#Modern utopian

[bea-lele-carmen]

[sunlitmiracle]

smashes my current interest together with my old interest (aka yet another "what Dungeon Meshi but Gamers?" AU)

Once when I was a child I had a complete crying meltdown over Creatures, because the manual insisted that the complicated AI of the Norns made them truly alive and 10-year-old me was freaked out at the idea of being solely responsible for making sure these real animals wouldn't die. The funny part was that this was the Playstation version of Creatures, which has no biochemistry and very basic AI compared to the PC/Mac games where players actually were debating whether or not it was true artificial life. A PSX manual gave me existential dread and it wasn't even telling the truth.

Anyway, kid!Marcille would also have a meltdown over the Creatures series, especially if she had the computer games and got to see how vastly different some breeds' lifespans are. Like in C2 where you have Norns that live for around 5 hours and Norns that live for 10, both of which are vastly more than Ettins who don't even live for 1.5 hours (and usually less due to radiation or starvation).

Lucky for her, having the computer version means she could download modified genomes made by other players that make creatures live longer or even outright remove certain death triggers. However I think she'd have more fun learning to read and edit the genomes herself, to get a better understanding of how the game works and how to change it to suit her own tastes. And because she could pretend she's one of the mysterious ancient Shee who created the Norns, Grendels, and Ettins and then vanished, leaving behind relics of their old society.

(Speaking of Grendels, she would unfortunately dislike them because they're the Designated Evil Species and she'd hate how they harass and attack her Norns. I think she'd also pity them though, because they get sick a lot and have short lifespans. Likely she'd just end up downloading/creating a genome without the aggression towards Norns. Ettins she'd like except for in C3 when they dismantle her meticulously-placed gadget setups, so she might mod out their hoarding compulsions too. Both of them would of course also live for however long her Norns would live.)

Also. While standard creatures' lifespans are counted in hours, if you modify the half-lives in the genome editor you can increase it to centuries. Or even just over a millennium if you set the half-lives to their max length (assuming you also leave the old age death trigger at its vanilla value).

and I like to think that elven Creatures players would pass around copies of what they consider a template genome that's appropriate to their own lifespans. Something that would make their creatures live for weeks or months of continuous play. I also like to think the Creatures DS Warp is still active in this AU because of the hilarious frustration when these long-lived Norns travel to worlds run by short-lived players whose Norns have vanilla lifespans, and vice versa.

(Most of the time in Creatures, offspring of parents with different lifespans will just have one or the other, but there's a chance the genes cross over right in the middle of the various age triggers and cause unstable aging rates. Like a Norn that goes through the childhood stages in hours but then has a very extended adulthood. Or a days-long childhood followed by suddenly dropping dead of old age once the vanilla adulthood genes kick in. Or, if the child has one parent's half-life decay rate and the other parent's age triggers, all sorts of odd things could happen. I once had hybrid Norns who lived for 20 hours and would die of organ failure before reaching the old age threshold!)

(Now that I think of it, Marcille would absolutely hate fast-agers. The first time she watches a creature hatch, turn old, and die in just one brief minute of life, she would be sobbing for days. One of the first things she'd learn to mod out would be mutations that cause the Ageing/Life chemical to decrease unusually fast.)

On a lighter note, while I don't know what her favorite designs would be I think she'd love choosing cute breeds to use in her world. Once she figured out how to give her creatures the comfortable life she wants them to have I can see her redirecting all her gene-editing efforts into changing color expressions. She might even learn to sprite or model her own custom designs.

[meat-loving-meat]

I want to write a Vanyel/Stefen modern-with-magic AU soooo bad but I don’t know Valdemar lore like at all. There are six books standing between me and feeling comfortable enough in the lore to imagine what Valdemar might look like with the internet and planes

[joncronshawauthor]

Nobledark: Balancing Grimdark Nihilism and Noble Bright Hope

In the vast landscape of modern fantasy, readers find themselves navigating between two rather extreme realms. Grimdark and Noble Bright. It’s a bit like choosing between spending a weekend in a haunted mansion or at a blissful monastery. Both have their appeal, depending on your taste for misery or calm. But what happens when you want a bit of both? That’s where the delicate balance of…

[theparanoid]

Giant Claw - Deep Thoughts

(2015, full album)

[Progressive Electronic, Utopian Virtual, Modern Classical, Sequencer & Tracker]

[schlock-luster-video]

On March 28, 1956, Forbidden Planet debuted in Los Angeles.

