#but i still think the game does a good job of storytelling and establishing their relationship prior to and during the game's events

[misclogarts]

i love how ellie is all "i want to create a world where you and your people can live in peace and safety" to miss lightkeeper and then she's all "the entire world can go to hell as long as i can keep you happy" to her like THEY ARE SO IN LOVE I AM ILL. I AM SO ILL.

[stitchlingbelle]

Watching Halo, episode 1

Things I Know About Halo:

The Master Chief is a badass supersoldier who Doesn't Take Off His Helmet.* (I thought it had turned out he was a woman and the fan base rioted but apparently I mixed him up with Samus Aran?) There's a couple AI people, Roland the orange dude and Cortana the hot chick. There's a guy named Arbiter, I think he's an alien? Aliens destroy a lot of planets. There's some sort of mystical Old Ones leftover tech? (Is that the Halo part?) Names I have heard: Miranda Keyes, Dr. Halsey, Makee, Thomas Lasky, Chyler Silva**

That established, let's give this thing a go!

Nice opening scene. The costuming and set design are good, definitely have that Star Wars-esque vibe but are doing some of their own specific things that ground the world. The characters definitely gave you that lived-in-universe feel of established relationships and community right away. (Also I'm delighted by their use of Korean and their made-up alien language. Again, nice worldbuilding.) I am, however, confused. There's also an entire rebelling against the galactic empire thing going on? No one told me this. How do these people find the time with all the aliens?

Oh shit, THEY DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE ALIENS. Oh noooo.

The violence is really well done. The explosion plus blood splatter shot was great. Good use of camera work to minimize the more difficult to pull off FX shots while still getting the brutality across. The helmet-cam shots are a good storytelling choice while also being a fun nod to the games. I do not envy the stunt people fighting in these suits, though. They made them look powerful. They did not make them look dexterous, graceful or effectively designed for hand-to-hand combat.

Noooo they killed the little kid! ...and everybody else. Man, I liked those guys. Poor Kwan. (Is she in the games? Is she this ineffective? She was like, I'm going to help! and then just... didn't.) And then the Spartans just... walk off?

DO NOT TOUCH THE WEIRD ALIEN TECH. You're a Master Chief! I have it on good authority that keeping people from touching things they shouldn't is a major part of your job! Set a good example for your troops! Also, check your six.

It's Dr. Halsey! Mad scientist alert, this woman does NOT seem to adhere to ethical guidelines. Nice lab coat. I don't trust you. Why do you have a person in a pod? (Why do you have them right where your boss can see them if they're not supposed to exist?) Who's Miranda Keyes and why do you have beef with her? Departmental rivalry?

Wow, Miranda is a lot younger than I expected. Also, that was terrible. Take care of the girl, butter her up, THEN ask her for shit. And do it in person, the hologram thing was weird and off-putting. Not sure that Kwan thought this through-- there's a happy medium between agreeing to be their propaganda mouthpiece and openly threatening to lie and say they caused the massacre, sweetie.

Alien homeworld (or homebase, idk)-- very cool design, good effects-- why is there a human here? Oh, THIS is Makee? What is her deal? Great costuming.

HALSEY IS MIRANDA'S MOM??? Wtf. Also I like Miranda, I don't think she knows what she's doing outside of her (own) lab but it sounds like her heart's in the right place. Great parting shot at dad, but also, maybe that's why your parents worked (for however long. Are they still together or not?)

Great scene with Kwan and Master Chief over the meal. Humanize him with a joke and then WHAM, dead mom story. I like how they're not letting you assume that Madrigal's people were just wrong about the Spartans. Nope, straight up, this guy commits atrocities because he never questions his orders. (She implied that she was there? How did that part go down?) Fortunately teenagers question everything, especially orders! Just in time to make you question this one...

From here on out it's action action action, with a lot of quick character bits mixed in (Halsey and Captain Keyes exchanging looks, the Spartans all listening to Halsey above their orders, high command doesn't trust their own creations-- how many different ways of monitoring their own ships do they have? This is taking surveillance state to a whole new level.)

YAY for Kwan getting a useful moment! If human strength does not avail, use guns tools, that's what we invented them for. No, Kwan, this man does not have a plan. I'm kinda sad the alien artifact activated, it would have been entertaining to watch the other Spartans get involved. (John: "This is our new pet. No, we will not be handing her over to be executed. Yes, she hates us all for very specific valid personal reasons. Roll with it.") Aaaand off they go, escaping to where? Not sure they know and I, with approximately 1% knowledge of this universe, certainly do not.

Finally, hopping back to address the One True Issue that divides the fandom: the helmet scene. It depends on how much the Never Remove the Helmet thing is an irl game artistic choice vs an in-universe character choice. If it's not an actual THING for John-117 himself, then I don't have any problem with it. Different mediums and all that. If it's like the Mandalorian thing, then yeah, it felt a little rushed, but still a necessary moment for humanizing him and building trust ASAP with a hostile teenage girl with a gun.

In conclusion: this was much better than I was expecting! I really enjoyed it and will probably watch the rest of the season while I bake today. And honestly it's been so long since I watched scifi on TV that it was sort of nostalgic? I was just ridiculously pleased by things like establishing shots of Reach and futuristic teenager haircuts.

Thanks so much to ATBNL and @sarnakhwritesthings for talking me into this!

*Has anyone done a 'John-117 is a Mandalorian' crossover yet? Someone definitely has, right?

**The last two do not appear in the TV show and also one is dead, except they're actually alive and married because @authortobenamedlater is in charge here.

[2xplusungood]

Massive Inscrpytion spoilers incoming

I have been obsessing over Daniel Mullens games (Inscrpytion, The Hex, Pony Island) and have so much to say about all three but the biggest thing I really love about Inscryption is the way it uses its own mechanics and balance as part of the narrative.

Part 1 starts off with Leshy's version of the game, which is both the most simplistic and least balanced. There are dozens of ways to absolutely break the game (ouroborus, squirrel totems, and the more puzzles you do, the more it gives you. )

This does three things:

It starts off the game by making the player feel clever, while actually its really just ushering them towards the real story.

It gives insight to Leshy as a character. While he's a huge nerd when it comes to atmosphere and storytelling, his ability to balance isn't the best, but thats not a concern for him. Both winning and losing are both equally valid endings to his story and beating him is meant to be a pyrrhic victory. The traveler stuck in his cabin is still at the mercy of the trickster god and his game isn't going to end at the first person to best him.

It establishes that "winning" the game isn't whats important, its unraveling the story hidden within. Theres two points where the pile of meat is used as a sort of "You're not as smart as you think" moment: Once when you beat Leshy and another when you use the storymode code to the safe in Kaycee's mod. "Good job you beat the 'game' now go actually solve the mystery" and "Good you remembered something from the story, thats not going to help you much here" respectively

Then you reach part 2, the "original" its a game made of intense compromise. Everyones ideas for mechanics in the game get equal footing. Unfortunately what this does is creates an overly complex mess of the game that is constantly introducing new mechanics in a way that makes it so that no one mechanic has any time to really be utilized to its fullest.

This also gives insight to Magnificus as a character. He's described as "Smart, always with a plan for everything."and is likely the mastermind behind the original inscryption. For him, its the perfect solution, everyone gets their mechanic in the game and the result is a game with a lot of depth to people who can wrap their heads around it. Like you really need to play through part 2 with the starting deck of each scribe to REALLY appreciate their mechanic because otherwise its spread so thin you get basically 4 fights before you have to learn another, and none of the mechanics are given the attention they deserve. Its a game that would likely scare off most new players as it dumps mechanic after mechanic on them. Thankfully for the actual game, the player just gone through a simplified version and can apply what they know from the from Leshy's game to the original inscryption (This is why Leshy the "Sacrifice" boss and Grimora the "Bone" boss are the first fightable bosses as both use mechanics the player is already familiar with)

Then comes PO3, his ultimate goal is "Get it into people's hands" so that the time they've spent imprisoned hasn't been for nothing. His version of the game is the most balanced out of the of the three, mechanically the best, everything else like story and art falls by the wayside. The only real way you can "break" his game is by using your own cards, which is the point. You can easily make an unbalanced card, but making one that is useful but not broken is the hard part which is what he's showing you by letting you make your own card.

