “Yes, they’re GAY”. This type of content wouldn’t be thrown in if they intended for you to think otherwise.

And I’m not just talking about bringing the fandom (who are watching this stuff more closely) back to the idea of them being gay, I’m talking about the average viewer. I’ve seen quite a few playthroughs where seemingly more casual fans laugh at how awkwardly Craig brings the subject up and how straight forward he is. Or ignore the notes the Raisins Girls have on Dog Poo and Butters, but then chuckle once they see Tweek’s. These scenes serve to remind the audience as a whole that these characters are gay (using humorous methods to do so - this is a comedy after all).

I’m pretty sure everyone has noticed how much the others characters love to point out that Tweek and Craig are gay at any chance they get. They’re constantly referred to as “gay” or “homosexual”. It’s constantly thrown in at complete random, with even the news anchor from “Put it Down” calling Tweek a “young homosexual boy”. Almost seems like they’re trying to rub these two characters being gay into our faces doesn’t it?

Because that’s EXACTLY what they’re doing. And here’s where the meta comes in. When those other characters remind you that Tweek and Craig are gay, that’s SOUTH PARK reminding you that they’re gay.

Looking back at the Tweek x Craig commentary reveals these reminders are intentionally brought up a lot and serve to work as parodies. Here’s a quote from the commentary: “It’s basically kind of the show saying look how cool and up to date we are! We now have a gay couple on it and it shows how proud shows can be of themselves for having gay couples.” Link to the commentary

Matt and Trey describe the excitement of the townspeople as being a metaphor for the show itself being excited and proud to have gay characters. The moments after TxC meant to remind you that these two are gay are a continuation of the show proudly showing off its gay characters and the fact that they’re gay.

Like I said earlier. The show strongly wants you to know that they’re gay. And at the rate they’re going, an analysis like this one will eventually be completely unnecessary in telling you that Tweek and Craig are gay. Because that’s something that’s only going to grow increasingly more blatant as the show goes on.

In conclusion, both of these characters are super gay and that super gayness is super important to their now more prominent roles in South Park.

#south park #craig tucker #tweek tweak #sp creek #analysis #gay

918 notes · View notes

tranxendance · 6 years

Text

Super Best Friends Play’s LP of Detroit finished up, and since I’m not gonna buy or play that shit, i’ll put my thoughts here.

Disclaimer: I’ve watched about 3 other playthroughs of the game but I wanted to wait for them to finish up before I talk about it because they play slow and maybe someone else is only getting their Detroit content through them. So, I have a decent idea as to the spread of possibilities other than just their LP.

Presentation: It’s probably the best Quantic Dream game as an actual game. All the complaints we might’ve had from previous games, such as the animations being stiff and awkward, standing completely still and silent while waiting on your turn to talk, and the UI popping up with conversation options, and a ‘preconstruct’ to see what physical action you’re going to take before deciding on a course of action all make sense within the world because the characters are robots. As usual, the face tech is top of the line, although the main menu lady is clearly some other face actor’s movement capture placed over a model that looks different from her so it looks really strange.

Gameplay: The flowchart at the end of the chapter shows you exactly which choices had an effect and what you missed, so there’s no ‘pick three cards’ but the result is always the same like from indigo prophecy. QTEs look a lot less intensive and the things that can permakill a character seem to be only based on choices you make, not your execution of those choices, though I could be wrong. That’s about all I can glean without touching the game myself.

Setting: Detroit is a city where there’s a long history of racial tensions, and with the car factory layoffs in favor of automation in the 1960′s, there’s a lot of room to work with in making historical allegories about the heads of corporations making choices for profit over people. David Cage instead ignores every single part of this thus making the choice to set the game in Detroit purely cosmetic. He does like having his pretty drifting snow, doesn’t he?

Story: To call it overly heavy or ham-fisted would be understating it to an extreme degree. Did you know the use of androids is just like slavery? Androids standing in the ‘android compartment’ at the back of the bus. Milquetoast Martin Luther King quotes, androidified slightly. You can pick a big Black Power fist as your symbol. Also literal concentration camps. Even if you cut out all that misused symbolism, it’d still be bad. Ordinarily the twist being able to be seen coming is a good thing, but when the twist is as dumb as this one is (I had flashbacks to Heavy Rain where it retroactively makes the story make less sense) I hate that it was alluded to at all. When you choose peaceful protest options, the public opinion meter skyrockets. There’s no Fox News analogue calling the massacre victims crisis actors. There’s no one in the government that questions if the androids aren’t just trying to gain our confidence. It just works and is shown to clearly be the superior option. Other important characters will also have an opinion of you personally and they simply go up when you do things that align with their personal moral outlook. This is an extremely over simplified method of balancing things within the jericho movement, along with the generic ‘public opinion’ meter. There’s no one leaving and splintering off from jericho if you make choices that push one of the 3 other leaders to dislike your leadership, and therefore no reason to really get any of them to agree with you other than deciding which of the 3 becomes the new head of jericho if Markus dies. Public Opinion also largely doesn’t matter, since the government does all the same things regardless, it only determines one border guard’s decision to let you through to Canada if you go that route at all.

The concentration camp: This gets its own section because of how angry I am at it. The rest of the game is just sort of ‘not getting it’ but this one is outright offensive to me. If you surrender during the raid on jericho you are sent to a recall center which is the most obvious metaphor for a concentration camp I’ve ever seen. Androids are forced to strip naked and remove their ‘skin’ which marks them clearly as androids, and then they’re slowly herded towards a box which is basically just a gas chamber. Non Jewish people really should not be allowed to make metaphors like this. Saying it’s not a concentration camp when it clearly is is offensive. Saying it’s a concentration camp is also offensive because this is a real thing that jewish people had to go through at one point in history and now it’s using the same imagery to depict the plight of this fictional android people. I became unreasonably angry. I’m still kind of angry. That David Cage makes one penny with this scene in the game changes it from being funny to laugh at the badness to actually disrespectful.

I’m not even giving this one a score out of ten. I’ve never been mad at a videogame before.

#detroit:become human #mod ramblings #long post #readmore broke for some reason

1 note · View note

vjdarkworld · 7 years

Text

NieR: Automata Review (SPOILER FREE! NO SPOILERS HERE!)