[apas-95]

As much as the term is misused by reactionaries to mean 'cultural degeneracy', there is in fact such a thing as postmodernism, and it is in fact, like the other ideological currents that become prominent under capitalism, bourgeois in character.

Modernism was the ideological undercurrent of the historical materialist works of Marx, the nationalism of fascists, and the utopianism of the liberals. It was the shared belief held in the early capitalist period that the universe, the world, and human society were all fundamentally knowable and understandable to mortal men. The advance of the sciences and liberal enlightenment philosophy were, genuinely, an incredible and liberatory force in the revolution against the feudal world-system. Only in the capitalist period, with the development of the means and relations of production, could such an understanding of society as Marxism exist - Marxism being, fundamentally, the application of the scientific method to human history in service of the proletariat.

Post-modernism, as an ideological current, was developed in the NATO block following the second world war, though it had been incubating prior, at a much increased rate since the establishment of the first socialist state. It represented a rejection of modernism's 'grand narratives', and an assertion that each and every individual experience was so utterly unique and varied that it was impossible to draw any meaningful conclusions about society at large - only about specific people. Post-modernism is not only the basis of the genocidal neoliberal ideology whose economic shock doctrine wracked the global south, but also of a significant portion of 'progressive' ideologies (the similarity, ultimately, of the Margaret Thatcher quote to the belief of the average 'communists are homophobic!' claimant not escaping notice). Fundamentally, it begins its analyses not from the scale of society to progress towards the individual, but from the individual to extrapolate out to society - it is an idealism that reduces all things in society to individual psychological quirks (or disorders, egads).

In the context of a post-modernist system (even world-system), the correct theory (in order to carry out correct practice) will necessarily need to deviate from traditional, modernist thought in some ways. In which ways it must deviate can only be discovered through practice, but we know that it cannot simply absorb elements of postmodernism in an eclectic manner - it must be a genuine synthesis, whose principal purpose is to overcome, annihilate, and replace postmodernist thought (along with the rest of bourgeois thought in general).

[centi-pedve]

yes that's the bookie

the reason why we find it funny is because utopian socialism/collectivism is associated with a real world historical movement where groups of people managed to establish ACTUAL communities and do ACTUAL shit and while they failed in the end it was a fairly proactive movement unlike basically most other ideologies in reali which have a rich history of dicking around

which makes it funny that the character who shares a name and concept with the ideology is the chill af no problems one. he seems to be crafted from the philosophical concept of inherent human goodness and success in an abstract way more than how it literally came about. but it would be interesting to look at utopian keeping this history in mind

we rlly love utopian cuz his character makes no sense in the context of his ideology and its history. It's really funny to us. Unless there's some alternate more modern form of utopian socialism but that'd be lame

[tanadrin]