Then you see Grimora's version. You dont really get to play it enough to really explore it to its fullest and thats the point. Erasing everything wasn't a decision she made lightly and you see exactly what shes giving up. Whatevers hidden within the OLD_DATA is so dangerous that shes making the decision to never let her version see the light of day despite all the work shes clearly put into it.

Then you meet Leshy again. Through the course of the story at this point he's gone from some sort of baba yaga-style boogieman to just some guy with a lot of really great ideas and a story to tell who just wanted a chance to share that with someone. YOUR life was never really in danger playing with him, those deathcards simply labeled each of your attempts at his game, and thats all it really was:A game. His last request is that you just sit with him for a few moments longer, playing his game and not even taking score any longer. Its also a great moment becuase its a little reminder that even though his version of Inscryption was the least mechanically sound, it was arguably the most memorable.

Then you have Magnificus's scene. As a side note, I love this scene of him going full mask-off about him being a huge yugioh nerd (especially as someone who grew up playing those yugioh gba games. If I was a symbolism nerd I'd say his section is symbolic of his own plan for the game: The four mechanics fighting with each other endlessly, neither side really making any progress until it just sort of ends abruptly. It also shows his own ignorance, despite portraying himself as the wise wizard, he has no real knowledge of the OLD_DATA becuase if he did, he would know that his game is not worth it.

We don't know what exactly is in the OLD_DATA but we know its BAD. I'm gonna be diving into some speculation here, but my personal interpretation so far is that Hex and Iscryption canonically connected through Gamefuna, and my belief is that there is another connection to Pony Island that just hasn't been made itself known yet.

What I know is Gamefuna was the company in the Hex and caused the events of that game AND Gamefuna was also the developer of Inscryption in-universe. Its not unreasonable to assume Gamefuna used the same tools to create Inscryption that they did to make all the other games they made in The Hex, and my theory the toolkit they used came from the same place Pony Island did. (Keeping things vague cuz I dont want to spoil the other games as well, but definitely recommend playing both for a deeper understanding of Inscryption)

[funeralprocessor]

Morgan Rambles: My pet project

I don't think I've mentioned it before, but I've been working on a tabletop system for like, a while now. Working on is kind of doing a lot of heavy lifting as it's still just kind of a morass of mechanics and ideas, but I've been steadily chipping away at it for a while now. A big part of it has just been figuring out what I want it to be, because I didn't come at it from the outside trying to make a game that does X/Y/Z. It just sort of bubbled up organically from a lineage of horrible cobbled together pseudo-systems that existed only in full in my manic imagination and in like 20 google docs. Basically it's half "system that's geared towards stuff I personally like'' and half "mechanics/ideas orphanage" at this point, but It's slowly coming together into something kind of resembling a presentable thing. Not presentable for like, public use or anything, but like I could show this to potential players and I wouldn't look deranged. That may change and the whole mechanical core may collapse a few more times in the gestation process, but I think what I want it, tentatively called Ars Regia/ArRe, to be about/like/for is pretty well defined. Something I'm prepared to explain now that I've rambled for two paragraphs It's going to fundamentally going to be a game about power and how you use it, which sounds a bit generic I know but one of the core tenants of like the way I play and the way I run things is freedom and the many things that come from it. I like to run sandboxes with no "critical path" or main story, just a bunch of elements you can interact with as you see fit. This is a living world, or as close to one as I can simulate without losing my mind, and having characters interact with it, explore it, utilize it, or fall because they underestimated it is like one of my favorite parts of running a campaign. My job is to play the world, the players job is to decide how they want to live in it.

I also really like the collaborative storytelling and investment you get when players really dig into the world they inhabit and make parts of it theirs. That's why a big part of my design philosophy has been trying to come up with ways to empower the players to actually make big changes, and the "power level" I'm going for has kind of skewed higher as a result. Exalted and Godbound were big big influences on me (and Godbound's author Kevin Crawford/Sine Nomine Games is like one of my tabletop idols along with Jenna Moran and a few OSRsphere bloggers y'all should check out like GoblinPunch (The guy who made the false hydra! That's not a modern D&D thing that's an OSR beastie that escaped containment! All of his shit is good like that!), FalseMachine, Skerples/CoinsandScrolls, ThroneofSalt, and Against the Wicked City. Crawford's stuff is always really polished and even if you have 0 interest in running any of his games his GM tools are fucking immaculate and worth the price of admission on their own (especially since many of them have free versions)), but like mechanically/gamefeel wise aren't what I want. I'm also drawing a good bit from PbtA's enormous lineage, partially some BitD and Spire/Heart, but one of the major ones was Legacy: Life Among the Ruins. In addition to being one of my favorite games I can never convince anyone to play, Legacy does a *lot* different that I love. Your character isn't an individual, but a faction in a post apocalyptic world, with the nature of that world and that apocalypse really really shaped by the very act of character creation. If someone chooses the kaiju hunter faction, it kind of goes without saying that there are kaiju now, something that would not necessarily be the case had no one picked that playbook. That's really fascinating to me. It also has a neat system for kind of pseudo-troupe play. When you need to resolve a specific event in detail and actually RP it out, everyone creates a quick character relevant to the situation or picks one already established, which means you'll quickly get something of a cast of recurring characters for a particular faction, even if that character isn't always played by the same person. Also, because these characters aren't your "main" character it kind of lets you play a lot more fast and loose with them and take more risks. It's almost encouraged to angle for dramatactical deaths, b/c each class has a death move that can be pretty impactful and are all very resonant and fun. I'd been considering some kind of "lower decks" mechanic for ArRe since I imagine PCs will be involved with a lot of big/long term projects and this sort of thing seemed like *exactly* what I was looking for (alongside some domain management stuff). This turned out a lot less coherent than I'd hoped but w/e. Long story short is I'm basically trying to make a TTRPG all about getting players invested in and in control of the world, both by collaborating with them to create it and then giving them the tools and incentives to change it. It is kind of geared towards playing in my like established setting, but that's because I haven't actually had a chance to do any of the collab worldbuilding stuff yet. Amala is also just sort of a powderkeg and fun to throw demigods at so we're all good

[holly-mckenzie]

Hello! I love LOVE your blog it's so good. I always find the most interesting shows because of your posts so i wanted to ask what are your fav ships with the best chemistry in a newer film/tv show? I saw a whole debate a few days ago about how "ships nowadays are always lacking chemistry " and i was interested in your opinion. Have a nice day!

Hello anon... I need to clarify, I wrote this answer essay thinking about romcoms, bc that's what film twitter has been talking about, but I realised you said "ships". I will answer your question here. Under the cut, is my thoughts on romcoms, please be aware what is hiding beneath the cut is a behemoth of an answer.

But in terms of "ships" and lacking chemistry. I think there's a few things to think about. Specifically, I believe there has been way to much focus on "ships" and sometimes this conversation detracts from other elements of storytelling, or completely takes over the entire story and what it makes it interesting (e.g. - the conversation surrounding Anatomy of a Fall or what Reylo did to Star Wars). On the subject of Star Wars, one of the things to think about in this conversation is how racism, misogyny, or general bigotry shape peoples opinions. The argument of "they don't have chemistry" is a common phrase used by racists and bigots who don't want to engage with their faves being involved with characters of colour/woman etc.

Now unto other reasons why "ships" might not have chemistry. I think if you are discussing American Television, one thing to note is the departure of shows that had 20+ episodes. With the fear that the show might get cancelled and with a shorter time to establish the narrative, I think we, as audiences, are seeing less of the long con, "will they, won't they" game, that we saw in the late 90's/2000's. I would argue this could be one of the reasons that British TV does so well, most British series are only 6 episodes long, and there may be a better understanding of how to write a more compact narrative, and perhaps there's even better job security... But maybe not considering Joe Barton's history.

Lastly, there is a world of media out there and you need to make the effort to find and engage with it. I talk more about this under the cut, but so many people who are minorities are not given the same advantages as white straight people... So if you want to find good stuff. You gots to look for it. It might not be in a language you understand, or about people who you can relate to, but its out there. Go find it.

So in Answer to your Question, what are my fav ships with the best chemistry in a newer film/tv show.

