#as like ‘studios SHOULD be making games like THESE’

[mariacallous]

“She’s really giving throwback oblivious mean girl, it’s kind of amazing.” “Omg her saying she got her husband involved, she is SO that woman.” I would love to tell you that these comments, written this summer about Blake Lively, the lead actor in domestic violence drama It Ends With Us, were posted on Reddit by some anonymous misogynistic troll.

Lively had made what looked like tone-deaf promotional appearances to push her haircare and drinks line alongside the film. It was revealed that she had had a scene rewritten by her husband, actor/director Ryan Reynolds, and that she took control over the final cut, which also featured a song by her best friend, Taylor Swift. Everything from Lively’s conduct to her predilection for florals seemed like fair game, spawning a vast amount of negative discourse and tanking her reputation. But the comments above were texts written by me, made in my most active group chat.

On Saturday, Lively filed a complaint with the California civil rights department against Justin Baldoni, both the film’s director and her male co-lead, producer Jamey Heath, production company Wayfarer Studios and its public relations/crisis management retinue, alleging that they actively sought to harm her reputation to pre-empt any possibility of her going public with an HR complaint she made during the film’s making.

Alleging the violation of physical boundaries, sexual and inappropriate comments and the absence of intimacy coordination, the court filing is an astonishing read. It claims that Heath showed Lively unsolicited footage of his wife giving birth as they filmed a scene where her character does so; that Baldoni’s “best friend” was drafted in to play the obstetrician-gynaecologist in that scene, in which Lively was “nearly nude” in front of dozens of crew; that Baldoni talked to her about non-consensual sexual encounters; that he wept in her trailer over reactions to paparazzi photos from shooting that called her old and unattractive, prompting her to remind him that in those scenes her character had just been abused by her husband, and that she should look authentically distressed, not “hot”.

In January, prior to resuming filming after the Writers Guild of America strike, a meeting was held in which Lively sought to have 30 new set protections implemented. Wayfarer said: “Although our perspective differs in many aspects, ensuring a safe environment for all is paramount, irrespective of differing views. Regarding your outlined requests, we find most of them not only reasonable but also essential for the benefit of all parties involved.” One of those protections was that Lively should not be subject to retaliatory action for speaking out. Instead, her complaint seeks to illustrate that the parties behind the film allegedly engaged PR and crisis management – including a company that has represented Johnny Depp and is partly funded by music mogul Scooter Braun, who bought the masters to Swift’s first six albums – to destroy Lively’s reputation via media and social media manipulation.

“You know we can bury anyone,” crisis management expert Melissa Nathan wrote to PR executive Jennifer Abel, one of thousands of messages subpoenaed by Lively. (Bryan Freedman, a lawyer for Baldoni, called the accusations “categorically false”, saying a crisis manager was brought in due to “multiple demands and threats” allegedly made by Lively.)

In a subsequent message, Nathan told Abel that Baldoni didn’t realise how lucky he was given the allegations they had heard about his on-set conduct: “the whispering in the ear the sexual connotations like Jesus fucking Christ”.

While the film’s stars were told to keep their promotional activities positive and uplifting – “grab your friends, wear your florals and head out to see it,” Lively said in a promotional video – Baldoni, who most of the cast had unfollowed on social media, as fans had noticed, positioned himself as a feminist ally engaged with domestic violence issues. In response to the social media response “really ramping up” in terms of criticism of Lively, Nathan texted Abel: “It’s actually sad because it just shows you have people really want to hate on women.” A “scenario planning” document by Nathan’s firm, TAG PR, said it could “explore planting stories about the weaponisation of feminism and how people in [Lively’s] circle like Taylor Swift have been accused of utilising these tactics to ‘bully’ into getting what they want.” Baldoni told Heath that he “didn’t love” the document because it didn’t leave him feeling sufficiently protected.

“The weaponisation of the ‘weaponisation of feminism’.” That is how a friend in our group chat put it as we pored over the New York Times report that broke the news of Lively’s allegations and the subsequent release of her entire complaint; as we looked back, horrified, on what we had said about her in recent months (entirely in private, I hasten to add). We realised the degree to which a group of supposedly media-literate journalists were potentially manipulated by a confected misogynistic narrative; how persistent and pernicious internalised misogyny can be when another woman doesn’t meet your standards.