The other term we need to know if we want to understand the Shire is “clientelism”, perhaps more commonly refereed to as “patron-client relationships”. This is a social-political structure that emerges organically in many different contexts, and consists of a set of mutual, hierarchical obligations between powerful “patrons” and a network of “clients” who depend on them, economically, socially, or politically. It seems likely, from what we see of the Shire, that clientelism is the main organizing force within Hobbit politics. This would be far from unusual, in this sort of system. To understand this, let’s look at a prototypical example of this; the relationship between the Baggins and the Gamgees. Both Samwise Gamgee and his father, Hamfast Gamgee, are employed by Bilbo and Frodo Baggins, but the relationship is clearly far deeper than that. Throughout Lord of the Rings, Frodo treats Sam almost a feudal retainer, not just a person in a employee relationship, but someone who owes personal fealty to him, an attitude clearly reciprocated by Sam. There’s affection, friendship, and even love between them, but in the context of a hierarchical relationship. It’s never in question who “Mister Frodo” is, though it’s clear that this loyalty comes with expectations and obligations. Sam is not a slave, not is he bound by oaths of vassalage, or contract. He is loyal because he is expected to be, and because the Baggins repay loyalty with patronage, both to him, and his family. The Gamgees are likely tenants of the Baggins, or at least dependent on them for access to agricultural capital. They likely send much of their income up to Bag End in rent, and provide services, as gardeners, batmen, valets, traveling companions, etc. They also provide support, in a social and civic sense, as we see. If Frodo had gone to the Free Fair to run for Mayor, the Gamgees and other tenants would have voted for him, and would have accompanied him in public, to demonstrate his status and prestige. But in return for this, they could expect generous gifts on holidays, loans of money on favorable terms, lax enforcement of rental arrears in time of drought and famine, and legal support in disputes. ... For bachelors Bilbo and Frodo, these were personal, individual relationships. But the norm was likely closer to webs of debts, favors, and obligations, traded back and forth between families, cemented by marriage alliances and social ties. We’re told repeatedly that gift-giving and hosting feasts are two of the primary preoccupations of Hobbits. To modern ears, this may come across as utopian, or idyllic, but these sorts of status displays were a key part of many economic and social systems. In many Pacific Northwest Native American tribes, this was known as “potlatch“, and served as both a political and economic system, in which conspicuous displays of generosity were used to denote power and prestige. The Shire clearly has a monetary economy, but gift-giving remains important. The entire first chapter of Lord of the Rings is devoted to Bilbo’s 111st birthday party, which is a huge event that attracts intense attention from across Hobbit society, and involves massive displays of largess, solidifying the Baggins’ social position, and cementing ties with neighboring families and rival clans. Or at least, it would have been, if Bilbo hadn’t had an ulterior motive.

[sylvanus-cypher]

I see a lot of people asking why the Third Committee in Lancer is unambiguously the utopian good guy. In most other settings and worlds, the Third Committee would be the secretly corrupt allegory for postwar Europe, full of dirty secrets and colonial exploitation under its otherwise pristine exterior.

However, by my estimate, it's not an allegory at all; it's a counter to Capitalist Realism. A major problem with most media is that it takes the premises of modern capitalism as a given, that humans are self-interested to a fault and any system or structures that exist are built first and foremost to enrich the people at the top of the pyramid. Even most openly anti-capitalist fantasy and sci-fi settings seem to accept this premise.

Lancer rejects this framing, and I think that's what makes the RPG special. The Third Committee exists under the premise that non-authoritarian democratic systems can exist for the explicit and unambiguous welfare and self-actualization of the people who live in them. The foundation of the Third Committee is not greed or consolidation of power through wealth; in fact, they use a sort of mock currency to engage with diaspora worlds that still use money in order to smoothly transition them into post-monetary societies.

If we had more media like this, more media that acknowledges that humans can build societies not based on the accumulation of power, then maybe it would be easier to imagine a life without capital.

[stumpyjoepete]

Thinking a bit more about Megalopolis (see prev post). It's not really the case that the script is as disjointed or schizophrenic as my post makes it out to be. The central plot is pretty simple: an egotistical city planner has an ambitious and futuristic vision for redeveloping the city, and he butts heads with the Mayor and others who oppose him in this. He ultimately succeeds in building his utopian "megalopolis". Everyone is happy, the end.

And yet.

There's this... intense centrifugal force that prevents everything from cohering into a unified whole. It's like a puzzle where all the pieces are cut from the same picture, but upon closer inspection, no two pieces quite fit together. Or like that collection of nonsensical objects. A fork where the tines and the handle are connected by a chain. A watering can with the spout facing the wrong way. A quick glance leaves you confused, and that confusion is only deepened by further contemplation.

I think this is especially clear in the pseudo-intellectualism of the title cards, narration, monologues, and quotations/references:

Laurence Fishburne does this heavy-handed narration at the beginning and end of the movie (and several random points in between). And there are these associated title cards that look like they were made by applying an "Ancient Rome" theme to some PowerPoint slides. "Or will we too fall victim, like old Rome, to the insatiable appetite for power of a few men?" My brother in Christ, you are making a movie where the hero is named Cesar, and the happy ending is when he successfully pulls a Robert Moses. This is not a story about power corrupting or good intentions going awry. What are you doing???