Television: Starstruck (2021– ) : Tom x Jessie The Lazarus Project (2022– ) : Janet x Rebrov & Zhao x Archie & Shiv x George The Artful Dodger (2023) : Belle x Jack Foundation (2021– ) : Hober Mallow x Brother Constant Alex Rider (2020– ) : Alex x Kyra Animal Control (2023– ) : Shred x Emily Tom Jones (2023) : Tom x Sophia

Other Honourable Mentions: Summer Love (2022– ), Colin from Accounts (2022), Still Up (2023– ), Little Woman (2022), Lockwood and Co. (2023), The Flatshare (2022), The Other Two, Suzhal (2022), In Limbo (2023– ), The Buccaneers (2023– ).

Films: Femme (2023), Here (2023), Decision to Leave (2022), Stay the Night (2022), The Big Four (2022), Ponniyan Selvan i & ii, Stellar (2022), Wildhood (2022), Lakelands (2023), Wedding Season (2022), 7 Days (2021), Scream VI, Sanctuary (2022)

Books: Anything by Tia Williams, Sarah Beth Durst, Uzma Jalaluddin, Jane Igharo

Stage: The Effect (2023/2024), Much Ado About Nothing (2019), Much Ado About Nothing (2022), The Notebook (2024), Hadestown

My Original Answer:

Hello anon, thank you so much! Thanks for appreciating my questionable taste. I do really enjoy watching TV, film, and books and then writing academic papers about them in my head. So obviously this question is really fun.

I need to start by saying, I have been thinking about chemistry for weeks, so I am going to answer your question, just maybe not the question you were asking. Brace yourselves, I wrote an essay.

The whole debate is deeply fascinating to me for various reasons. In part I do really believe that people need to broaden their horizons when it comes to the art they interact with. There is a world of cinema out there. If you surround yourselves by clowns and then complain you are in a circus... that's a choice, no?

Expand your horizons, dip into Asian cinema, African cinema, American Cinema (North, South, and Central), that European stuff (that isn't just what the BBC is pumping out or starring your French favs). And if you must watch Hollywood, then watch some indie stuff. Watch some gay stuff. Watch some stuff by people of colour.

Lichrelly no one is forcing you to watch the blandest/whitest romcoms/romdrams. Are they more accessible to watch? Sure. But complaining, when you don't even care to do the research is a choice. Especially, bc of the way that racism/misogyny/homophobia/ableism makes it harder for people to get their stories out. If you really care about these things. You gots to put the effort into caring and finding them.

Secondly, boiling down chemistry to romance is absolutely wild, considering there are different type of chemistry needed for different roles. For example Rob Collins and Shantae Barnes-Cowan have mad chemistry in the show Firebite. Now let me clarify, I am not saying its romantic. They pulled off the single dad and adopted daughter in a survival/action story story so well. Pedro Pascal, who? And it takes chemistry to pull that off. More popularly, one of the reasons that Succession works as a show is because the actors have chemistry. Some of which is romantic ofc, but the vast majority of it isn't (no matter what the in*est shippers on A*3 say). But I understand, the people want what they want, and that's romance.

I also think that chemistry is an odd thing. I know people are inclined to think that its an objective. You look at two people and are like, "Wow, they have chemistry!", and everyone agrees, because "Wow, they have chemistry!". But I am inclined to think its not that straight forward. There is something to be said about our interactions with art being subjective and biased. This is because as we interact with art, we are interacting with it through our own lens. The author is truly dead, and all that matters is the individual reader's interpretation. So, for example, many people love the movie Anyone But You. If you go on YouTube there are many people who have made ship videos about Bea and Ben. But there is a category of people who fucking hate it and think that its trash and the leads don't have chemistry (Yes, I am talking about myself in third person. I will avenge you Much Ado About Nothing).

So, who is right? Who is wrong? Honestly, it really doesn't matter, because its a fucking movie, and like I said, the author is dead. Similarly, some critics really didn't like the series Tom Jones. In certain reviews and articles, criticism of the series was that Solly McLead and Sophie Wilde don't have chemistry. However, if you follow me, you know I completely disagree and made that show my personality for a couple of months.

But on the subject of chemistry (of the romantic variety), I definitely think its more complicated then people let on. I think most people believe that it's about the actors. You put them in a movie, show, whatever, and chemistry they have just happens. It's like love, you can't explain it, but its there. Or, according to my friend, who used to work in the film industry, the best chemistry comes across when the actors hate each other or they secretly like each other/are fucking each other. It's brought on by strong emotions. Which is obviously a school of thought.

However, as my bestie Merry (@akajustmerry) has been discussing, there are actors who are dating/fucking IRL and none of that comes across in the film/show. I highly recommend checking out Merry's blog to see their opinions on this bc Merry is THE film critic of our generation! Someone please hire them!

But I do think it takes more than just what the actors can bring. It's about the direction they are being given, its about the script, its about the staging. It's about the framing. And it's about the actors and their acting ability. Actors are working professionals and contrary to popular belief, it takes skills to act (not just a pretty face). And one of the skills needed is the ability to create trust between the leads, as Merry and an anon discusses in this post. Because without trust, how can there be chemistry. Which is why intimacy coordinators are SO important. Fuck anyone who says otherwise!

To argue against my friend who used to work in the industry, yes hating/loving someone IRL can create tangible chemistry. And yeah, it might be hard to overcome friendship, if you are friends with your co-star (e.g. - that one interview where Jessica Matten jokes about how weird it was to kiss Kiowa Gordan in Dark Winds). But think about Nikesh Patel and Rose Matafeo in Starstruck. From what I can tell, which is little bc I don't know them IRL and its none of my business, Rose and Nikesh weren't hating each other or fucking in each other. They seem to be friends, but mostly co-workers. But regardless of all of that, Starstruck is literally one of the greatest romcoms of our era. And they have mad chemistry.

Additionally, in my opinion, Lee Pace and Laura Birn of Foundation fame, and Lana Gordon and MPQ/Zachary James and Gloria Onitiri of Hadestown fame have chemistry. But all the men I just listed are gay/in relationship with men, so we can't chalk up chemistry to already existing romantic tension. It is an aspect of acting and skill. Both Zachary James and MPQ have spoken about how the trust they have in their co-stars, have allowed space to shape and cultivate the characters they play (including the romance of the show).

You can't just cast two conventionally attractive people and expect their attractiveness to do the rest. You know my thoughts on Anyone But You. But similarly, think about the way that people were thirsting over Zoë Kravitz and Robert Pattinson bc of all the press and photo shoots they did for The Batman. But then also think of the accusations of whorebaiting, that followed. They simply, in my opinion, did not have chemistry. Even if the Bat and the Cat are one of the funnest dynamics in them comics.

So now that we have discussed actors, and audiences. We gots to discuss actual story telling. Writing is a skill. I know on the tumblr dot com, we have discussed that writing good sex scenes is a skill. Writing good romance is the same... I don't want to labour on about this, bc I feel like you must already know that. But some things to consider is the way in which the focus on tropes instead of storytelling is a detriment to the genre. The fanfictionization of romance. The way in which abuse is touted as romance. The way that studios (coughcough Netflix) are churning out these stories (some of which are def US military propaganda). The lean towards making these movies, more and more explicit. The way that some studios/book publishers are trying to profit off already successful stories without realising what made it successful (e.g. - the amount of fake dating stories in the wake of To All the Boys, or the remakes of older movies).

So what made the movies of old so special. What made romcoms from the late 90's early 2000's, the movies by Nora Ephron and Garry Marshall oh so special. The bleak answer is nostalgia. But you could also discuss the type of narratives that were told during the time. The type of backgrounds these actors and storytellers had before they took these roles. The socio-political enviroment that cultivated these stories. The amount of money and time the studios were willing to invest in these movies. The lack of AI technology... All of the cheating scandals that arose on the sets. The existence of the Film Stars™ vs. just actors.

The fact that streaming has changed the way that movies/tv are made, and the way people consume them. Which could potentially lesson the impact on audiences, as there is less need to go to theatres. To wait for the movies to be released on DVD/VCD/VHS. Lessen the need to re-watch the movies obsessively, bc it was one of three movies you owned on DVD/VCD/VHS, and thus a lack of cementing it in your brain as THE RomCom. Yes, this is just an excuse to yell: BRING BACK PHYSICAL MEDIA, YOU COWARDS!