Of course, feminism can be weaponised and leveraged for personal gain. The flourishing of pop-cultural feminism a decade ago paved the way for “girlboss” and lean-in “feminism”, which didn’t fight for much more than a woman’s right to act and earn as rapaciously as men; it’s now considered a joke, with even girlboss creator, Sophia Amoruso, distancing herself from it in … interviews to promote her new venture capital firm. These are nuanced conversations about not allowing a fight for equality, respect and safety to be seized for self-gain. But the idea of the Hollywood and PR machines perverting that concept to discredit a woman apparently intent on ensuring the safety of herself and others – on the chaotic set of a film about ending cycles of domestic abuse – is a level of 4D chess that is terrifying in its imperceptibility, effectiveness and potential prevalence.

There is a chilling disconnect in the way the crisis and publicity parties rejoice in their apparent PR victory – “So much mixed messaging It’s actually really funny if you think about it,” Nathan texted Abel – and the covert warfare they allegedly used to manipulate the tabloid media into parroting their narrative. “This went so well I am fucking dying … We have the four majors standing down on HR complaint,” Nathan told Abel. When MailOnline published a piece in August asking “Is Blake Lively set to be CANCELLED?” Abel texted Nathan: “You really outdid yourself with this piece.” These methods are deadly, acutely attuned to how to form and nurture media and social media sentiment against a woman. As Taylor Lorenz writes in her newsletter User Mag, it takes its cues directly from the Gamergate playbook.

How many women has this happened to? How many smear campaigns have seduced our most base and ungenerous instincts into swallowing their line? How many male directors and actors successfully positioned themselves as feminist allies post-#MeToo for cynical reasons? Beyond celebrity narratives, how has this affected how we perceive the women in our own lives? Culturally, we seem to have progressed – rather,regressed – from ostracising figures who act badly to grasping for politically legible ways to take against anyone whose greatest crime might be “seeming a bit annoying”. Is someone “not a girl’s girl”, as you often hear online, or do they just have different values to you? Does their behaviour just feel confrontational and uncomfortable to you because it might reflect your own insecurities?

Lively’s complaint has left my head spinning. What can you really trust? How do we question accepted narratives without descending into tin-hatted conspiracy theory? Why do so many people hate women this much? How much internalised misogyny roils under my own skin every day? I’d like to reach for a cute ending, to say that through assiduous, informed questioning and acute media literacy, cases like Lively’s might, you know, end with us. But the truth is I don’t think we stand a chance.

[jettreno]

I assume it’s bc of the tv show but I’ve seen a couple posts randomly dunking on the last of us but for such dumb reasons. “I want to play lighthearted silly games instead of grimdark ones” “I want to play games that are more inextricable from the video game medium, games that are less cinematic” the good news is that those games exist! the last of us is in fact only two games out of the countless video games out there, so I would recommend not playing them if you don’t want to

[devsgames]

Me: "hey game developers, especially AAA ones, are getting laid off en-mass and it's awful for our industry" Gamer: "well I only play INDIE games and the problem with AAA games is they are creatively bankrupt"

Me, slamming my fists on the table like a baby: "WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THIS IS ABOUT A BUSINESS PROBLEM PERPETUATED BY CAPITALISM NOT A STATEMENT ON CREATIVE DECISION MAKING"

[silver-horse]

unfortunately I have opinions about the ascendant astarion ending and I have been holding back from saying it. but it's a problem that applies to the whole game and it's been annoying me

what's actually weird about the ascendant "romance" scene is that the writer considers it a tempting option for the player. They wrote it to be bad, but they also think it's a fun and sexy option. Same goes for the haarlep scene which they also wrote that way because they find it sexy. Except finding this sexually appealing entirely hinges on the idea that the player is a submissive. So RIP to a scene that the rest of us could have found sexy because the lead narrative designer was a submissive. lmao

In this game you can have a scene where you have to kneel for a male character. But you can never have a male character do the same for you. (Halsin doesn't count. It's a vanilla scene, he is not submissive there and we are not even asking/telling him to kneel down) You don't get such options, not even if you play a drow female! RIP the number one reason for playing drow female to be honest. lol You can kneel and fully submit to ascendant astarion or fully submit to mizora or fully submit to haarlep or submit to lae'zel or submit to minthara. you can get whipped by abdirak or you can tell him "touch me and lose a hand" he even responds positively to this remark and yet the possibility to flip the dynamic doesn't exist. There is never an option where a male character truly submits to the player. RIP to a scene that would have been the opposite of the traditional dynamic. the potential that existed but they never used the opportunity

By the way, how interesting that Lae'zel is dominant but she is a woman so ofc you get the option to tell her “no you will submit to me”. You never get such switch options with any of the male characters... Obviously it's not ascendant where they could have made that an option. My point is that it's NEVER an option among so many male characters.