Cesar Catilina interrupts Mayor Cicero's speech (where he is introducing a plan to build a casino) in order to lay out an early plan for "megalopolis", which is an ambitious and long-term alternative to the (short-term) casino plan. He prefaces his megalopolis pitch by reciting the Hamlet soliloquy. What exactly does Coppola think "To Be Or Not To Be" is about? He must thinks it means, "I am a dark and brooding bad-boy intellectual", since it's hard to see how "I'd like to kill myself, but I fear death" fits into an argument about the importance of long-term thinking in urban planning.

Cesar says several negative things about "civilization". "[Imagine] humanity as an old tree with one misguided branch called civilization... going nowhere." (Shot of notebook shows an illustration with 'war' and 'cruelty' offshoots from said branch.) "Emerson said the end of the human race will be that we'll eventually die of civilization." (Note: unsourced, probably fake quote.) "Civilization itself remains the great enemy of mankind." Umm... you're an urban planner! You're doing a high modernism. What exactly does it mean for you to call civilization the enemy? Is "megalopolis" somehow anti-civilization because it looks like a Georgia O'Keefe painting instead of a bunch of straight lines and right angles? Will the "war" and "cruelty" branches wither and die when buildings have labia?

Also, there's this amazing line read that completely inverts the meaning of a fake Marcus Aurelius quote (the quote was attributed to him by Tolstoy but is not actually something he said). "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape... finding yourself in the ranks of the insane." Why did you put in that pause??? Fake Marcus Aurelius is turning in his grave! You're supposed to be fleeing FROM the ranks of the insane! I suppose this isn't really inconsistent with the characterization of Cesar, it's just such a fucking batshit thing to say.

All of the cargo-cult intellectualism listed above could perhaps be excused if the vision that the film is supposedly about had any content whatsoever. Or, alternatively, if the movie was about something more substantive, and the vacuous megalopolis vision took place off-screen in an epilogue, like the "happily ever after" of a children's story. But no! The movie repeatedly interrupts the plot to grab you by the shoulders and scream in your face: "I have a vision! For the future!". And then--now that it has your undivided attention--it shits the bed like a man who has just polished off an entire bag of sugar-free gummy bears and washed them down with a fistful of Ambien:

"Conversation isn't enough. It's the questions that lead it to the next step. But initially, you have to have a conversation. The city itself is immaterial, but they're talking about it for the first time. And it's not just about us talking about it. It's the need to talk about it. It's as urgent to us as air and water."

"Mr. Catalina, you said that as we jump into the future, we should do so unafraid. But what if when we do jump into the future, there is something to be afraid of?" "Well, there's nothing to be afraid of if you love, or have loved. It's an unstoppable force. It's unbreakable. It has no limits. It's within us. It's around us. And it's stretched throughout time. It's nothing you can touch. Yet it guides every decision that we make. But we do have the obligation to each other to ask questions of one another. What can we do? Is this society, is this way we're living, the only one that's available to us? And when we ask these questions, when there's a dialogue about them, that basically is a utopia."

After the revolution, we won't have conflicts anymore; we'll have dialogue instead. We won't have a need for the "jobs" and "sanitation" of "now"; we'll have the "imperishable" "dreams" of "forever". We won't have problems that need solving; we'll all be too busy asking each other questions. Now, if everyone could just shut up and get the hell out of the way and let Cesar implement his vision, then "everyone" will soon be "creating together, learning together, perfecting body and mind." A chorus of children's voices gradually morphing into Laurence Fishburne's, chanting, "One Earth, indivisible, with long life, education and justice for all." It's eschatological anti-politics made entirely from cotton candy. Please, for the love of God, stop making Adam Driver monologue at me! Let's get back to Aubrey Plaza stepping on horny fascist Shia LaBeouf!

The incoherence of Megalopolis's vision is compounded by how anachronistic its depiction of our fallen world is. There are some half-hearted (and ham-fisted) gestures in the Clodio sub-plot towards the dangers of Trumpian populism, but the script was first written in the 80's, and it's extremely obvious that Coppola is writing about New York City in the preceding several decades. The city's finances are in dire straights. (There's literally a "Ford Tells City: Drop Dead" reference!) The city is full of slums, the streets are full of crime, and the elites are all decadent. (For Coppola, decadence means that ladies are doing cocaine and smooching each other in the cluh-ub.) The main character is Neo-Roman Robert Moses, and the conflict of the film is about urban renewal. In case you, like Mr. Coppola, have not been made aware, slum clearance is not a major political issue in 2020's Manhattan.