Score: Must-Play, anyone who loves videogames should play this as soon as possible.

// Read my Reviewing system for Context of Score

Nier Automata is Yoko Taro’s first game to ever get both critical and commercial success which he has earned it rightfully. For why I believe Automata is a masterpiece is because of the ending. As everything in the game builds up to one gameplay moment. And that gameplay moment is an emotional climax all because of a well crafted journey. Yes the game’s story is told through cutscenes, dialogue, music, etc, but when the climax of the story is GAMEPLAY it just reminds me why we play videogames in the first place.

The Good:

Gameplay

Nier References

Art Direction

The Bad:

Unoptimized port for PC

Little support for PC version

The Best:

Music

Messages/themes

The Ending

Meaningful Sidequests

The Good:

Gameplay:

This is a PlatinumGames game, so of course the gameplay is good. When it originally announced that Yoko Taro would be helming a Nier sequel with PlatinumGames it was an instant "hype" moment because the original Nier had quite simple gameplay. Pitting PlatinumGames expertise with fluid combo oriented hack n slashes with Yoko Taro's crazy storytelling and it was a match made in GAMERRRRRR Heaven. But how did they deliver?

Well they did deliver, in the context of this game. This is an RPG, so the game is story based. Thus, PlatinumGames decided to make this the most simple out of their hack n slash titles. Basically you can spam dodge and attack buttons and mostly cruise through the main story IF you really want to. But the combo system does actually have a little depth to it, and you can pull of some fun wacky stuff once you know some tricks.

Even a recurring simple minigame that will happen a lot throughout a playthrough was fine by me. Some people were bother by it, but it's an easy enough mini game that does have a major story payoff in the end so it's all worth it.

And to cap it off, the way that abilities and special attacks are unlocked is pretty unique. Effectively you’re doing ability item management, which has some limitations but it's a fun way to make it thematic with robots.

Which I think is why the gameplay is so good regardless of its weak points is because it was all made within the theme of androids. I'm not going to mention every cute detail but I will finish off talking about gameplay with one controversial design choice: no autosaves. Instead you manually have to save at save stations. Maybe it's because I have played all the From Software Soul's games but it didn't annoy me. Really the save points are frequent in Automata that it doesn't effect it that much. And just like in Souls games, the save points have a thematic purpose of "saving your data" to the in-universe network. Basically the manual save is there as a meta-element. And again there's many other examples of this but this is Yoko Taro's strong suits, metaphorical gameplay.

Nier References:

Nier Automata is part of a strange series that spans two different games. In fact, here's the series order:

Drakengard 3 -> Drakengard 1 -> Nier Gestalt / Nier Replicant -> Nier Automata.

Yeah, that's pretty wild. So it's understandable that you may be worried about going into Nier Automata without a clue of what's going on due to ~Lore~ reasons. "Do I really need to watch a Let's Play on Youtube of some niche game, or worse LPs of all the niche games??" Worry not, as you absolutely don't need to... well right away atleast.

To break it down, no you don't need to play the Drakengard as all the references to it are just cute references.

Yes there are characters and side quests that are deeply connected to OG Nier, but they have no bearing on the main story being told. They are supplementary knowledge that helps both boost the main story and help provide additional emotional moments IF you have played Nier. But again, understanding what happens with the main characters is all self-contained within this game.

Now do I recommend playing OG Nier? Yes, in fact I believe that is another Must-Play game, but I specifically recommend PLAYING it. Watching a let's play on youtube will not do it justice.

To summarize, if you play Nier Automata without playing OG Nier you will be perfectly fine. You will be confused at first, but that is intentional and all will be revealed by end of the story. But, once you beat this game, you will probably get the urge to play the first game and THAT'S when you play it. Don't spoil the first Nier's experience, ya can wait it out.

Art Direction:

From the characters, to enemies, and locations the vibe is clearly of apocalypse, but there is almost a level of cuteness to it all strangely enough.

Our android protagonists, and the group they’re in called Yorha, are decked out in futuristic style gothic lolita fashion. The enemies almost look like the smartphone brand Android's mascot. With a round head, an oval body, dainty arms/legs, and tiny eyes they look quite innocent.

While there's the obvious ruined city, abandoned factory, and barren desert locations for a "post-apocalypse distant future" setting there's actually some surprise appearances. To not give too much away, two standout areas would be a 2001 A Space Odyssey rotating spacestation and a cheery amusement park.

All in all, the art direction is pretty nice. But, I need to address the elephant in the room. The 2B "controversy", specifically her butt.

Alright some context needs to be given to understand this stupidity, so bear with me. This timeline will explain it all, for the Western World specifically:

NieR Gestalt releases to little fanfare. It doesn't have much critical or commercial success, but it does get a cult following.

NieR Automata gets announced at E3 to little fanfare. The diehard fans are hyped beyond belief, but everyone else doesn't care. Though everyone is amused by Yoko Taro's antics with the emil mask.

A puzzle platformer on Steam gets greenlight and released by the name of Haydee. The title is the name of the games TITular protagonist, a robot that for some reason has huge breasts and butt. It gains a major following, spawning lots of pornography being made of this character.

NieR Automata's free demo releases on PSN. Because of the people going off of (and getting off on) the previous robot girl, people all of a sudden are extremely horny towards 2B (even though they didn't care about her for 2 years up until this point) A lot of pornography is created of 2B, most notable is a screenshot edit that starts the "controversy". An upskirt screenshot of 2B climbing a ladder is edited so that she has an asshole visible. People thought it was a real screenshot and went even more ballistic. Even after confirmed fake, people stayed horny for her.

NieR Automata releases. This time, because everyone regardless if they were horny or not, has seen the protagonist 2B all over the internet. Since everyone is hyped over 2B (and not because of the cult-classic series), NieR Automata has both critical and commercial success.

Alright, now that you are caught up, I can confirm that.... yes, 2B is cute. Yes, she has a butt. But, there's barely any fanservice of her in the game. If you’re not going up a ladder, you basically have to glitch the camera to be able to see under her skirt, and even then she pushes your camera controls away. If you detonate as her you will see her in the leotard but uhh Wonder Woman shows more skin than 2B so I honestly have no idea why some people are so pissed off at her. Some people even refuse to play the game cus of her which is really silly.....