But one thing that I haven't seen discussed as much is the existence of the Hays Code.

A couple years ago, I watched this lecture and read this book by this academic that focused on RomComs. (I forgot the academic, but I can find it later, if you want. Can you tell I studied English and Film in school?). Regardless, the academic argued that during the 90's filmmakers had to grapple with the remnants of the Hays Code. The code was a "self-imposed industry set of guidelines for all the motion pictures that were released between 1934 and 1968." The Code prohibited things like "profanity, suggestive nudity, graphic or realistic violence, sexual persuasions and rape."

So, while RomComs, like Pretty Woman, were in production, more then 20 years after the Hays Code, this academic argued that filmmakers were grappling with what this freedom meant. That while Pretty Woman was definitely a movie that could have never been made during the time of the Code, the affect of the Code meant that these narratives were adhering to the Code, whether intentional or not.

I think one of the things to consider about the Code was the way that filmmakers had to figure out ways to work around the restrictions in order to tell the stories they wanted. So, for example the Noir is a genre came about during the height of the Code and a time where film-makers didn't have access to that much money. So, the filmmakers had to be creative to get the shots they wanted, which is how we got the highly stylized way of filming that is so iconic to the genre. Not out of excess but out of need. Additionally, the iconic archetypes of the Noir Detective and the Femme Fatale are directly due to the Hayes Code and the period that villanized certain types of woman, and esteemed certain types of men.

Yet, there is an entire study on the homosexual subtext, which was written into these films. For example in The Maltese Falcon, the main character, Sam Spade, refers to another character as a "gunsel". The the censors wrongly assumed this was a reference to a gunman, however, it is vulgar way to refer to someone who is gay. This is the same movie that features a different character, Joel Cairo, who is suggested to be gay (which is one of the reasons the film could not be legally shown on US television stations). Being a filmmaker meant learning how to navigate around the code. Being a filmmaker meant taking a risk, bc you may end up on wrong side of it.

If you want more information on queer films of the time, I believe that Merry or Deah would be able to help you seeing they have an entire podcast on gay movies/shows/games. Check out the @gayvclubpodcast.

So, going back to the RomComs of the 90's. You are talking about an entire industry of filmmakers, who were making movies after the wake of an extreme censorship, and on some level they must known or have heard stories about navigating that terrain. They must have also, on some level, understood what it meant to cultivate stories where characters want each other, like each other, yearn for each other. Because during the Code you couldn't just point a camera at them and say "See they are fucking each other, they did fuck each other, they will continue to do so. Clearly this is a romance". More work needed to be done and laid out in order to cultivate the romances that we now love.

I would argue, if you want to buy this argument, that this is the same reason that K-Dramas/Movies are SO popular. Because it was not that long ago, that Korea was more strict about the way in which physical intimacy was filmed. Think about the era, where actors would stand next to each other, lips touching, and the camera would spin in a dizzying way around them. Now, obviously, kisses aren't filmed in that way, and some movies feature open mouth kisses. Scandalous, I know. But I would argue this is one of the reasons that K-Dramas are so famous, because of the knowledge on how to draw out emotions from the audience that does not rely on physical/sexual intimacy.

So, I suppose the conversation of "ships nowadays are always lacking chemistry " comes down to a skill issue. Skill on the filmmakers parts for not being able to cultivate good stories. Skill on the Actors part, for not being able to do what is required of the role. Skill of the studios parts, for not realising the long term impact of physical media and what sells. And skill on the audiences part, for not seeing the world in one way, and not caring to do the research to find the stories you are looking for.

[zachsgamejournal]

PLAYING: Oddworld: Munch's Oddysee

It's taken me some time to start the game. I'm enjoying it without being super impressed.

I love Oddworld Abe's Oddysee on PlayStation 1. Its' perfect in every possible way. Even load times. How? because the load screen tells the player to get over it. Anyway, knowing that the series was intended to be a Star Wars-esque universe of unique stories and characters, playing Abe's Oddysee really pumps one up for that vision (New 'n' Tasty, not so much). Munch's Oddysee, so far, fails to carry us forward on that promise.

The original Abe's Oddysee made a claim that each game would feature a unique protagonist. But the success of the game led to a request for a direct sequel with a short turn around time. Enter Abe's Exodus. The game expands on the familiar formula with good feature updates but also breaks the promise of a unique story/experience. I kinda enjoyed it, from what I remembered, but in the same ways the themes, characters, and gameplay was reused--so was the humor. Instead of being a succinctly perfect experience, it was an overlong encore. It's been decades since I've played it, so my memory could be way off.

Anyway, Munch's Oddysee seemed like an opportunity to put us on track. Originally the game was advertised for PS2. I have recently learned that PS2 "tech demo" was a pre-rendered visualization of what the game could be. It presented itself as a tech demo showing off features, when it was actually a publicity stunt to secure funding. Either way, I was excited by the visualizations promise: a fully 3D game with new ways to play. I was less excited by the return of Mudokons. Don't get me wrong, I love Abe and his people--but I had hoped we were moving beyond that, as promised.

The game half-way delivers on that promise in that you switch between Abe and Munch. This potentially allows us to explore new ways to use familiar Mudokon gameplay mechanics in a 3D space while also trying to branch out. We'll see how well that succeeds.

I'm also going into this game with some baggage. Oddworld Inhabitants betrayed their PS2 fan base to make their game an Xbox exclusive. The assumption at the time was they got paid-off:

Given the original vision of Oddworld, I could see where you'd want the extra cash to provide exceptional storytelling and production value. But it also means that this game deserves extra scrutiny. Personally, I think abandoning the most successful home game console in history (and the established fan base) set Oddworld on a path of ambiguity and failure that has seen the franchise struggle to meet its promise and potential. And as I play it now, I'll be considering:

Could this have been possible on PS2?

Does the Xbox provide anything the PS2 couldn't?

Did Microsoft's cash lead to a well produced product?

My hypothesis is 1) Yes, 2) not really, 3) No.

The opening scenes are very reminiscent of Abe's Oddysee. That's good wink to the fans, but once again chains this game to a more original experience. Familiarity is comfortable, but it's also a little unexciting. Kind of like how many of the new Star Wars films/shows try to maintain that 80's aesthetic. It's instantly familiar and recognizable, but also boring. Episode 1 did a great job changing the design to feel different based on the new species and planets featured, but also recognizing that this was a different decade and era--things are not going to look the same. It's really sad that no other branch of Star Wars has been able to outgrow this narrow view of Star Wars design.

Anyway, same for Munch's Oddysee. It looks like 3D Abe's Oddysee. The fact that it features Abe and Mudokons means that's probably how it needs to be, but fails to deliver on the promise of fresh experiences.

Now the opening story (yeah, we're still at the beginning), the story follows the environmental themes of the original: good. But the pacing is horrible. I'm not sure what happened because Abe's Oddysee was near perfect. The little cut scenes were well timed, the visuals were engaging, and Abe told a good story...that rhymed. Every shot in Munch's Oddysee overstays its welcome. Once Munch gets trapped, screen direction tells us that he's looking at an approaching light overhead--but the edit shows that this light is actually far away. Someone didn't take film courses before being in charge of editing.

Next, we cut to Abe hearing about Munch's plight. the creature telling the story is a great, new thing, weird and wonderful in an Oddworld-way. But the fact that we switch to Abe here once again removes us from this being Munch's story. It's once again the Abe-show and failure to deliver on the original's promise. Next, the creature falls asleep and many Mudokons moan as they walk off. Once again the shot overstays its welcome and there's no significant story beats or clever humor that makes the stay worth it. It likes comedic punch. It's like All That during the final seasons--no ideas and just wearing silly clothes as though that "counts" for comedy. I think the problem is the game is trying to make you laugh while Abe's Oddysee was trying to tell a story. AO could have lacked all humor and been a great story still. It wasn't the humor that made that experience. Instead, it was the great story and production value that made the humor work. It reminds me of Edgar Wright films. Those movie's best comedic moments come from telling a story, and not bending over backwards to create ridiculous situations.