Two thirds of the way through the movie, a falling Soviet satellite provides a deus ex machina, blowing up the financial district and clearing space for megalopolis to take its place. Ironically, a previous attempt to produce the film came to its abrupt end when two planes flew into some buildings in the financial district. Perhaps you heard about it. The financial backers of the film at the time considered Megalopolis's plot a bit too close to current events for comfort and withdrew their support.

But Coppola's depiction of Manhattan was already decades out of date by then. Moses stepped down in '60. Jacobs' book railing against urban renewal came out in '61. The Power Broker came out in '74. One presumes popular opinion of Robert Moses soured in the following years. The crisis of the city's finances that peaked in '75 was over by '81 when NYC balanced its budget and reentered the bond market. The crime wave of the 70's and 80's had receded by the year 2000. The demand for housing in NYC proper is as high as it ever has been, and it's only getting higher. Megalopolis imagines America as an incoherent mishmash of several decades of mid-century NYC, dressed up in the toga of the late Roman Republic, calling out for (Robert) Moses to part the slums and take us into a promised land that is literally beyond any description, and whose only concrete feature seems to be glowing people-movers.

A Robert Moses with the power to stop time, at that!

Oh, did I forget to mention that part? Cesar discovers he has the power to stop time in the opening scene of the film. I forgot because it's literally irrelevant to the plot. Time stops a few times, and then it starts back up again, and the events of the film just plod inexorably forward. For a movie as temporally dislocated as Metropolis, perhaps that's just as well.

[bea-lele-carmen]

I was surprised, as always, by how easy the act of leaving was, and how good it felt. The world was suddenly rich with possibility.

Jack Kerouac, On the Road

Our battered suitcases were piled on the sidewalk again; we had longer ways to go. But no matter, the road is life Sal, we gotta go and never stop going 'till we get there.' 'Where we going, man?' 'I don't know but we gotta go. But why think about that when all the golden lands ahead of you and all kinds of unforseen events wait lurking to surprise you and make you glad you're alive to see? Jack Kerouac, On the Road

[cantsayidont]

When attempting to critique the values of a long-running franchise like STAR TREK, it's important to draw a distinction between superficial issues and structural ones.

"Superficial" in this sense doesn't mean "minor" or "unimportant"; it simply means that an issue is not so intrinsic to the premise that the franchise would collapse (or would be radically different) were it changed or removed. For example, misogyny has been a pervasive problem across many generations of STAR TREK media, which have often been characterized by a particular type of leering-creep sexism that was distasteful at the time and has not improved with age. However, sexism and misogyny are not structural elements of the TREK premise; one can do a STAR TREK story where the female characters have agency and even pants without it becoming something fundamentally different from other TREK iterations (even TOS, although there are certainly specific TOS episodes that would collapse if you excised the sexism).

By contrast, the colonialism and imperialism are structural elements — STAR TREK is explicitly about colonizing "the final frontier" and about defending the borders, however defined, of an interstellar colonial power. Different iterations of STAR TREK may approach that premise in slightly different ways, emphasizing or deemphasizing certain specific aspects of it, but that is literally and specifically what the franchise is about. Moreover, because STAR TREK has always been heavily focused on Starfleet and has tended to shy away from depicting life outside of that regimented environment, there are definite limits to how far the series is able to depart from the basic narrative structure of TOS and TNG (a captain and crew on a Starfleet ship) without collapsing in on itself, as PICARD ended up demonstrating rather painfully.

This means that some of the things baked into the formula of STAR TREK are obviously in conflict with the franchise's self-image of progressive utopianism, but cannot really be removed or significantly altered, even if the writers were inclined to try (which they generally are not).

What I find intensely frustrating about most modern STAR TREK media, including TNG and its various successors, is not that it can't magically break its own formula, but that writer and fan attachment to the idea of TREK as the epitome of progressive science fiction has become a more and more intractable barrier to any kind of meaningful self-critique. It's a problem that's become increasingly acute with the recent batch of live-action shows, which routinely depict the Federation or Starfleet doing awful things (like the recent SNW storyline about Una being prosecuted for being a genetically engineered person in violation of Federation law) and then insist, often in the same breath, that it's a progressive utopia, best of all possible worlds.