I'm going to leave off on that for now. I will come back to that later, but let's finally get to The Bad.

The Bad:

Unoptimized PC Port:

You’re going to need a graphics card leading on the high end side if you want to see the pretty graphics.

Also, FAR mod is required if you want optimization. You’re going to need to look that up before playing.

Now I do put this in the bad category, and many people want to boycott PlatinumGames and Nier Automata for this unoptimized port, but that's going too FAR (get it). I'm going to give the context as to why this happened:

While I didn't play the PS4 version, I have heard reports of poor framerates at certain points. This leads to the revelation... this game was really only made optimized for PS4 Pro. Which I think it still lags there but not too much.

Anyways, so Square Enix decides that since Nier Automata is part of a niche franchise they might as well put it on Steam to get a quick extra bucks. So they have a quick port job happen by who knows what and boom it's on Steam.

So basically, the major problem here is Square Enix. It almost seems like they don't respect the game. No amount of "boycotting" by random people on Steam of a masterpiece game will make the company retract their thought process. SE has their FFXIV money printer, there is no incentive for them to fix a niche game. It's sad but true. And in fact, not buying the game proves their point that only FFXIV will make them money.

Now I don't condone a bad port job, this is why it's in the bad but.... the game is still perfectly playable even if you put all the grafix as low as possible, which is what I did. The only times the game crashed was when I tried to max out the graphics and resolution beyond what my PC could handle and made my GPU be at 100% usage for too long.

Little Patch Support:

This goes off of the other point. There's only been a couple of stealth patches for the DLC release, but nothing addressing the optimization. Again, it's sad that Square Enix isn't treating the game with the respect it has earned.

The Best

Music:

As the old saying goes, film is 70% audio and 30% visual. Of course that is an exaggeration, but it's trying to get across how important a soundtrack can be to making a movie iconic.

Now why am I talking about all that? Well. OG Nier had such a beautiful OST that it could be the sole reason why it got such a cult following.

Automata is no different, the music here is simply breathtaking. But listening to the OST alone doesn't do it justice, as the music is contextualized within the game perfectly. Every area has such a distinct song that I can FEEL that area when I hear the song out of the game. And without saying spoilers, the credits song makes me FEEL the ending all over again. Hell, even when I heard a song from the first Nier in this game I almost cried for real.

The music just compliments the moments within the game so well, that the music MAKES the game. And that playing the game makes the music more emotional. If you love music in games, or music in general, you gotta play Nier Automata.

Message/Themes:

As you probably know already, Yoko Taro is an odd fellow. You can lump him with other japanese videogame auteur directors ala Kojima and Kamiya. But what makes Yoko Taro different from Kojima's wacky metaphors is his consistency.

Right from Drakengard 1 Yoko-san established his auteur theme: Violence in Videogames. He explains that for a videogame protagonist to slaughter thousands of people, he has to be a crazy psychopath. The enemies in that game beg and plead to not kill. But, after 9/11 his view changed. So, in the first Nier he went with a different concept. That someone can discriminately kill without remorse if they believe their cause is Righteous. I can't say how this is achieved as spoiler, but you get the picture. Automata continues the violence theme off of the Nier idea.

There's other themes, but that's the main one.

The Ending:

The True ending is quite possibly why I think the game is a masterpiece. The entire game is building up to this climax.

Every sidequest, all the confusion is finally explained (albiet maybe too quickly). But that's just one of many twists. In which the final sequence has so many false finishes that I truly believed where the ending that the final moment caught me off guard. This last finale is what justifies getting through the entire game, regardless if you don't like hack n slash games. The trick done too is so simple that it being the emotional climax in my opinion proves it’s a masterpiece.

Meaningful Sidequests:

When going through the game, understanding what is going on is confusing. Hell even the prologue is confusing. This is intentional, because information is being kept from you. While The Truth is only revealed at the end, nearly all side-quests foreshadow the ending.

The side-quests are special in that each one has some type of twist to it. They all seem like some ordinary RPG fetch quest, but there's always a twist. Sometimes it's happy, sometimes it's sad, but they can catch you off guard.

But as I was saying, the twists of these side-quests don't stop there, as once you beat the game and know The Truth you will have a epiphany if you think back to side quests you have done. They give hints to the Truth, sometimes the events in the side-quests mirror what was revealed. It's quite awesome how well this was put together.

This is all most likely cus Yoko Taro creates stories backwards, starting with the ending and going to the start. And also why the ending is so good.

I've seen some people say they think the "twist" of the game is "practicable"... but considering the entire game is hinting at it, hiding in plain sight, I would say no... foreshadowing isn't practicability, it's good storytelling plain and simple.

2B:

I already talked about the controversy with 2B being cute and having a butt, but(t) to wind down I want to address something as my final point. The thing is I don't know if Yoko Taro is a puppet master genius, or how intentional was this but.... people's obsessive hype over 2B has a payoff as a moment within the game.

To give a little context, the lady from the previous Nier, Kaine was extremely scantily clad with purpose. It being to challenge body norms, and people fell hook line in sinker. People said she was way too sexy and only eye candy, and even barring the amazing character arc she has, there is a part of her body that's really only hinted at within the game. I won't spoil it, so Let me go back to 2B.

Now 2B is cute, and everyone loves how 2B looks or wanting to be knee-jerk contrarian cus of the annoying horny people. Here's the thing, this is addressed in the game. This obsessive of 2B is reflected back at the player in one moment. I have no idea if Yoko Taro knew there would be this fervor over the games protagonist but mannnnn,

I think we all got played, hook line and sinker. Ya got us good Yoko Taro.

Details of Playthrough

I played on PC, bought on Steam. FAR mod used as well. I had a pretty low/midrange spec going in, so i had to play everything on low at 900p, also using FAR mod to turn off lighting effects. Still, I had framerate drops at certain areas. Game crashed if I played on higher settings, but keeping it on low stopped that.

My Specs (at the time of playthrough):

CPU: i5-2400

GPU: Radeon R9 270 Sapphire

RAM: 16GB

#nier #nier automata #automata #no spoilers

16 notes · View notes

jameshateseverything-blog · 7 years

Text

Your Childhood (Actually) Sucks

I’m always worried when I say this; but Final Fantasy 7 is the most overrated game of all time. That, however, isn’t the point. How good it is is less important than how good people remember it being. Because the way people remember things is more important than the way things actually are.