It's a cool idea that the bad ending in a romance means "I saw this character as a sex object" except it falls apart when the scene is very sexually unappealing to anyone who is more dominant leaning. If I see a character as a sex object then I would place them in sexual situations which are appealing to me. so the message doesn't quite work. because there isn't anything that I can selfishly choose for myself just because I like it and I find it sexy.

[thedrotter]

re:kinder doodle dump part three !!! drawings with wildly different moods www they are more polished ans complete than my other doodles because. why not🥺!!!

[morgana-ren]

Alrighty, everyone mute me here cause I'm about to go on a tirade.

Look, I've been playing video games since I was young. Very young. Probably too young, if we're being completely honest. We had an old Nintendo 64 from my step-dad's youth that I used to play religiously. I played my ps2 for hours and hours a day as a way to cope with a.. shall we say unstable household. I had Gameboy Advanced, Gameboy color, all the way up to Nintendo DS to the switch. This is something I've been doing since I was barely old enough to speak. I used to get games at Blockbuster, okay? I played the OG Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights on a clunky old computer. Even when we were flat-busted ass broke with absolutely no money to spare, I would play at friend's houses. I would play old AV consoles on those fat ass TVs. It's my oldest hobby besides reading, is the point here.

My point is I'm old enough to remember when gaming was a niche hobby that you could actually get bullied for. It was back when studios made games mostly out of passion, and not to sell to a broader audience. There wasn't really even such a thing as microtransactions. You bought a full and complete game. Blizzard released good products, actually (unbelievable, I know.) Games knew their audience, and there wasn't necessarily an assload of money in it, so it was mostly made out of love for the games and their community.

Gaming has grown in popularity over the last 10-20 years, and that can be an excellent thing! Really! It can be! But Baldur's Gate 3 winning game of the year brought something to my attention that has been driving me mad for a few days now. It's a concept I've found myself repeating for a long time, but barely just sort of sat down to analyze it:

Not everything is for you.

The last few winners of GOTY have had some... sour people be very upset. Not that this is uncommon, but especially the last few years. People saying Elden Ring is 'too hard,' people saying that Baldur's Gate 3 is nothing but pedantic dice rolls, etc. People who, in general, were very unhappy that these games did not appeal to them in particular, and they were very vocal about how these games should be changed to appeal to them personally.

What I'm saying is that these people, along with most others, were not there during the days of niche gaming, where when you didn't like a game, you didn't necessarily throw a tantrum and stamp your feet and demand that these games aren't good and that they need to change, but rather, you just... didn't play them. They weren't made for you.

We live in an age where absolutely everything is being scraped for every last dollar. Games that used to be made out of passion for their communities are now being made to sell, sell, sell as many copies as physically possible to everyone. If it won't pander to every last person, it's not going to be made. Things are being 'streamlined' to make the games appeal to anyone and everyone who might play them.

'Streamlined' in this case, means 'dumbed down.' As Bethesda famously says, KISS: Keep It Simple Stupid.

Games that used to be a little bit more 'niche' and 'complex' like Morrowind, are now games like Skyrim, that are dumbed down to sell to everyone. They remove a lot of the aspects that made them beloved in the name of 'garnering a new and broader audience.' Older folks, adults, children, everyone. But this attitude of inclusivity isn't as great as it might seem initially. It isn't done out of community. It is done to get absolutely every last person possible to empty their wallet at the altar. To get every last fucking dollar out of everyone.

Games are passionless money pits. They sell you a half-baked, simple product that insults your intelligence. It's impossible to fail quests, because God forbid one person doesn't like that and asks for their money back. They won't touch on complex topics, because they don't want to cause a controversy that might drain their prospective bank account. They can't make things so intricate that God forbid a toddler might not understand them. They are milquettoast, miserable little games that appeal not even to people who enjoy games, but rather, people who don't.

Yes, they are making games to try and get money from people who don't even like them. They can't make anything nuanced or put a learning curve or put any actual work or fun into the game, because people who don't actually like playing games might realize "Hey, actually, I'm not enjoying this at all." and not give anymore money.