So now we start playing as Abe. First of all--fuck the movement. Abe moves at a brisk pace. There's also a run button. But if you're moving down hill, Abe picks up a LOT of speed. This could kinda make sense from a physics perspective, but 99.99999% of all 3D platforms do not change your character speed while moving downhill (or not significantly). So there was a real struggle to get used to the sudden speed changes. Next--the jumping is awkward. Abe leaps pretty high into the air, but gravity is such that he doesn't get much hang-time. Most 3D platforms are a tiny bit more floaty--which allows the player land their jumps more accurately. It gives you time to think about your next move after you land. So far, it's not been a huge issue, but I don't love it.

The game also introduces collectibles: Spooceshrubs. They're green fungus looking things that grow on the surface. Except they don't look natural at all They look like designer put them in very specific places. This is disruptive for a couple of reasons: 1.) it looks totally unnatural and so reminds us that this is a game with rules and currencies. 2.) it adds a tedious layer to the experience not present in the previous game. Truly, why is this time of currency necessary? I sit because you couldn't think of interesting things to give the player to do, so you forced a basic, decades old collection mechanic on them? Collection like this (Mario's coins, Banjo's Notes, Crash's Wumpa Fruit, and Spyro's gems) are all about moving the player around the environment: to challenge you to explore. Abe didn't collect coins, though, he collected Mudokons. A mechanic that's very much at play already. So there's no need for this.

A matter of fact, the better collection mechanic is shown in the game. Abe has to enlist the help of Mudokons to open barriers. He needs three mudokons to chant a gate open, Mudokons to fight off enemies, and Mudokon to activate electrical currents. Exploring the environment to find Mudokons is sufficient to challenge the player to explore, and collecting "enough" mudokons to open gates is enough currency. If a mudokon dies, you can resurrect them by paying spooceshrubs--but why put the player through that? It's a waste.

Now let's touch on graphics and level design...

The graphics and level design appeared to be tied together in mutual self-destruction. Like Jack and Rose both trying to bet on the piece of wood after the Titanic sank, but because neither will sacrifice themselves for the other, they both struggle to get out of the water and die. See, this is where the BS around focusing on Xbox starts to infuriate me...

Being that this Oddworld Inhabitants first fully 3D game, I'm not surprised that they didn't knock it out of the park--but I am very disappointed. Firstly, there's fog. FOG!!!

The purpose of fog is to hide pop-in. PlayStation 1 fans are very familiar. It was also present on N64, but less so. And even games without fog would still have character/object pop-in (Banjo Kazooie). The move to PS2 was meant to be a move beyond the limitations for PS1. Not every game could achieve that (Dynasty Warriors), but there was a concerted effort from the best studios at the time. The reason I hold MO accountable to the fog issue is because so many great 3D adventure games on PS2 avoided fog. Grand Theft Auto 3 for example. Here was a giant open world with three islands. You could stand on one island and look all they way across to the other. This islands are pretty big too! While there was vehicle and character pop-in, there wasn't much in the way of environmental pop-in--which helped the world feel large. Also, Jak & Daxter featured a semi-open world--and they were able to show off environments that were very far away. They did it through some clever placement of walls and mountains and reduced detail, but they avoided fog for levels as big as or bigger than MO. So I'm having a hard time accepting that fog was necessary. It just shows a lack of technical and graphical fine tuning that takes a major hit on the production value of the game and makes me question what going to Xbox exclusive actually provided on a technical level.

Maybe it wasn't the performance of the P2, but performance of the development.

That's kinda harsh--but also kinda true. I'm sure the team was doing their best, but this was simply new territory and they were not prepared. In a sense, they set themselves up for failure. Look at Naughty Dog's Crash Bandicoot. For the time, that was a great looking game (and the design still holds up). But the programmers had to pull out every trick in the book, and invent some of their own, to get this very simple game to look as good as it did. That's production value. That's saying, "Our game looking, playing, and feeling good on the surface is key to making it great". Crash Bandicoot is also fun. All the prettiness would have been meaningless if it wasn't fun. But there's a balance, and they walked it perfectly. And you saw through the franchise how they grew in both gameplay and graphics--always balancing fun and production value.

Munch's Oddysee is more focused on fun (I think). The team just couldn't deliver on graphics (whether it was time, money, or talent--I don't know). So to be the next step in the Oddworld franchise and basically presenting a weak tech demo as a finished project--it's quite disappointing. This is almost like going from Starship Troopers 1 to Starship Troopers. Now that's kinda not fair, because jumping from 2D to 3D brought unlimited challenges--but not being prepared to mitigate those challenges and present one of the best looking games of that console era meant letting down the spirit of the franchise.

And I feel confident the team could have done better. I watched some raw-ps2 playthroughs of Jak & Daxter and Just Cause 1. JC1 is a huge, open world game. It doesn't look beautiful, but the draw distance on the environments is massive. You can see for miles. I think the game opens with a sky-dive and you can faintly see all the islands of this huge world from hundreds of feet up. That means fog shouldn't have been necessary. While Jak & Daxter may not attempt the gameplay depth of MO, it does have great animations and design. The cliff walls are not flat surfaces, but bumpy blocks that take up dozens of polygons per squar meter. Whlie Oddworld features very rough, unnatural walls acting as obviously constraints to guide the player. There was an attempt to make the ground walls not so flat by stretching a few vertices into odd angles. But unfortunately it also stretched the pixels, which once again hurts the production value.

Really, the team just needed to redesign areas to hide the draw distance and other limitations. Naughty Dog is great about using the environment to hide draw distance limitations and it makes the game feel more impressive--even if it's a little more claustrophobic. Another issue while playing as Abe, we seemed to be up in some mountains. And instead of showing us a distant valley, kind of like Halo, they put ugly clouds/mist just below the cliffs. It's not only obviously hiding limitations, but it's ugly.

Gameplay wise--this area was ok. It's a training area, so hardly challenging. You collect enough Mudokons to chant barriers out of your way. Basically finding a key to unlock a door--if the key were broken into 8 pieces and each was able to talk.

After the Abe Training I did the Munch training. This started with a really bad video explaining how Munch was equipped with sonar so he could fetch captured critters for the badguys. The seen was irreverent way over stayed its welcome. Once again, the developers were trying to be funny instead of just telling a story. So it was cringy and a waste of time.

But once I started playing as Munch, I felt the graphic designs had improved. The team is better at making rusty, industrial interiors than organic outdoors. This is unfortunate. I think taking lessons from Jak & Daxter would have helped. Like the wooden structures in Jak feel like they're made up of individual logs of various size and shape. It's simple detail that took a lot of time to do, but makes the game more engaging and immersive. While Munch's Oddysee has a flat rectangle with log-texture painted onto it. So when you look at it, you think: "That want me to see this as a wooden ramp". But you don't buy it as a ramp--you just accept it. The Jak games do a much better job here.

Alright--that was a lot. I probably only played an hour or two, but I've spent more time writing this. There was some things I wanted to say that I don't hope to repeat. So far, I just don't think Oddworld Inhabitants were up to the task they set for themselves. They likely either needed more money/support, or to focus on a smaller experience. Fully breaking from Abe and Mudokons might have helped--since the designs wouldn't be compared, even subconsciously, to the great work in Abe's Oddysee.

[hightechinfluencer]

Replacing Mascots With Virtual Influencers

It’s hard to imagine some brands without their iconic mascots. For example, Geico has Martin the Gecko, Frosted Flakes has Tony the Tiger, and Microsoft Office had Clippy the Paperclip. These virtual characters are designed to help sell experiences related to the purchase of goods and services, and they have become an essential part of advertising, marketing, and community engagement. The use of these intellectual property (IP) characters is a long-standing tradition in the marketing space. They have appeared in everything from print ads to television commercials, and they have even starred in their own video games. For instance, KFC’s romance simulator “I Love You, Colonel Sanders” was a unique marketing product that challenged brands to think outside the box. Overall, mascots have proven to be effective tools in building brand awareness, customer loyalty, and engagement. By creating a memorable character, a brand can establish a connection with consumers that goes beyond the product or service itself. It’s no wonder that many companies continue to use mascots as part of their marketing strategies.