This is one area where TOS (and to some extent the TOS cast movies) has a significant advantage over its successors. TOS professes to be a better world than ours, but it doesn't claim to be a perfect world (and indeed is very suspicious of any kind of purported utopia). The value TOS most consistently emphasizes is striving: working to be better, and making constructive choices. Although this can sometimes get very sticky and uncomfortable in its own right (for instance, Kirk often rails against what he sees as "stagnant" cultures), it doesn't presuppose the moral infallibility of the Federation, of Starfleet, or of the characters themselves. There's room for them to be wrong, so long as they're still willing to learn and grow.

The newer shows are less and less willing to allow for that, and, even more troublingly, sometimes take pains to undermine their predecessors' attempts along those lines. One appalling recent example is SNW's treatment of the Gorn, which presents the Gorn as intrinsically evil (and quite horrifying) in a way they're not in "Arena," the TOS episode where they were first introduced. The whole point of "Arena" is that while Kirk responds to the Gorn with outrage and anger, he eventually concedes that he may be wrong: There's a good chance that the Gorn are really the injured party, responding to what they reasonably see as an alien invasion, and while that may be an arguable point, sorting it out further should be the purview of diplomats rather than warships. By contrast, SNW presents the Gorn as so irredeemably awful as to make Kirk's (chronologically later) epiphany at best misguided: The SNW Gorn are brutal conquerors who lay eggs in their captives (a gruesome rape metaphor, and in presentation obviously inspired by ALIENS) when they aren't killing each other for sport, and even Gorn newborns are monsters to be feared. Not a lot of nuance there, and no space at all for the kind of detente found in TOS episodes like "The Devil in the Dark."

[the-astronome]

Apparently unpopular opinion, but what I can judge from the screenshots we got today, the Capital is not just St. Petersburg, it’s more of a melange between St. Petersburg and Moscow. (Tbh, we got just one shot of the capital, so any opinion here is not really objective, but whatever)

Okay, so there is this:

My first thought was “wow is that inspired by Nevsky or by Tverskaya?”. (i. e. Nevsky Prospect in St. Petersburg and Tverskaya Street in Moscow). Consensus on Twitter is that this photo stinks of Nevsky vibes, however, I would like to point out several things, e. g. there are no sunny days in St Petersburg from architecture of the two Russian capitals to game design decisions made to create an atmosphere of a certain time period.

1) Architecture

I recall some people seeing the picture above and instantly suggesting Nevsky as an inspiration behind. I would like to point out, especially to the people who’d never been to either of the cities, that Moscow and St. Petersburg partly resemble each other (dear people of St. Petersburg - I know, sacrilegious of me to compare you with greedy Muscovites, no I’m not sorry).

Moscow is not only the Seven Sisters and modern skyscrapers. Petersburg is not only 200-300 y.o. buildings. Both cities underwent major changes during 19th and 20th centuries, both cities eventually adopted a somewhat similar style, a mix of late empire (1910s) and early soviet rule (1920s-1930s). Moreover, in many cases, these are even the same buildings, with a ground level from say 1913 and other floors from e.g. 1927. I’ll do you one better, if you compare historical districts of major cities of former Russian empire (e.g. Kyiv or Minsk), you’ll see the same thing. Yes, they’re not identical, but you can clearly see this specific architectural style of 1910-1920s.

Coming back to our screenshot above, I definitely can see Nevsky Prospect influence. However, when I saw those little decorative towers, they immediately reminded me of Tverskaya. I did some digging, and hey, there is actually something similar there:

Yes, not identical, but again, imo design of the Capital is done with goal to remind you of something you saw, not a copy, but close enough to understand the influence, to get the atmosphere of the city.

2) Historical aspect

Okay, from now on it’s my deluded gibberish, but hear me out. Considering the technologies presented in Pathologic (antibiotics, that massive ass artillery gun from P1 which honestly suspiciously looks like Schwerer Gustav), the game can be placed somewhere vaguely in 1920s-1930s. Taking into account what kind of language characters speak (for instance, Dankovsky speaks in a very specific manner, such Russian is more found in literature, than in actual spoken language. The same applies for most of the Utopians), lack of soviet-specific abbreviations and vocabulary, we can say that apparently October Revolution never happened. To be honest, Daniil wouldn’t survive the Revolution or early Soviet rule (read about repressions against intellectuals or the infamous Philosopher’s steamer)

You can argue: “but hey, isn’t Pathologic just a theatre play where such details don’t matter?”. Yes and no. Because it’s a theatre play, many otherwise important details are omitted. However, developers drop hints here and there, to set the tone and visually convey what kind of country and society they’re talking about. No offence to non-russian-speaking fans, but I’m still convinced that IPL still considers russian-speaking countries their primary audience. This leads to certain design choices, including architecture of the Capital.