I'll get to the point.

Games being disliked by certain people is a good thing. It means those companies were unwavering on their vision and their loyalty to their fans. It means it was a game made from passion, and not just to be marketed and sold to literally every living person. They were made with their communities in mind, and no offense, but if you aren't one of the people that likes the things those communities stand for, maybe you should seek it elsewhere rather than trying to change something someone loves to suit you instead. You are not the demographic here.

You hear people that hate turnbased saying that Baldur's Gate 3 should not have been turnbased. Guess what? That's literally DnD. It's a DnD game. Don't like the lack of day cycles? Again, that's long resting in DnD. Pedantic dice rolls? That's fucking DnD, baby. Maybe you don't like it, but just because the game got popular does not mean it was made for you. Too much gay? Go away. Baldur's Gate was not made to sell copies to everyone. In fact, it was a relatively niche prospect that gained massive popularity near the end because of a scandal. I've been with them since Patch 2 of Early Access, and it very much was a passion project by people who loved DnD and TT games. They did not think it was going to hit this level of popularity, and they stuck to their guns even when it did. I cannot tell you how rare and remarkable that is.

Dark Souls is too hard? Maybe it's not the game for you. If you don't like certain design aspects, that's fine and okay! But Miyazaki and Fromsoft should not be forced to change their vision of their passion project because you personally do not like it. It was around before you, and they have a loyal community that does love the game just how it is. If you want a game with a difficulty slider, maybe you should play a game that has one. I'm sorry if you don't like the fundamentals of the game, but they exist for a reason, the community likes it, and no, it's not just for elitist reasons like I see all too often. You just do not understand because you don't like the game and do not like being told no for once by a company that has integrity.

I'm not trying to insult you. I'm being honest when I say that it's an attitude that is expected in the current climate where everything is changed when people complain the loudest because changing it means more money, and more money is the goal. These people are not your friends. Do not forget that. They are not changing it because they care about you. They are changing it because they think they can con you out of another dime.

People have a masochistic relationship with these companies. They have gotten used to being pandered to. They have gotten used to being sold a shitty game that everyone from their grandmother to their toddler niece and nephew can beat. And no, there's nothing wrong with games for everyone. But it's not because they wanted to make a game for everyone. It was because they wanted everyone's money.

People make hour long youtube videos about how Baldur's Gate would have been better if it was real time, and if it was more like this game and that game (namely games that pander to everyone) and then, in the same week, release a video bewailing that all games are so bad now and they don't understand why. They grasp that greed has a part in it, but they don't understand that they are directly contributing to the problem.

Games are bad because when everything is for everyone, nothing is truly for you. You won't have a chance to be passionate about anything, because on the off chance you find something you love, you will inevitably watch it die the same way that those of us who have been here forever did, because someone outside of the community doesn't like it, so it has to go because Christ forbid they don't sell two more copies.

And no, I am not talking about 'woke' or 'political correctness' so you alt-right weirdos can keep the fuck off of this post. I am talking about things like a lack of quest markers. Complex puzzles that you can fail. Political nuance. Things that take brainpower and are fun but not everyone likes.

Maybe not everything is for you. Maybe a game is allowed to exist even if you don't like it. Maybe communities are allowed to have their thing while you have yours. Maybe you have gotten so used to being pandered and catered to with every game being this blase, half-baked experience that is sorta liked by most, but... beloved by none. It's a forgettable, boring experience that garners no real loyalty, but at most a "Ha, that was alright." And then you put it on the shelf never to touch it again.

It means these companies aren't thinking of money; they are thinking of their communities. They are thinking of their fans and the people who love their games. Every time Miyazaki says 'no' to changing the formula that we love about his games, he is thinking of his loyalty to his community and his passion to the game. When Sven refuses to change aspects of the game to suit people who don't like DnD, he is staying loyal to the DnD community.

More companies should be doing this. Not less.

But consumers need to remember that one little creedo: Not everything is for me.

It can exist and I can exist. I do not have to play it and I do not have to enjoy it. It doesn't mean that it's bad. It means it's not for me. And that's fine.

[canadianlucifer]

Hot take but if I buy something I think I should own it :/

[violetren]

I think I'm actually onboard with DA: The Veilguard's change in art direction compared to the other games. I am so deeply over the attempts at hyper realistic see every pore and hair follicle styles that bloat the file size by 200% leaving less room for actually interesting game mechanics and details and in the case of most fantasy games make the armour and magic effects look just that tiny bit stupider because the level of fantasy doesn't mesh with the realism. And also if this art style lowers the chances of my character's lip gloss being visible from space I will damn well take it.