I spend a great deal of time thinking about being thirteen. Probably more than I should, to the point it borders on an addiction. My best friend and his newfound girlfriend decided Mariah Carey’s “We Belong Together” would be “their song.” I had placed second at the district chess tournament being held at my school. And I had been playing Final Fantasy 10 for the first time. It was not the first game in the series I had played, that goes to 7. What it was, however, was the first game in the series I have ever experienced.

When I initially set out to write this essay I wanted to merely make an argument as to why Final Fantasy 7 isn’t good (or at least not as good as everyone seems to tell me it is). I had planned out several points as to why other entries in the series trumped it. Namely in the storytelling and gameplay departments. I decided to give 7 another playthrough, however. After spending some time with the game, which I concede holds up better than most Playstation 1 titles, I have come to realize something; maybe Final Fantasy 7 is not just the most overrated game of all time. Maybe, just maybe, the entire series is one of the most overrated gaming franchises ever. For those of you (which I assume is most) that have never played 7, 10, or any Final Fantasy, I am going to do my best to cover the story of those two specific games. I chose 7 and 10 because (a) the original argument was based on 7 and (b) though I wouldn’t say 10 is the best, I would say it is my personal favorite.

Our story opens up with edgy ex-corporate mercenary Cloud Strife working alongside terrorist movement AVALANCHE to take down a Mako reactor. Mako being the life force of the planet and what is used to run all machinery. It is essentially crude oil that has the latent ability to grant certain people magical powers, like shooting fireballs or summoning ancient gods. But Shinra faces the problem that Mako energy is beginning to run low and their only hope is to find an ancient promised land. A promised land that is rumored to have Mako flowing endlessly beneath it. The dilemma, only an extinct race of people, the Cetra, know how to find this fossil fuel Mecca.

As the game progresses you assemble a team of unlikely heroes including emo boy Cloud. A revenge-fuelled Barrett who has a gun for a hand and a deep-seated hatred for Shinra’s use of technology. The last remaining Cetra, Aeirith. There’s also a pseudo-vampire, a talking lion wolf, and a marshmallow plush controlled by a cat. Shinra has their eyes set on Aerith, they manage to capture her, and so begins the quest for renewable energy. Cloud and crew go to rescue her and this is when the true villain is introduced. Pretty boy and fan favorite Sephiroth is a one-winged semi-clone of a deity that fell from the sky as a meteor thousands of years prior. Sephiroth is one blatant metaphor for a Christian guilt complex. Sephiroth (who is also the god Jenova) wants to summon another meteor to destroy the planet so he can absorb all the Mako and become one with it. When Cloud and friends try to stop him, he manages to mind control Cloud. Then Convinces Cloud that he’s a clone of Sephiroth with the memories of some guy named Zack planted in him. Cloud has a mental breakdown, becomes catatonic, falls into the planet’s lifestream with his childhood friend, and sorts out his existential crisis like some bad acid trip. After he spends 10 minutes getting his shit together, the gang flies into the crater where Jenova initially crash landed Lord Xenu style. They do battle with Sephiroth, who is also Jenova, who is also the ancient entity known as Meteor. They kill him with the help of a deceased Aerith, and the world returns to its beautiful dystopian self. Minus the evil conglomerate monopoly of Mako Shinra once had. Convoluted enough for you? I didn’t even touch on the movie, four spin-off games (two on cell phone), or the racing of giant chickens to learn to summon King Arthur’s henchmen.

Let us compare 7’s convoluted mess of a story to 10’s. Final Fantasy 10 follows Tidus, a young man with an Oedipus complex. One night, during a game of underwater space soccer [read: Blitzball], Tidus is interrupted by a colossal parasitic winged slug destroying the city of Zannarkand. Tidus and a friend of his father try to fight the creature but are ultimately defeated and Tidus wakes up in a completely different world. In this new world, a few things overlap. Space Soccer is larger than the super bowl, the city Zannarkand still exists though it is in ruins, and the giant slug unironically named Sin. Sin is the driving force for the game’s narrative. The creature is an evil that reincarnates itself and is allegedly a manifestation of what happens when man uses technology rather than prayer. So I guess Sin is just another Christian guilt complex villain.

Throughout the story Tidus befriends an unlikely group of heroes including a subpar Blitzball player who has a deep-seated hatred (bordering on racist) for the machine using Al-Bhed. There is a summoner on a pilgrimage to sacrifice herself to stop Sin for another couple dozen years. A biped lion wolf, and a few other JRPG tropes.

As the story progress you find out that Tidus’ father helped on the previous summoner’s pilgrimage and became Sin. Tidus finds out he isn’t real, and that if they defeat Sin he will fade into a literal dream. Tidus spends 10 minutes sorting out this existential crisis. There is some whistling. The party goes inside of Sin. Father, son, and not-so-holy ghost all die. The world falls back into its primitive state now liberated and free to use their technology as they please.

The games are pretty damn similar when reduced to the lowest common denominator. I have time and time again praised 10 while putting down 7. And if you have played both of them you would be quick to see how they are inherently different. But this is how I remember those games. And how I imagine many others remember them to some degree, minus a few scenes left out for brevity.

I was 13 and sitting in the back of my step-father’s Lincoln Navigator. There was a PS2 set up to the small screen and I was playing Final Fantasy 10; nearing the end. My step-dad just bought a “new car” scented car freshener. To this day I associate that smell with my favorite game of all time. This phenomenon, my addiction, to me is one of the most fascinating tricks the mind plays on us. Nostalgia, coming from the greek words nostos and algos translating to “homecoming pain.” There was a time it was used by the Swiss military where they thought the only treatment for the condition was to send the mercenaries home. Now we see there is something universal about “the better days.”