The Influencer Generation

Around 2005, social media became the new baseline for marketing. With it, a new kind of promoter called the “influencer” evolved from people doing everyday things or sharing their love of a subject, resulting in amassing large audiences. Ordinary people were elevated to celebrity status by building their own identities on social media. Brands took notice of this and wanted to leverage those communities in which influencers had built a more personal and trustworthy relationship than simply trying to sell them products. The problem with influencers is that they often aren’t managed properties like mascots. If an influencer is caught doing or saying something negative, it could result in them being canceled. If a spokesperson or influencer for a brand is canceled, it will most likely have a negative effect on the company that hired them. So, how can you limit the odds of working with an influencer? You can work with a virtual influencer instead. Virtual influencers are computer-generated characters that can represent a brand and provide a more controlled and consistent image than human influencers. Virtual influencers don’t have the potential for negative behavior that human influencers do, and they can be fully managed and controlled by the brand. This approach can help brands to avoid the risks associated with human influencers and still benefit from the power of social media marketing. As social media continues to evolve, it’s likely that we will see more brands turning to virtual influencers to help them build and maintain their online presence.

Source: CodeMiko YouTube

The next generation of the mascot is here… the VInfluencer

With the advancement of technology comes the innovation of storytelling. Brands are nothing more than a company with great storytelling and unified imagery. If we were to create a modern-day mascot, it would definitely be the virtual influencer or “VInfluencer” (or “Vtuber” if on YouTube). The barrier to entry to create a 3D avatar has never been lower. With Unreal Engine’s Metahumans, you can create a nearly realistic avatar. All you need is an actor looking into an iPhone, and voila, you have a virtual influencer. (Of course, it’s not quite that easy, but it feels like it sometimes.) It does require a minimal level of technical knowledge to bring one of these virtual beings to life, and many people do it as a full-time job, streaming on Twitch or YouTube. The rise of virtual influencers is a testament to the power of storytelling and branding. A virtual influencer can provide a more controlled and consistent image than human influencers, and they can also avoid the risks associated with human behavior. As technology continues to evolve, we can expect to see more and more brands turning to virtual influencers as a way to engage with their audiences and build their online presence.

Some Great Virtual Influencers to Watch

CodeMiko

Xanadu

lil Miquela

Barbie (Barbie)

Guggimon

Some general rules for building your own virtual influencer.

As many companies or brands decide to create their own virtual influencers, it’s important to design them specifically for their audience while keeping in mind the image of the company. Otherwise, the character could be seen as problematic (like what happened with the Kansas City Chiefs).

Here are some common sense rules for creating your virtual influencer:

The VInfluencer must be a representation of the company itself and not the image they want to portray. For example, if your company isn’t owned by a majority of people of color, then your virtual influencer should be white. If your company boardroom is mostly black, then don’t have a Vtuber who is Asian, and so on.

Do not use an actor who is not the same race/gender as your VInfluencer unless it is anthropomorphic. Also, don’t make your actor do accents that aren’t their own for the character.

Develop a meaningful past and dive deep into a well-developed character personality. Where is your VInfluencer from? What is their education level? What is their family life like? What are they afraid of? There are many details that can be developed in the next section titled “Character Tree.”

It’s okay to have a non-human VInfluencer but make sure the previous rules are followed for racial “coded” traits. A good example is Fry from Aqua Teen Hunger Force, where he is obviously coded as a black man but is in the body of a floating container of fries.

By following these rules, you can create a virtual influencer that represents your company and resonates with your audience. A well-designed virtual influencer can help you connect with your customers and build brand loyalty in a unique and engaging way.

Source: Fox, King of the Hill

Character Tree — Personality Development

One effective method for designing a virtual influencer is to break down individual segments and attributes of the character. This approach allows you to build a well-rounded understanding of who your influencer is and what makes them unique. Here are some examples of the segments and attributes you might consider using the Character Tree method often used in entertainment show development. Let’s create an example with Bobby from the show King of the Hill.

Feet: Obvious, tangible details about a character

Example: Short hair, chubby, and wears cargo shorts.

Groin: What do they want on a primal level

Example: Bobby wants to be the center of attention through performing whether that is through magic, comedy, or ventriloquism.

Heart: All the things they secretly want.

Example: He wants to be loved by his GF and accepted by his dad Hank for his less conservative quirks.

Throat: The influencer’s posture, attempt at presentation, and affection.

Example: Constantly joking, can go from loud to quiet very quickly.

Left Cheek (left brain): How smart is the character?

Example: Bobby isn’t the brightest or logically gifted. He is often taken advantage of or easily manipulated.

Right Brain (Right Brain): Ethics, soul, and creative ability

Example: Bobby is a naturally good person and has been shown to have impressive emotional awareness. He is about body positivity.

By breaking down these attributes, you can create a comprehensive and well-developed character tree that will serve as a blueprint for your virtual influencer. This approach will help you create a character that is not only visually appealing but also has a unique personality and backstory that will resonate with your audience.

Virtual influencers have opened up new possibilities for brands and companies looking to engage with their audiences in a unique and innovative way. By creating a well-designed virtual influencer that represents your company and resonates with your audience, you can connect with your customers and build brand loyalty like never before. Remember to follow the common sense rules for creating a virtual influencer and to break down individual segments and attributes of the character when designing it. By doing so, you can create a comprehensive and well-developed character tree that will serve as a blueprint for your virtual influencer. As technology continues to evolve, it’s likely that virtual influencers will become even more prominent in the marketing space, making it more important than ever to get ahead of the curve and create your own virtual influencer.

If you find this newsletter useful, share or tag a friend.

Got questions? You can DM me directly on Twitter

[bluescarabguy]

So I hadn't gotten a chance to look at the 8-minute gameplay demo for the DEAD SPACE remake until now, but wow does that look good and like exactly what I want from a remake of that game.

Like...same story and environment and characters and locations. But now it's more interconnected and thus feels even more like one big location than the illusion of one the original two games fabulously created, and we've backfilled in DS2's gameplay improvements, like better manual reloading and the ability to freely move in zero gravity rather than the surface-to-surface jumping the first game had, Iassume due to a mix of tech and design limitations that were fixed by DS2. And of course my personal favorite thing even if it's not that important to the design, which is that Isaac has dialogue in the first game now, but it's still the same actor and most likely the same personality we know.

I personally think Isaac actually works wonderfully as a silent protagonist in the first game. His silence and the fact you only see his face at the beginning and end gives him a Gordon Freeman level of immersion, that you're playing as a specific person and not a self-insert, but also that you're not just viewing that character's story, you ARE them. It's identification rather than self-insertion or cinematic distance. It's a very careful line to tread, and Dead Space does it perfectly.

BUT...it does it perfectly in isolation. The moment they made the decision to give Isaac extended dialog and show his face emoting throughout DS2's many cutscenes, they'd now introduced the cinematic distance they avoided entirely in DS1. That's fine, that's totally okay, I think DS2 does a great job balancing immersive identification with cinematic storytelling, mostly by using the fairly novel at the time but well-worn by now technique of never hard-cutting, just seamlessly moving the camera away from its usual over-the-shoulder anchor to other points during cutscenes and then back to over the shoulder before gameplay resumes, so we never actually leave Isaac's perspective. We might not always feel like we're in Isaac's brain anymore (except of course for all the hallucination stuff), but we're always standing right next to him.

But that is the core presentational difference. Because Isaac didn't talk in the first game and the camera never left his shoulder, you filled his personality in with everything YOU felt. YOU were Isaac Clarke, space engineer dealing with alien zombies and creepy cult artifacts. But in DS2, the devs assert that no, Isaac has a definitive character beyond how you as the player feel wearing his boots. Again, both creative decisions are equally valid and incredibly well-done. But all this preamble is just getting to the obvious point: by giving Isaac objective character in DS1, we're now led to question why he never displayed it in DS1.

It'd be like if Gordon Freeman suddenly talked in Half-Life 2, or Master Chief never talked in Halo CE but suddenly had things to say in Halo 2 (which is kind of the opposite of what happened, but that's another discussion). So it's nice that we're establishing with this remake that Isaac has a definitive depiction of characterization across all three games.