Plus the lighting and the colours? Showing contrast between light and dark while still letting me be able to see what was going on? Fantastic.

Literally my only note is why does the Qunari dragon slayer who clearly goes for the brutal and direct melee approach have supermodel proportions? Like where are her muscles? Even Harding, light of my life, looks a little too Made Up and slight and she's a dwarven scout. I'm lowkey convinced all the women have the same model just set to different heights. Idk. Taash's model is probably pretty final but maybe Harding will be allowed to look a bit more rugged in game compared to the cinematic trailer.

[thatonecrookedsmile]

More progress being made. I finished re-reading The Illusion of Living this past Friday. It's a nice book. 👍 This was the last of the Bendy books in this "marathon" that I'm doing which I had already read previously and now I'm rereading, meaning that I'm kind of up to date when it comes to rereading all the books that were released until December 2021. But the race is not over yet. Soon I'll start Fade To Black, and (technically) I'll finally be up to date.

Just to continue my chain of posting about the books I finished (at least, the main ones that I really wanted to read) here it is…something I did at the beginning of March, on the night when shit went down. (I hope you know what I'm talking about). I saw the tweets first hand, I was there! Right at the damn moment. And it was..something reading those tweets alright. If the image above doesn't show it, my mood that night and the next 1-2 days wasn't so… great. You might read this and think I'm exaggerating, but that night especially I, uuhhh, I didn't feel good! And this image (and maybe 2 more posts I made that night) are the results of that. (And to think that a week before this happened, I had finished rereading DCTL after a long time. Talk about better/worse timing than this)

At least, if you want the bright side of this, it's that even after that day, I decided to continue with my book marathon, and I don't regret it. I was down that day, but I wasn't out yet damn it!! and I'm still not. (I don't know if this sentence makes a lot of sense, but you get my point)

As a bonus, here's something I did the night I got to the part where Henry is first mentioned in the book (you can consider this as a representation of my reaction when he's first mentioned, both for when I read TIOL for the first time in 2021, as now in this rereading)

Feat. canon Henry design and my fanon design for him (I wanted to include him here + I still read this book with my fan-designs in mind)

[thanatika]

low-coherency rambling in the tags

[nightmareslug]

one of the perspective practices or whatever

[decktech-vis]

I FUCKING DID IT

[skrunksthatwunk]

yakuza: dead souls - american vibes, bigass guns, and why zombies are super weird to have in ryu ga gotoku thematically/ideologically speaking

so i've been playing dead souls recently (hell yeah hell yeah hell yeah) and although i'm having the time of my life with it, there was something about it that kinda felt off to me, and i think i've figured out what it was, but i'm gonna have to walk you through a bit of my thought process to get there.

my first instinct was that it felt... american? and upon further examination i think that boils down to a couple of things:

everyone suddenly has lots of guns and also way way bigger guns

high emphasis on individual heroism (this itself is quite typical for rgg, but it manifests differently here; more on that in a bit)

military/government incompetence, which must be solved by the right individuals having the biggest and bestest guns

[for the sake of transparency i will note that my experience with zombie media is pretty limited and skews american (and i myself am american), so that may create bias. however, the 'this feels american to me' instinct is a rare one for me even in genres where i have seen little/no non-american media, so i think the fact that it did occur to me is notable. what about dead souls triggered that response when little else has? that's why i examined it and, truthfully, i think there's merit in the idea itself.]

the first point is pretty self-explanatory. america's got more guns than it does people, and its gun worship is infamous. japan's ban on guns (aided by its being an island state) means there's far fewer guns in the country, as well as far fewer people with guns (and likely far fewer guns per gun owner, excepting arms dealers/smugglers) than somewhere without such a ban. obviously, there are guns anyway. due to their illegality they are clustered within the criminal population, which explains their presence within organized crime within the series. very few guns will be sitting around in the homes of otherwise law-abiding citizens.

and yet, when the zombie outbreak hits kamurocho, plenty of civilians suddenly have access to quite an arsenal. everyone has the knowledge they need to aim, fire, and reload smoothly and quickly; ammo is infinite for certain guns. characters we've never seen using firearms before suddenly have shotguns under their couches (looking at you, majima). it's not only very different from reality, it's very different from guns' place within the series up until this point, when they were limited weapons used primarily by the enemy.