After discussing the concept of nostalgia with a handful of people I have noticed people tend to fall into two different camps. Some, myself included, look at nostalgia with joyous sorrow. As though there are memories, emotions, and sensations that can never be duplicated. Think back to a favorite Christmas or birthday present, remember how you felt? Even though I believe that feeling itself can be replicated, the way you remember that feeling is encapsulated in that moment and forever gone. In this first camp, there is a fear that if we don’t cling to those memories we may lose a piece of our identity with them. The second camp tends to view nostalgia pejoratively. Longing being some type of weakness. Even if there were “good ol’ days” you can’t ever get them back so why waste time trying? Now whether either of these mentalities is objectively more correct than the other, impossible to say. I’m more just fascinated that everybody feels homecoming pain. I did notice, however, that people more invested into games (video or sport) tend to sit in the former camp with myself. I think that is where Final Fantasy, especially 7, begins to fall apart. Am I using Nostalgia to say that Final Fantasy 7 is bad, even subjectively? No, not really. Instead I’m calling into question why it is important. Not important for gaming, but important to the gamers who believe it is the high bar for the series, or even games in general.

A few hundred words ago I drew attention to the similarities between 10 and 7. And I would like to narrow that down to just the two protagonists; Cloud and Tidus. At face value these characters are different. Tidus is a young, naive, hot-headed sports star trying to live up to a father he resents. Cloud is a battle-hardened soldier whose idol turned out to be a monster. We are supposed to identify as these two. Our perspective is limited to theirs. Both are detached from a larger picture that they inevitably find themselves the center of. So even if Cloud and Tidus are different from one another, their general arcs manage to remain the same. This is why people (myself included) find these games to be important in their lives. Both of their lives are lies. One is a fleeting dream of the gods and the other a blonde husk with a brunette’s memories. Neither character has any reason to exist.

Usually, if you listen, when people talk about their favorite music, movies, games it often is something from their childhood. You favorite Final Fantasy is most likely the first one you played. If it isn’t, your favorite was probably played around the ages of 13-16. Even if you have never played these games I want you to take a moment to just stop. Take a nice long hit of that homecoming pain. Go back, try to remember being 9, or 13, or 16. Try to remember who you were as a person. Sorry if you were awkward, but that awkwardness is kind of the point. These transitional points in our lives, they are moments when we are developing responsibilities and learning who we are. Whether it is your first day home without the babysitter, or a first day of high school, those periods are when we can exist outside of our parents and act as yourself. I remember once breaking down in front of my parents proclaiming I did not know who I was. I didn’t belong. I had no reason to exist. I was the same as Cloud or Tidus.

I suppose when I hate on Cloud as a character, or when others shun Tidus, what we are really doing is collectively hating how annoying and whiny younger versions of ourselves were. But it wasn’t always that way. Sure, we didn’t have to come to terms with being a clone. But maybe, like Tidus, we discover some aspect of our life is a lie. Santa isn’t real. We can’t all be astronauts. These tiresome characters are just us as tiresome teenagers. And it is hard not to look back and cling to that notion, a moment where we didn’t have to feel so alone. At that age it is nice to be understood.

So do I hate Final Fantasy 7? No, of course not, I’m mostly enjoying my third playthrough. But the story doesn’t speak to me like it did when I was a kid. I’m not sure it is supposed to either. This idea that no Final Fantasy will ever capture the same magic as the old ones is toxic. It is only going to hurt the growth of the series in the future. Nothing revolutionary can come of trying to capture the old while moving on to the new. 7, 10, 13, these games aren’t terrible by any means. But they are the Donald Trump of gaming. Maybe we can’t make Final Fantasy great again. Maybe it never was that great.

#Final fantasy x #final fantasy vii #writing #personal #ffvii #ffx #final fantasy #nostalgia

1 note · View note

indigozeal · 7 years

Text

Recently, Giant Bomb East went through Tender Loving Care, an interactive movie featuring John Hurt (yes, that John Hurt) and produced by some of the folks behind The 7th Guest. I've long found this game just a fascinating fiasco, one that could have only been made in the FMV era (and the story of its creation is just as headache-inducing). I highly recommend the Giant Bomb playthrough, if you have premium.

Anyhow: I learned during the playthrough that the game was based on a novel by the guy who wrote The Devil's Advocate - so, curious, I read it. I don't recommend anyone else do so. I did, however, jot down a few notes on the differences (and similarities) between the book and the game for those interested. The notes contain spoilers and assume you're familiar with the plot of the game, so watch out. (They also get a little NSFW.)

I actually think the game is better than the book, because the game doesn't have Michael (who is the inarguable protagonist) and his inner voice constantly narrating his stupid inner thoughts. Or stupid inner thought, since, like the game, he has only one: "oh, if only I were a manly man who could face up to this threat to my household - but breasts!" The book is as horny as the game: Michael can't take his mind off how the outline of Kathryn's bra is visible through her blouse on their first meeting and is obsessed with having sex with her from that moment. Every other page, there's a status report on the female characters' breasts: their position and degree of apparent firmness, what the clothing is doing to them, if their owners are touching them, if the nipples are visible in any way and, if so, their positions and degree of perkiness. Both Kathryn and Allison are breasting boobily everywhere they go, constantly fiddling with and adjusting their racks; it's like the author thinks breasts will wander off by themselves if you don't pay attention to them every damn second.

The game script and plot is very faithful to the book - most of the dialogue is taken verbatim, and details like Kathryn's herbal shampoo, the "sweet-potato red" hair of John Hurt's character, and "soya milk, for Christ's sake!" are present. There is no bisexuality plot thread, though, or Kathryn being motivated by Allison's resemblance to an old girlfriend. Book Michael is also specified as being small-statured and slightly built, to underline his one (1) character trait of emasculation. Kathryn has a huge evil Fallacy of the Talking Killer speech at the end, which follows the "main" ending from the game (Mike sledgehammers Kathryn and is arrested). Weirdly, I found myself missing Kathryn's audio diaries and supplemental stuff from the game, as they at least serve to humanize her a bit; book Kathryn is very two-dimensional, solely an incarnation of the author's obsessive assertion that sexy women are evil and put on Earth just to torture men. On the plus side, there is no tale of crow torture. (Michael does beat the dog with a stick, though.)