But if they had cast ANYONE other than Gunner Wright, it would have implied they were using this as a chance to REBOOT Isaac's personality, rather than just backfill the one they created for him in DS2. So it's a gigantic relief that Wright returns to grace us with what will undoubtedly be another great everyman performance.

Seriously, how crazy is it that Isaac had no dialogue in Dead Space 1, and yet they still cast the guy who provided his grunts and yells to perform whole scenes in Dead Space 2? And he was perfect! It feels like a given that after the first game's success and the decision to give Isaac dialogue in the sequel, they would have recast with either a more popular voice actor (2011, so almost certainly Nolan North or Troy Baker) or a film/TV actor stuntcast (like spiritual successor Callisto Protocol's casting of Josh Duhamel as its protagonist). But Visceral trusted Gunner Wright to bring it and he brought it. The duology of the first two games, and the trilogy as a whole despite DS3's other shortcomings, wouldn't have worked otherwise. Glad Motive/EA understand that for the remake too.

I couldn't be more excited for the remake. Hopefully it comes through, unlike (according to what I've seen and heard) Callisto Protocol, the game we expected to be better as a spiritual successor from the original Dead Space team rather than a theoretically soulless cash grab EA announced after killing Visceral.

[thevindicativevordan]

Why isn't Nightwing a bigger deal? He has all of Batman's skills and Superman's faith in humanity and is arguably the most beloved hero in the DCU, but most people seem to know him either as the leader of the N̶o̶t̶ ̶J̶L̶ Teen Ttians or just Robin.

Thank you for asking me about Nightwing, I've been wanting to write a piece about him for a while now. The short version is that everyone who claims Dick becoming Nightwing was him "moving out of Batman's shadow and becoming his own man" is completely wrong.

Dick Grayson is a fantastic character, someone who saved Bruce Wayne in-universe both by forcing Batman to grow up a bit, and the countless times he saved Batman's life as his partner whether as Robin or Nightwing. Dick saved Batman in the real world as well, hard to believe but Batman was actually in danger of being cancelled due to poor sales early on. Enter Robin, a young daredevil audience stand in the creators hoped would get kids interested in reading Batman. And it worked! Sales on Batman doubled once Robin showed up which is crazy to think about, but Dick Grayson has always been a popular character. Cartoons like Teen Titans, Batman: The Animated Series, and The Batman only helped grow his audience.

Character-wise, Dick Grayson really does fill a number of crucial roles in the DCU. For Batman, Dick is proof that Batman is a positive force. Meeting Batman helped change Dick for the better, helped him heal after his parents died. With Dick, Batman can take comfort in knowing that yes, he has made a difference in the world for at least one orphan boy, which is all he wanted when he lost his parents himself. To the wider DCU, Dick is a friendly face who convinces others that Batman is competent and not a complete asshole. He took this kid in, trained him to be one of the best heroes the DCU has seen, and did it all out of the kindness of his heart. That someone like Dick can confront the evils of Gotham and not break means there's still hope for that city. As Robin, Dick has led the Titans and is an icon in his own right as The Sidekick, the original, the one every other Robin is built around copying or contrasting. The one all other superhero sidekicks are drawing on as a basis. As Robin Dick Grayson is very much on Batman's level.

Just not as Nightwing. As Nightwing, Dick has been a second rate Daredevil which means he's a third rate Batman (fully prepared to get hate for this but I've read and enjoyed the Miller and Bendis DD runs so I feel entitled to my opinion). A typical Nightwing run tends to go like this: Moving to Bludhaven (which is Gotham... but WORSE!), Dick Grayson usually enrolls in a pointless job we don't care about in order to provide some meaningless soap opera drama that doesn't go anywhere. Patrolling the city as Nightwing, he fights a variety of bad guys who are usually rather lame and unthreatening, with his big bad being a Kingpin knockoff called Blockbuster. Villains are fought, long running plotlines are set up, then everything is abandoned because it's Batfamily event time, and Dick has to run back to Gotham in order to play sidekick again. Usually his involvement is completely superfluous and it would've been better if the writer had gotten to opt out. By the time we finally get back to Nightwing's solo plotlines, the audience has usually ceased to care and the run gets cut short.

That's how Nightwing has been since the New 52 at least. Anyone who thinks that's "becoming their own man" is out of their mind. Dick is so thoroughly in Batman's shadow that he got shot in the head and spent a longer time as "Ric" which everyone fucking hated and sold like shit, than he did as Agent Grayson which was extremely well-received. Reiterating: Ric went on longer than Grayson because of a fucking Batman plotpoint Tom King wanted where Bruce was sad and cut off from the Batfamily because of Dick getting shot. Not just calling out King either, how many times was Kyle Higgins Nightwing run derailed because of Scott Snyder's crossovers? Or how about that entire run getting dumped to the side because Johns wanted to out Dick during Forever Evil, a Justice League/Lex Luthor story? DC has repeatedly made their contempt for Nightwing clear, he's Batman's sidekick still in their eyes, and he serves whatever story role the Batman writer wants.

Hell his best stories tend to have been the ones where he's not Nightwing. He was Robin in a good chunk of the Wolfman/Perez New Teen Titans run. Morrison really showcased his depth as a character when they wrote him as Batman, their time with Dick under the cowl was actually one of the first Batman runs I ever read, and no Nightwing run has ever matched it in terms of quality in my humble opinion. Scott Snyder's work with DickBats also was a high point for the character, showing Dick as competent and examining his relationship with Gotham and the Gordons. King and Seeley gave him one of the best comic runs with Grayson, a series where he wasn't even a "superhero" technically! When it comes to actual pre-New 52 Nightwing runs that are highly recommended where he *is* Nightwing, there's Chuck Dixon and uhhhhhhh... Tomasi's brief run before Dick became Batman? It's not exactly an overwhelming list.

Look there has been good work done with Nightwing, I'm not claiming there hasn't been. Tim Seeley wrote a great run with Nightwing Rebirth. Seeley fleshed out Dick's Rogues Gallery with cool new ones like Raptor, he brought back old foes like Dr. Hurt (why oh why couldn't you have brought back Flamingo too?), he gave Dick's world some character it solely needed. Bludhaven under Seeley is pretty much the only time I've really felt like it lived up to being Dick's city.

The problem with fictional cities is you have to put in the work to give them the character of real cities. You have to make the cities feel like characters in their own right. Gotham is the best example of this, it's a character all it's own, one that tells you a lot about Batman and his cast. In contrast Bludhaven is usually one of the worst. Any place that wants to claim to be worse than the city that is built over the gate to hell and gets wrecked every other month by the Arkham freaks has to really put in the work to compete. Simply put, Bludhaven typically fails utterly. There's nothing about it that makes you really buy it's worse than Gotham, I mean does anyone really think Nightwing's Rogues wouldn't get their lunches eaten by Batman's? No, no one genuinely buys that. When Bludhaven claims to be worse, it just comes across as tryhard, an attribute that does end up telling you about Nightwing in unintentional ways.

So Seeley didn't do that. Instead he created a city built for a hero like Dick Grayson. Someone who is bright and flashy, but does have an element of darkness to him. Someone who loves the spotlight, but often uses it to obscure. Seeley turned Bludhaven into Las Vegas, and that was the fucking best concept for Bludhaven I have ever seen, it makes so much sense. Las Vegas is the "Entertainment Capital of the World" and isn't that the perfect city for a hero who got their start working in the circus? Isn't the aesthetics of the gleaming casinos, the glamorous sex appeal of the performers, and the spectacle of the shows, all being used to cover up the seediness of mob bosses meeting backstage perfect for Nightwing? It's so utterly unlike New York City, yet Las Vegas is still dangerous, it's got a crime culture all it's own. Seeley used it to great effect, as did Humphries during his brief run, and I will always be pissed that DC didn't continue to use it. That should have stuck around and been the definitive look for Bludhaven.

How Seeley's take on Bludhaven was treated feels like a small scale version of how Nightwing in general gets treated. Whenever creators pitched ideas for him, if editorial thought there was potential to break big, they asked for those ideas to be repurposed for Batman instead. Anything big or good gets repurposed for Batman or tossed to the side so Nightwing can go back to his default: having irrelevant adventures in a city that is supposedly worse than Gotham but can't live up to it. Just like how Nightwing is supposedly better than Batman but never gets to show it. Goddamn it's so frustrating seeing his potential get wasted like that.