and they're making a zombie shooter, so of course they would have to do this. it has to be unrealistic to be simultaneously in this setting and in this genre, in the same way that yakuza solving their problems with bareback fistfights instead of guns is itself both unrealistic and necessary to being the kinds of games rgg are.

my point is that this is a kind of focus on and valorization of gun ownership and competency unusual for the series and setting. further, it serves as an argument for why an armed, competent populace is crucial typical in american media.

which brings us to the third point (we'll get to 2 in a minute). guns are often marketed as self-defense weapons. the implication is that the government's defense of the individual (via law enforcement or the military, but particularly the former), are insufficient. this is objectively true. if someone pulls a gun on you at the gas station, will a cop manifest out of thin air to intercede? no. that's impossible. but if you have a gun, or if some bystander has a gun, you or they may be able to do something with that gun to stop the armed person. thus, there is an undeniable gap in the effective immediacy of such responses.

many gun advocates also point to the incompetence or insufficiency of law enforcement, even when they are present to stop an armed aggressor. the fact that law enforcement do not have a 100% success rate in protecting the citizenry is also objectively true.

so, when you are in danger, arming yourself increases your chances of being able to put down (or at least take armed action against) a present or potential threat. whether it is viewed it as a supplement to or a replacement for law enforcement, it is meant to make up for the shortcomings of the government's ability to completely protect all its citizens. it's a safety net for state failure.

back to dead souls. rgg has always centered political corruption in its stories, including politicians, the police, and sometimes even the military, though usually the former two. sometimes this is treated sympathetically (i.e. tanimura, a dirty cop, whose dirty-cop-ness allows him to work outside/against the law to help disadvantaged people, not unlike how kiryu views being a yakuza), and other times it's simply a matter of greed or lust for power (i.e. jingu).

however, something that's almost never touched on so clearly is government incompetence. when the government fails to help people or hurts them or does corrupt things, it's usually due to a competent, malicious bad apple who is removed from power by the end of the game. this implies holes in the system because it keeps happening all the time, but that's on a series-wide scale, a pattern ignored by the series in favor of the individual game solution of "this guy's gone now :) yay".

but in dead souls, the SDF's barracades fall, their men are killed, they are unable to help protect the people outside or inside the quarantine zone. they are weak in a way the government usually isn't in these games. and who is stronger than them? our individual good guys with guns. so we need to be armed because the government is weak and can't protect us. boom. america.

returning to point 2, i'd like to say that dead souls is not particularly more individualistic than any of the other games in the series (other than, perhaps, y7). rgg is an incredibly individualistic series, actually. its protagonists are usually men who defy, oppose, and skirt around the law as a way of helping others and doing what is truly right (with a few exceptions, like shinada and haruka). the romanticized view of the yakuza as a force for helping the community in the face of government incompetence is a real one, and one that tends to manifest itself most in kiryu and how the series treats him. it shows us yakuza who aren't willing to kill, yakuza who cry about honor and justice and humanity and brotherhood, yakuza who never dip their hands into less palatable crimes, or only do with intense regret (and only ever as part of their backstory). the beat-em-up style emphasizes this as well. i mean, what's more individualistic than a one-man army?

put more clearly, this series is about men defying legal and social laws and expectations to live in a way that feels right to them, and about making themselves strong enough to combat those who would get in their way. the individual is placed before the society in importance, (though generally in a way that benefits the community, because they are good guys who want to use that agency and power for good).

all of this is true in dead souls as well, technically. those who live on the outskirts of society are the ones who actually save the day, and the ones who go in there and save people rather than just walling them off and pretending like they don't exist. they have the guns, which are illegal and mark them as criminals, but this broken law is what gives them the power to save themselves when the government will not, and to save their community if they so choose.

where dead souls differs is in the nature of that strength.

rgg places a lot of emphasis on self-improvement, both of one's body and of one's character. do both of these, and you will be strong enough to back up your ambitions. what allows someone to carve their own path in life is the ability to put down ideological and physical resistance by having resolve and the ability to tiger drop whoever won't be swayed by your impassioned speeches. you make yourself a weapon. you make yourself strong. in dead souls, that strength comes from an external, material possession. strength is something you buy (or that you take from someone else). who is able to survive the apocalypse comes not from the heart, nor from rigorous training, but from who has the most, the biggest, and the most bestest guns. it's an intersection of capitalism, militarization, and individualism. simply, deeply american.