Other things: - Allison's name was originally Miriam; Jody was originally Lillian. Their family name was Oberman, not Overton. They lived in the Catskills, not Oregon. - Book Mike works as a teller in a bank. No word on how a teller was allowed to take a six-month leave of absence from his job. (Book Allison had no profession.) - Michael does a huge Darth Vader NOOOOOOOOOOO when he discovers the doll (as opposed to, er, throwing himself down the stairs). - There's a metaphor that likens a vagina to a "moist pocket." - Typical breast line: "Her breasts pointed at me accusingly, defiantly." - Michael after seeing Kathryn at the window: "The sight made me tremble, and I came to my senses quickly. What if she had seen me standing there looking up? The thought drove me back to the porch so quickly I tripped and fell. Fortunately, it was on the grass so I did no damage to my clothing or hands. I got up and went back to my seat. My heart was beating so hard I thought I might go into some kind of cardiac arrest. I wiped the sweat from my face and straightened my clothes." So, “That was a BOOB! A real, live boob!” is canon. - “Now I’ve gotta go get a FUCKIN’ PIZZA!!” (the line, at least) is unique to the game, though. - Michael actually does get to a bit of "meditating" during his session with Kathryn - which, in the author's mind, consists of having an LSD trip-like hallucinatory experience where you're fellating a huge doorknob. - I think the sounds of "ghost children" in Jody's room are supposed to be modeled on book Michael's observation that the raccoons in the nearby forest sound like "little lost children crying for their mothers." - The weird breakdown Michael has at the end is an ill-advised transplant from the book's end, where Michael is regretting not being able to tell Jody how, as a child on the family property, he would "press my ear against a large maple or oak and listen for the earth's heartbeat." (The book goes on in places about how Michael's father was a dairy farmer and the connection Michael feels to his family homestead, etc.)

In summary: the game, amazingly, is an improvement on the novel, because at least it offers a variety of head-scratching things instead of just one monotonous whiny thing. And its characters are more nuanced. I can't believe I wrote that.

#tender loving care

14 notes · View notes

actutrends · 5 years

Text

Life is Strange 2: How Dontnod decided to wrap up the story of 2 brothers

While Telltale Games, the maker of The Walking Dead series, went down in flames, the mantle for storytelling games shifted to a French studio in Paris called Dontnod Entertainment. Dontnod had a big success in 2015 with the original Life Is Strange title that blended storytelling, teen angst, and supernatural powers.

The success of that game gave Dontnod the confidence to continue with that series, and the studio debuted Episode 1 of Life Is Strange 2 in September 2018. The studio’s publisher, Square Enix, released new episodes every quarter and now the tale of Sean and his younger brother Daniel is coming to an end. Like a couple of lost wolves, the brothers hit the road the together after a tragedy forced them to flee their home. Along the way, the player assumes control of Sean and has to make decisions that will make a big impression on his younger brother. As Daniel’s supernatural powers grow, Sean has to make the right calls. And the result is a lot of drama.

I sat down with the Life Is Strange 2 leadership team as they toured Silicon Valley. Our interview group included writer Jean-Luc Cano, creative director Raoul Barbet, and art director Michel Koch. They have finished their work on Life Is Strange 2, whose fifth and final episode debuted via publisher Square Enix on the PC and consoles earlier this month. I’m about to play the fifth episode to find out what happens with the two wayward brothers. In the meantime, we had a nice, spoiler-free chat.

Here’s an edited transcript of our interview.

Above: Life Is Strange 2 leaders (left to right): Jean-Luc Cano, Raoul Barbet, and Michel Koch.

Image Credit: Dean Takahashi

GamesBeat: With the last episode, I observed that there was a very directed ending to it. I didn’t have so much control over the outcome of the fight scene. I didn’t feel like I had decision-making power in that. But the thing that was interesting was that I had a lot of power over who I was going to hook up with. There’s so much choice on that front. That was interesting. There must be something deliberate about why you set it up that way. Maybe that’s a place to start?

Michel Koch: For each episode, and over the course of the game, we have to think about how many branches and how many choices and consequences we want to give the player. We have production issues and budget constraints where we can’t go everywhere right from the beginning or use too many big branches, because then you end up making a lot of different games in one game.

In episode three, you talked about the romance. It was important for us in this episode to give a lot of agency to the player about their relationship. Really, it’s the episode where Sean can be a teenager again. He’s with people who are almost his age, who are his new friends. It was interesting to decide at this point whether you want to stay closer to Daniel, or if you want to be a teenager again and explore friendship and romance with either Cassidy or Finn.

In episode four, you pointed out that it was more of a direct line, and I think you’re not wrong there. It’s a part of the story where Sean is alone now. He wants to find Daniel again. The big story has always been about education and about how your choices will affect Daniel. In episode four Daniel isn’t with you, so the player choices are more about how you react to the situation you’re facing. How do you react to Chad and Mike, the guys who attack Sean while he’s sleeping in the car? Also, what do you say in the final scene to try and get Daniel back? How do you react to Elizabeth and Nicholas?

I don’t know what ending you got in episode four. There’s still a lot of variation, but it’s based on what Daniel does. When he’s free of Elizabeth’s grasp, he can decide to forgive her or attack her, and then you have the choice to react to what he’s doing. Do you remember what he did with Elizabeth in your playthrough?

GamesBeat: He didn’t attack her, no. I definitely remember Sean’s eye getting hurt. Is that unavoidable?

Raoul Barbet: Yes. What changes a lot from the ending of episode three is which people are involved and whether they’re going to be injured or not, depending on your choices just before the scene or during the scene at the end. We have some changes there. But the scene will end with Sean being hurt every time. That’s something we wanted to have in the story.

Each time we try to–we have a main story to tell. We have some steps we always want to have. But we also try to add some variation, as much variation as possible.

Above: It’s been a long time since Sean stopped at this gas station.

Image Credit: Square Enix

GamesBeat: If you’re setting up episode five, what would you say about where this is all going now, and where it’s going to culminate?

Koch: There are multiple endings, for sure. From what we’ve read until now, the players are very happy. The ending they get means something to their journey. It’s very linked to their choices, so they’re happy with that. But you’ll see that it’s not only about your choices. It’s also about Daniel’s behavior and the choices you’ve made with Daniel. Daniel may change his mind. He may not accept your choices. You’ll see.

Jean-Luc Cano: One of the main differences between the first season and the second season–in the first season, it only depends on what you choose right there at the end. In Life is Strange 2, the last choice of the game is one that you make, the player, but it’s also dependent on choices that you’ve made from the beginning of the game. As Raoul said, it’s partly about Sean’s choices, and partly about Daniel’s choices. Because Daniel has been shaped by all of your previous choices, he’ll act differently in response to your last choice.