In my opinion, IPL had to mix visuals of Moscow and St. Petersburg in order to convey a certain vibe. You see, since it’s somewhat suggested that revolution didn’t happen, developers have to utilise aesthetics of 1910s culture to show that we are talking about “Russia” from works of Gorky, Chekhov, and Bunin. At the same time, IPL have to add elements of early soviet culture, so the game world doesn’t look like weird 1910s with antibiotics and far too much advanced technologies.

How’s that connected to the Capital? Russian capital in late empire was St. Petersburg. In later years - Moscow. Moreover, if we are talking about Dankovsky as a character, his design (among other things) is heavily influenced by works of Bulgakov. But in Russian mindset Bulgakov is tightly associated with 1920s Moscow, you just can’t escape it. So, consequently, IPL decide not to sacrifice one for another, and just mix the two capitals, stylistically, in order to create the desired impression on the player.

We’ll see if all that is at least partially true from P3. Hopefully, even from the upcoming demo.

[rainbowsky]

Yibo Marie Claire - December 2024

White can be so "hot" with just a little blush, Wang Yibo is thinking.

Like the sunshine in Marseille, orange projects hope, and Wang Yibo also sees another side of himself.

The vitality surging under the calm, green always makes people so surprised and at ease, Wang Yibo has his own world.

Blue has an inherent mystery, and Wang Yibo is enjoying the time that belongs only to him.

Maybe there are also surprises besides colors, right?

Marseille, swinging between the city and the ocean, shows a unique modernity and relaxation. The development of this city may have its own pace, which also created the utopian city gene here. The most desirable thing is the warm Mediterranean sunshine. Looking back at Wang Yibo's 2024, it may be "warm" enough. The tenth anniversary of his debut is a dividing point, but also a starting point. He is more focused on himself and has gained more. Feel every moment of the usual Utopia with Wang Yibo.

Producer/MIX WEI Artist Coordinator/JOYCE WANG Photographer/LESLIE ZHANG Styling/PUNKCHERRY, E TIAN Text Coordinator/CHICOCHAN Makeup/LUWANG Hairstyle/Zhao Wenzhi (THE FUR) Producer/Wu Long, Liu Chenxi Artist/Wu Long Photographer Assistant/Shen Jiabin, Wu You, Liao Zining Styling & Creative Assistance/ELAINE Wear Assistant/Xiao Ye, Hai Yan, KARLIE Makeup Assistant/Han Yi, Feng Jinghuan Hairstyle Assistant/Cui Jianan Producer Assistant/Li Zhicheng, He Weiwei Artist Assistant/Luo Hao, Chai Shujie, Xinye

[soleminisanction]

I've always really liked DC's in-house choice of referring to their various superhero groupings as "families," but it has gotten a little frustrating recently with people both in canon and in fandom seeming to forget that families aren't just a parental-unit-and-kids formation. They're complicated, and a lot of the DC families are too messy to fit into that neat little nuclear family mode.

Which is to say... here's some scattered thoughts/summaries about how these families are actually structured in canon, because I think it's interesting:

Supers -- The smaller, more traditional Superfamily (Clark, Lois, Kara, Kon, etc.) is a pretty traditional Midwestern nuclear family, with Jimmy Olsen filling the role of close family friend/goofy neighbor sidekick (in the Silver Age, he was Kara's would-be suitor) and Steel feeling more like part of Clark's personal circle of friends. The recent line up, though, with Jon, the twins, Kong and Nat? Starts to feel more like some old dynasty or noble house, complete with fostered foundlings and the Steels acting almost like knights under a noble's banner, possibly reflective of what the House of El would have been on Krypton.