[when i was talking myself through this a few days ago, i spent a lot more time on the capitalism + individualism stuff, but i think i'll keep this moving. consider this aside the intermission]

dead souls also differs for a few other interlocking reasons. it can be described with this equation:

zombification of enemies + lethality of guns = loss of emphasis on redemption

if your best friend turned into a zombie, could you shoot them? or your child? or your lover? it's a common trope, but it's a damn good one. watching your family, your neighbors, your town, everyone turn into a husk of themselves, something that looks like them but cannot be reached, is deeply tragic. it's even more tragic when these husks are trying to kill you. unable to be reasoned with and unable to be cured, you must incapacitate them before someone innocent is hurt--or hurt, then themselves made dangerous; each loss adds to the number of threats surrounding you. your life is seen as more valuable than that of your zombified friend, not only because the zombie is attacking you and it's self defense, but because they are no longer a person to you. to be a zombie is to no longer be human; zombification is dehumanization.

and so in a series so focused on connection with one's community, on saving innocent civilians, often on saving kamurocho specifically, one would expect similar tropes to occur. even if one's friends aren't turned, perhaps the cashier at poppo you chat with sometimes is. it's the destruction of that community and of the members one has tertiary relationships with that i expect would occur most within a kamurocho zombie story, since they are likely unwilling to axe anyone more important than that, even if dead souls isn't canon. i'd especially expect to see that in the beginning, before the need to kill zombies rather than contain or redeem them becomes apparent.

this does not happen.

i cannot speak for the entire game, but i can speak of gameplay choices that affect this, and ones i think will not be subverted throughout, even if they are somewhat contradicted by plot events i am presently unaware of.

kamurocho is not a community to protect, nor is it filled with your fellows. it is a playground filled with infinitely respawning, infinitely mow-downable, infinitely disposable zombies. you are meant and encouraged to kill them by the thousands, and never to hesitate or consider whether they may be cured or who may be mourning them. who may be unable to identify their loved one because you were trying to reach a headshot goal from hasegawa. you are not meant to consider them as human, nor beings that were once human, nor beings that could be human again, in the eyes of the zombie shooter. they are merely bodies, targets, and obstacles.

the zombies are contrasted with the true humans, those barricading themselves within the quarantine zone or those living in ignorance outside it. humans are meant to be saved, zombies are meant to be killed. the player character is the only one who can truly help with either of these goals, because the other humans are cowardly, ignorant, or unarmed/helpless. you must be their savior. to be a savior is to eliminate zombies, who are less than human.

the black and white nature of this is also emphasized by another gameplay characteristic: the lack of street encounters. when you traverse the peaceful parts of kamurocho, you are never attacked. you are also never directly attacked by the humans within the quarantine zone. kamurocho feels very different without its muggers and hooligans, but it's because this is a zombie shooter, not a beat-em-up. in a normal rgg title, you'd subdue threats by punching, kicking, and throwing them. you'd use your body in (supposedly) nonlethal ways. dead souls does not have a combat system meant for civilians. you have your guns. you subdue threats by shooting them, preferably lethally. the game doesn't want you to do that to humans, so you never fight humans. this furthers the black and white divide between the salvation-worthy, noble humans and the death-worthy, worthless zombies. combat is only lethal, and only used against the inherent other.

this leads me to the part of dead souls i find most conflicting with the ethos of rgg broadly, and perhaps its greatest ideological/thematic failing.

because the enemy are incurable, dangerous, and inhuman, you must kill them to protect yourself and others, others who are still human. humanity is something that is lost or preserved, but never regained. once someone's gone, they're gone, and you not only must kill them, it is your duty and your right to kill them. you should kill them.

in dead souls, there is no redeeming the enemy.

and that's a big problem.

rgg is about a lot of things, but a key one is the ability of people to change for the better. its most memorable, beloved villains are those who see the light by the end and change their wicked ways (usually through some form of redemptive suicide, though that's another essay in itself). its pantheon of characters is full of those who come from questionable backgrounds struggling to be the best people they can be, to live as themselves authentically and compassionately. it's about the good and the love you can find in the moral and legal gray zones of life/society, and the potential/capacity for good all of us have, no matter how far we may have fallen. it is a hopeful series. it is a merciful series.