GamesBeat: How would you relate where you’re ending this game in comparison to where you ended the original Life is Strange? Is there something to sharly compare or contrast in how the endings turn out?

Barbet: What’s quite different in this case is that it’s not just about the immediate consequences of your choices in the scene. It’s also about really long-term consequences. After the ending of the story you’ll have some glimpses of the future of the characters and what they’re going to become. I don’t know that it gives more depth, but there’s something more than just the consequences of your immediate action. You’ll see, years after, some consequences.

Koch: In the first game it was really a coming of age story about Max. The final choice is almost a metaphor for Max accepting that at a certain point she can’t change everything. She decides that, to grow up, she has to accept that she has to make some sacrificing — either sacrificing Chloe or sacrificing Arcadia Bay. It’s more about her growing up by making this final decision.

In Life is Strange 2, the endings are about the reaction of Sean and Daniel to the world around them. What will be their place in the world, based on–well, you’ll have to see what is the final choice. But what will they become as a family, as two brothers, in our world? It’s all based on your decisions and how you educated Daniel over the course of the five episodes. I think it’s two different approaches. As Raoul said, at the end of Life is Strange 2, you see more of what’s happening to Sean and Daniel, because we want to show their relationship to the world around them.

GamesBeat: You might say that the first game had a no-win ending. Do you feel the same way about this one?

Cano: There’s no good or bad ending in the first Life is Strange, and the same is true in Life is Strange 2. There are more endings, but none of them are good endings are bad endings, a right way or a wrong way. It’s all in this gray area. In every case, it’s maybe a bittersweet ending. There’s no purely happy ending or bad ending. In every ending we’ve tried to include both good moments and bad moments, because that’s what happens in life most of the time.

Above: Life Is Strange 2 takes place on the road.

Image Credit: Square Enix

GamesBeat: How are you feeling about this whole genre of storytelling-focused games? Do you think it’s going well overall? Are players really enjoying it? People are enjoying your games, but Telltale had a lot of problems. It’s hard to tell what wrong there. It seems like there have been ups and downs for the genre.

Barbet: Like you said, with Telltale I don’t know the exact reason for what happened. There are probably a lot of different reasons. It’s not only the quality of the games. We’re happy to see that this kind of game has found a big audience, and might be reaching some people who aren’t used to playing games. The gameplay isn’t so complicated. There’s more dialogue and interaction with those choices. A lot of people can play this kind of game. We can reach a lot of people.

We love strategy games and shooters, of course, but we need to have all sorts of games. These kind of choose-your-own-adventure games, even the ones Netflix has tried to do, it’s a new type of game. Some people have said that this isn’t really a game, or there’s not enough gameplay, but I think it’s a kind of game that suits a certain type of player. You can talk about a lot of different subjects in these games, too. You might not talk about certain kinds of subject matter in a shooter, because it’s just not the right place for the topic, but in these games it’s interesting to talk about different subjects and present original characters.

We can reach more and more people. It’s just a question of taste. People enjoy the stories and characters and the style of interactivity. We can put together a good story with good characters and add interactivity — not just interactivity for its own sake, but choices and puzzles and interactivity that means something.

GamesBeat: Does Tell Me Why feel like it’s part of this journey for you, or is it something totally different?

Koch: It’s a completely different team. We’re not working on the game. The games at DONTNOD are all made by separate teams. We’ve just finished Life is Strange 2, and we’re not sure what’s in the future for the three of us, but we’re sure we want to keep working together. We’ve been working together since the first Life is Strange, and then on Captain Spirit and Life is Strange 2. We’ll see what we do in the future, but we don’t know what it will be for now.

Above: Cassidy takes a look at Sean in the truck in the woods.

Image Credit: Square Enix

GamesBeat: How do you feel about where you are on the technology front, being able to visualize things the way you want it? How realistic do you think you can make your digital human characters?

Barbet: We did a lot of improvement in the second Life is Strange compared to the first game. We wanted to keep the same visual style and not have realistic humans — to have this slightly animated concept art feeling, like something that could be in a Pixar movie. Something more like a 3D animated film than a live-action movie.

I really like this kind of style, because I think it can age in a good way compared to trying to have overly realistic humans. We have limitations on the animation anyway. It works better if you have a character who’s a bit cartoonish, if the animation is not so developed. If you have a very realistic human being, the animation needs to be perfect, or you end up in the uncanny valley.

With the art style in Life is Strange, we enjoy how the player can project some of their own emotions and imagination. Not everything is shown to them clearly. It’s more about getting a feeling about the character — the environment, the lighting, the mood — rather than showing every small detail in the textures and everything.

There are a lot of improvements we can still make in future projects, though. We can improve the character animation, the close-in movements. We can use a lot of different technology even if we’re not going toward a fully realistic game. There’s still a lot of improvement to be done with this stylized rendering.

GamesBeat: This is more speculation here, but how do you think you could introduce more advanced AI into what you do? Could you have an emergent character that could respond to your story?

Koch: There was a small text-based RPG released a few days ago where they use AI to generate what the dungeon master is telling you. I’ve seen people posting screenshots of their games, and it’s crazy. It’s generating tons and tons of realistic setting. You type whatever you want and the game tries to adapt the story to respond to what you’re doing.

Who knows? It’s really interesting technology. I don’t know if it’s something we need to look at, but we’ve seen what can be done with faces with different apps, things like replacing the faces in videos. There might be a way to use things like that to generate pieces of a story.

Cano: Maybe in an open world, like Red Dead Redemption, you could generate side quests at will. You’d have new quests again and again based on adapting the characters to each new procedurally generated script. That could be fun.

Above: Sean in the hospital.

Image Credit: Square Enix

GamesBeat: But for you guys right now, you have to have hard-coded options. You choose this, this, and this.

Barbet: In our case, except for Daniel — he has a bit of AI, a very simple one, where he has actions he can do, and reactions to your actions–

Koch: It’s basically a scripted AI. We program a lot of possibilities and then it reacts to what you do, choosing the right actions based on what Sean is doing. It’s like a companion AI in the classic sense. But it’s still very challenging and interesting work to on, because we wanted Daniel to behave like a kid. We didn’t want him to just sit around and do nothing. We wanted to try to see how a kid would act and give that quality to Daniel. If you wait too long, he’ll start to fidget, scratch his hips, look at something. If you move and look at something, he’ll follow you and look at it too and make comments. That’s the kind of thing we worked on for Daniel.