Arrows -- Might currently be the closet to a traditional nuclear family structure. You've got Ollie and Dinah, their younger sisters, Ollie's adopted and biological children, and Ollie's granddaughter through Roy, plus by some counts Roy's co-parent and her sister as "in-laws." Bonnie and Cissie King-Jones are adjacent to but not technically "part" of the family, though I believe it's implied at one point that Ollie might also be Cissie's bio-dad. Pretty straightforward, these guys are actually family and they act like it, for good and ill.

Shazam Family -- Also a literal, actual family. Not originally, the original golden age "Marvel Family" was considerably more complicated and only Billy and Mary were full siblings, but nowadays the whole point of the modern Shazam family is that they're foster siblings united by familial love and that's fantastic. Meanwhile your average Black Adam story is 75% angsty family drama, 25% Egyptian mythology references.

Flashes -- Technically closer to three nuclear families (the Allens, the Wests and the Garricks; four if you include the Quicks), two of whom are united by marriage and all of whom are bound by the Speedforce, which, given its semi-spiritual connections to things like Speedster afterlives, can act almost like a religious force that connects them to the additional members like Avery, Circuit Breaker and Max as Bart's foster-dad. They're a big, sprawling tree with more cousins than siblings, the kind of family that functionally has a reunion every Christmas and Thanksgiving.

Lanterns -- Now these guys are the exception that proves my point about the whole 'family' thing not being straightforward. The lanterns aren't a family, they're a corps. Soldiers. Space cops. Comrades-in-arms. They respect each other, have each other's backs, might even like or care about each other, but those last two are optional, and they don't have the same kind of assumed obligations towards each other that a family would have. They're friends and co-workers, not family, but that doesn't mean their relationships are less significant, they're just different.

Wonders -- Roughly half of them are either one of Hippolyta's daughters (Diana, Donna, Nubia pre-Crisis) or related to them through the gods (Cassie), and the other half (Artemis, Yara, modern-age Nubia) use sister as a term of endearment more in a utopian lesbian commune kind of way. I think they brought Steve Trevor back recently? He's basically the Ken in this equation and perfectly fine with that role. None of which should be surprising if you've seen Professor Marston and the Wonder Women.

Bats -- This is the one that people get really wrong when they try to force it into a traditional family structure. Don't let WFA fool you, the Bats are and have always been way more a snarled mess of tangled interpersonal relationships than they've ever been a cohesive family. Whether Dick is Bruce's son or his brother depends on what era you're talking about, and the former reading is much more recent than you think -- as in "started cropping up in the early 2000s" recent. Barbara is both Cassandra's sister and her mother. Duke and Steph both have living parents and neither of them want or would ever dream of treating Bruce like their dad; Tim was the same way until his dad died. None of the Robins ever lived in the mansion together, nor did Cass. Babs considered Jean-Paul Valley her brother and Huntress is so close to Tim she once hallucinated him calling her Big Sister. They're a beautiful mess of people finding places where their broken edges fit together into something that works for them and trying to reduce it down to a cozy nuclear family is just so goddamn reductive and lazy.

Blue Beetles -- Are only tangentially related to each other. Seriously, they never even get direct mentoring, each one just takes over when the previous one dies and works on completely different rules from the other two. They're complete strangers bound by a legacy and that's honestly pretty fun.

Zataras -- There's only three of them and they're literally a father, daughter and cousin.

Martians -- Not really a family because there's only the two of them, but an interesting case where the two survivors of what was functionally a war of mutually assured destruction came together in an attempt to find some peace in the aftermath of what they'd lost.

Titans -- The JLA and JSA aren't really in the "family" category, but the Titans lean into it hard, mostly because they're a textbook found family. They don't mirror a nuclear family structure, they're simply a group of people who came together to form a mutual support network. They're the idealized college friends you grew into your own with, some of them childhood companions and others you only met once you leave home for the first time, but all of them friends that you manage to maintain contact with for life, with everyone coming back together even as you scatter and do your own things.

Young Justice -- Meanwhile, this team is the chaotic group of misfits you hung out with when you were a teenager, especially when you were just starting to be allowed to act without adult supervision. You drive each other crazy, none of you know you're all queer as fuck, and you'd fight a bear for any of them even if they asked you not to. They'd probably be insulted if you tried to call them a family. They come out here to get away from their families, thank you very much.