this is something bolstered by its gameplay. countless substories are resolved by punching a lesson into someone until they improve their behavior, either out of fear or genuine remorse/development. the games don't just discourage killing your enemies, they don't allow you to (yes, we've all seen the "kiryu hasn't killed anybody? umm. look at this heat action" stuff before, and while they've got a point, i believe it's the narrative's intent that none of this is actually lethal, based on how laxly it treats certain plot injuries (cough cough. y7 bartender) and the actual concept of taking a life, the gravity it is given by the text, particularly when it comes to characters crossing that threshold into someone who has killed. explicit killing is not an option open to you, even when you're being attacked by dozens and dozens of armed men. conflicts are resolved by simply beating up enough guys in this nonlethal manner.

but dead souls is a shooter. to avoid conflict with the series' moral qualms about letting its characters kill, the enemies cannot be human. furthermore, the zombie shooter genre can only fit within the series if its zombies are completely inhuman. this means their pasts as humans cannot be acknowledged, nor the possibility of a cure, nor the characters' own potential conflicts about killing them; or, at least, not in a way that impedes their or the player's ability to gun them down afterwards.

if you can't kill humans in your series, then it cannot be possible to save (in this case, rehumanize) zombies. this is especially true in a game where you are unable to fight humans, and thus human lives are universally more valuable than zombie lives. because if you kill a zombie that can be cured, you are, in a way, killing a human.

and so, in a series where you should always assume your enemies (and everyone, for that matter) are capable of reason, compassion, change, and redemption, and where they are always worth that effort, even if they reject it in the end, dead souls' enemies are irredeemable and only worth swift, stylish slaughter. there are only good guys and bad guys. good guys must be protected, lest they be turned irreversibly into bad guys. good guys are only protected by killing bad guys, and the only way to save good guys is to kill every last one of the bad guys. do not spare them, and do not ask whether or not it's right. only kill.

i love dead souls. it's a silly game. i like seeing daigo in decoy-drag and majima gleefully cartwheeling his way through zombies and ryuji with his giant gun arm prosthetic. it's fun. but when i was trying to figure out what felt off about it to me, one of the words that came to mind (besides american) was indulgent. that, too, felt odd, because i love indulgent media. i am not one to scorn decadent, hedonistic, beautiful high-calorie slop type media. if dead souls was just fan servicey, that wouldn't really bother me. i am a fan and boy do i feel serviced. it rocks. but i think my problem is in what dead souls is indulging.

i think dead souls indulges in the desire to cut loose, and to see these characters cut loose. thing is, they're cutting loose all over kamurocho, and all over the bodies of people they used to (at least in concept) care for. with lethal weapons. it is catharsis via bloodbath, not by pushing your body and mind to the limit in man to man combat, but by pulling a trigger before the other guy can hurt you, or even think about hurting you, for the crime of existing as the wrong kind of thing.

and i just don't think that's in line with rgg's beliefs.

yes, it's probably fair for dead souls' characters to kill zombies. i'm not against that. i'm also not against games letting you do purposeless violence. i spent a good amount of my elementary school years killing oblivion npcs for shits, like. that's not what bothers me about dead souls.

rgg as a series has always taken a hard stance in both its game design and narrative choices against killing and for the potential for redemption in its enemies. and i think the lengths to which it goes to promote that despite the probably-lethal moves you do and the improbability of a harmless do-gooder yakuza is one of the most endearing things about the games. so for this one entry to disregard that key theme for the sake of a genre shift that flopped super hard, well? i dunno. it feels weird i guess. it's out of place not just because it's a dramatic shift in gameplay and style and also zombies are only a thing here (and the supernatural/fantastical are thus only prominent here), but because of what those shifts imply.

so, uh. yeah. my pre-dead-souls thoughts that dead souls wasn't that out of pocket bc rgg's just kinda weird? turns out it was actually super weird to have a zombie shooter in there, but for way way deeper reasons than anyone gives it credit for.

(footnotes in tags)

[perilegs]

honestly so far veilguard just looks like an amalgamation of whatever features ea's other games already have instead of a good rpg

[mxdotpng]

its in queue so sorry for being confusing you'll get the full picture in a month but. like. 'gacha art style' is not a thing. by the way. you only think its a thing because there are like 5 popular gacha games made by the exact same studio and the exact same developers saturating the market.

[hi-im-kaybee]

little poncho