GamesBeat: I remember the flowchart from Detroit: Become Human. That seemed like an awful lot of branches. I was looking at some of them and realizing that there were long branches that I’d never played.

Barbet: It’s a question you have to ask yourself as a writer or a designer. You have a certain amount of money to create a game, so do you want to create a whole branch of the game that maybe 10 percent of the players will see? It’ll cost a lot. You have to make the right choices to be sure that if you create a scene or a character–we want to fit as much as we can given our production constraints. It’s not the same as a Quantic Dream game, of course.

GamesBeat: Does the episodic nature of your development help you there? You have smaller pieces to work on at any given time.

Koch. Right. We can also add some options from one episode to another. Maybe we’ll add something based on feedback from a previous episode. That’s been very good.

GamesBeat: Did you have any of that in episode five? Was a lot of that based on the way people had played episode four?

Barbet: We couldn’t make changes from episode four to episode five, because when episode was released, episode five was already well advanced. I don’t think we changed almost anything as far as the central story, but there are still some ways to slightly adjust things. The episodic development also lets us adjust based on how the project goes. There were some scenes we had planned for episodes four or five that we reduced a bit to make sure we stayed in our production constraints.

GamesBeat: Are you up for one of the Game Awards?

Cano: Yeah, we’re nominated in Games for Impact. It depends on the public vote.

Koch: It’ll be cool to go to the ceremony and see all the other awards, and maybe some new announcements.

Above: Sean isn’t the same person he once was.

Image Credit: Square Enix

GamesBeat: If you think about what’s come before–if you’re thinking about another installment of Life is Strange, what kind of game is that? What kind of story do you think you would tell given what you’ve done with the first two games? What would you say is common among the Life is Strange games?

Koch: That’s a question we asked ourselves when we started work on the second game. The first game was a story we wanted to tell, and we had the chance to find Square Enix as a publisher, but we were never sure if it could be more than that. It was the story of Max and Chloe. We knew that we had another story we wanted to tell, but it was definitely not a direct follow-up to their story.

When Square Enix asked us to work on Life is Strange 2, we talked with them about it, and we all agreed that the series would be more of an anthology, with different storylines. We felt that what was most important would be to talk about relatable characters who are living in real-life situations and facing real-life issues, but with just a hint of a supernatural element to help us reinforce the main themes of the story.

I’d guess that other games would also start from scratch to find new characters and new stories with some kind of supernatural element that would make it interesting for us. But it would still take place in the same universe. There could be some links between the games. You saw in the first episode of Life is Strange 2 that there’s a small link with season one. You might see a few more links in the final episode. There’s still a way to blend some of the characters, but we want to tell different stories, approach new themes, and be fresh. We don’t want to just tell the same story with the same characters every time.

GamesBeat: I played Man of Medan and liked that. Their anthology approach seems like it’s going to give you a mix of horror and the butterfly effect, where lots of little decisions end up being life or death decisions and you don’t know it. I’m not sure if I liked that so much compared to making a very important, deliberate decision, which seems like it’s more what you’re doing.,

Barbet: It’s a bit different, yeah. I haven’t played Medan, but I played the one before, and that was a lot of fun. It’s using the classic horror movie ideas — the slasher, the monster, trying to save everyone. It’s quite different from a writing point of view, even though the mechanics are similar. You can’t see the consequences coming.

GamesBeat: It’s fun to have some illusion of emergence and unpredictable surprises coming up. But losing your character because you turned left instead of right–

Koch: You had that in the old choose-your-own-adventure books. You see two doors, you open the left door or the right one, and through the left door there’s a pit of spikes that kills you. It’s why you’d always have your finger on the page where you started.

We used a bit of that in the first Life is Strange because we had the rewind feature. There were scenes we designed with that in mind. It was mostly the scene with Frank in episode four, where it was hard for the player to predict. But since we had the rewind, we wanted it to almost be like that choose-your-own-adventure book, where you just make a choice and Frank kills Chloe or the dog attacks Max and then you rewind. We deliberately did that in those scenes because we had the rewind power. It was a way to experiment with that. But in a game like Life is Strange 2, a longer game with no rewind, we prefer to have choices that are less random and more something where you can shape the story and characters based on your choice, instead of having these harsh consequences that come out of nowhere.

Above: Sean, left, is responsible for Daniel in Life is Strange 2.

Image Credit: Square Enix

GamesBeat: What does it feel like the impact has been for this game, given that you’re up for the Games for Impact award?

Koch: Well, we don’t have an acceptance speech yet. We need to work on that. I think we can look at the messages we’ve received from the players to understand the effect of our game. When you’re creating a game, of course you have an idea of what you want to tell, but you’re never sure if that will reach your players.

Looking at the reception for the game, we’ve gotten a lot of thanks from players who said they were happy to see some of their issues, some of the things they face in real life, portrayed in the game. Some of our players don’t experience, for example, the racism that Sean and Daniel face. Some players have said it’s helped them to open their eyes. I don’t know if this is the right word, but some players have said it’s helped them be more empathic with the people around them, to sometimes take more care with the people they meet.

That’s the kind of thing we wanted to talk about in this game — to talk about people living differently, living on the outskirts of society. We wanted players to meet them and talk with them and maybe see them with a different eye.

GamesBeat: How many consequential decisions do you think I’ll have to make in episode five?

Koch: Wow. We don’t really count those up?

Barbet: As far as all the choices that are taken into account at the ending, I think it’s hundreds, over the course of the whole journey.

Koch: Episode five is the end of the journey, where we’re putting more importance on how Daniel will react differently based on what you did in the earlier episodes. It’s the end, so a lot of events have already been shaped. We don’t want to have too many new choices, but there are still some smaller decisions you can make with Sean. You can still change a few things. There will be some tough ones, some interesting ones you can make to finish story arcs with the secondary characters.

The post Life is Strange 2: How Dontnod decided to wrap up the story of 2 brothers appeared first on Actu Trends.

0 notes