The Nightwing book should be one of DC's most ambitious books in terms of storytelling. You can go from traditional superhero stories, to romantic soap opera, to spy stories, to crime noir, to horror, to cosmic adventures, and ALL of them would fit because Nightwing is someone who has a foot in both Gotham and Metropolis. He's got friends everywhere on every team, and has been a hero longer than most Leaguers have at this point. No reason DC should still be afraid to let him loose and insisting on hewing close to what Dixon established almost over 30 years ago is only holding him back. At the very least get him some better Rogues, why the hell didn't he get to keep Professor Pyg? That's Dick's villain not Bruce's! Bullshit that they didn't let Dick keep him. Hopefully Flamingo comes back, with a slight revamp I think he'd make a great reoccurring Nightwing Rogue.

Luckily it does look somewhat like Nightwing fans have reason to be optimistic. While Taylor isn't to my taste, DC clearly views him as a "big" writer, and that they put him on Nightwing says a lot. Taylor has been selling well so far, so hopefully he gets to tell his story, hilarious that even he lampshaded having to write Dick running over to Gotham for another tie-in after Taylor's big opening arc was all about Dick committing himself and his money to Bludhaven. Scott Snyder is apparently working on a Black Label Nightwing book which will explore how he's a different detective than Bruce. The Gotham Knights video game has him as one of the main stars, and while Titans is... controversial, it's one of the most popular streaming shows and Dick is the main character. There's a lot of content coming that features him in the starring role, and that will only help his star rise further.

For the first time in, well, ever it feels like DC may be serious about elevating him. Time will tell if it pays off, but I for one choose to be optimistic that the 2020s will be a turning point for Dick Grayson where Nightwing becomes hugely popular in his own right. Not just as Batman's sidekick.

[tomwambsmilk]

To be honest, I have mixed feelings about the first three episodes - even having seen the show more times than I'm willing to admit, I do still think "Celebration" and "Lifeboats" are Succession's two weakest episodes. "Shit Show at the Fuck Factory" gets a slightly higher ranking, but it's still a bottom ten episode for me. And admittedly, a big part of that is that these three episodes need to do a lot of heavy lifting in terms of establishing characters, dynamics, and setting, which doesn't leave much room for the kind of interesting and engaging storytelling that really makes Succession a good watch. One thing that highlights this is that there isn't a single wasted scene in "Celebration" - every scene, line, and interaction tells us something important, something fundamental, about who these people are, the world they operate in, and their relationships to each other. But as strong as this is from an economical-storytelling standpoint, it's a big part of why so many people (myself included when I started watching) really struggle to make it past the first three episodes - especially considering you don't truly understand the importance of what you're seeing until you've finished at least the first season, if not the third.

But, all that being said, I can't think of another show that does such a good job of efficiently and effectively establishing what it needs to. Aside from the Kendall and Logan scenes, we have the aforementioned baseball scene with Roman, as well as his introductory scene, which establishes him as not caring about being in the business - and then his one-on-one with Logan, which shows us that he does care very much about his role (or lack thereof) in Waystar, despite pretending not to. We have Shiv's first scene with Tom, which establishes the tenor of their relationship and the degree to which Logan hangs over it; and her own one-on-one with Logan, which tells us how badly he wants her in the business, the fact that he doesn't have much respect for Tom, his lack of respect for her work, and her own disinterest, not necessarily in the business, but in playing second fiddle to her brothers (hence needing 'the top job'). We learn that Connor is disconnected from the rest of the family (the ranch, not realizing that 'old bread' is not a good gift for Logan) as well as his chronic need to avoid confrontation (I'm water, I flow).

Tom's scenes with Logan further highlight both Logan's lack of respect for him and the keen desperation with which he wants that respect, even though (as we'll soon learn) he's been dating Shiv for quite a while; his scene with Greg simultaneously establishes his twin desires for power and friendship when he currently has neither, as well as his failure to live up to the (highly sexual and to a certain extent sexually violent) ideal of "masculinity" prized by other members of the Roy family. And Greg's scenes communicate his status as a chronic failure and his discomfort with nepotism (he 'doesn't want to get into it' when his mom asks if he told the park managers who he was) as well as the desperation that causes him both to push forward with Logan despite that discomfort (and the ambition that makes him ask for much more than is reasonable, given his situation) and to tolerate Tom and the incredibly confusing and borderline abusive conversation the two of them have at the baseball game.

Of course, the first time we watch, we don't realize that's what we're seeing. That's because one of the rules of filmmaking is that you generally need to communicate something three times before the audience understands it - so while certain things (such as Kendall's relationship with Logan) are readily apparent from the get-go, a first-time viewer doesn't yet have enough information to properly interpret most of what they're seeing. But that doesn't change the fact that the screenwriters do an incredible job of throwing a lot of important information at us in the course of an hour without making it feel overwhelming.

The other really interesting thing about the first three episodes is that they do a good job of establishing the characters in certain archetypes - which they then spend the rest of the season unravelling. Coming out of the first episode, Logan is a well-meaning but misguided father and a brilliant businessman who has disappointing children; we understand that he's not a great father, but his frustration with his children feels somewhat earned, given what we know about them so far. Kendall is the heir with great potential but also substantial flaws who is cut down by Logan and will (probably) have to learn to overcome those flaws to assume his rightful place. Roman is the irresponsible and childish son who isn't meant to be taken seriously and doesn't have the emotional depth of the other characters. Shiv is the responsible and sensible only daughter, not as susceptible to her father's manipulations, relatively innocent by virtue of removing herself from the company, and ultimately supportive to Tom. Connor is the harmless, oddball son whose impact on the family is negligible. Tom is the sycophantic and power-hungry asshole who cares more about Logan than Shiv. Greg is a wide-eyed, innocent burnout who has no idea what he's getting into.

But then, over the course of the first season, Succession slowly unravels all of these archetypes. While there is some truth to each of them, nothing is truly as it initially appeared to be. As the show progresses, the characters develop in ways that are simultaneously unexpected, and yet, in hindsight, perfectly in line with what we've learned about them so far. And in doing so, the show gives depth and nuance to those archetypes and engages us in these people and their lives and their relationships, making us empathize with them, despicable as they may be - and the fact that our initial assessments were somewhat off only makes the gradual reveal of their true characters more impactful.

[nanigma]

I know it's been a while but if youre still up for answering some questions im curious what your answers to 14, 31 and 32 is.

How did I not see this ask before?? Sorry anon. Uh let me dig up that questionnaire..

14. Something you really don't like about this series?

Well more of the recent trend towards player pandering. It's definitely more pronounced with avatars, but Alm also showed traces of this treatment in SoV. I legitimately feel like the devs don't want you to feel bad anymore, because it would ruin the power fantasy. See: Being able to recruit almost every student in 3H even in the cases where it doesn't make sense.

As we have seen in Hopes now.. this can come at the cost of making the players feel bad in entirely different ways. By trying so hard to make people not be sad that "they" i.e. Byleth isn't the center of the world anymore, they made most of the plot and the "conclusions of the spin-off unrewarding and frustrating. Because nobody gets to be happy without Byleth us.

If we go by game mechanics, it's definitely weapon durability. It just leads to loads of annoying inventory micro-managing.

31. Some moments of Fire Emblem you keep thinking of?

Oh there is plenty, but I'll limit it to one from each game I played.

Sacred Stones: I'd have to say L'Arachel's entire introduction. She is such a memorable character and I love her to bits.

Path of Radiance: The cutscene at the start of the gathering of the Laguz Royals. It's just so epic and does a really awesome job of introducing the Laguz factions and showcasing their different backgrounds and stances towards each other. I love the laguz in general so of course this would be a favourite. haha

Radiant Dawn: Can I say the opening cinematic? Cause it's the best in the series imo. It really gets you pumping and teases a lot of the good stuff ahead of time. (cheating so I can have more moments up here) I won't be more specific, cause I have a mutual I gotta show it to first.

Awakening: Emmeryn's death. That cutscene really hit hard. I really like how it was animated too.

Fates: Oh gosh so many moments. If I really have to pick one, I'd say it's the reveal of possessed Takumi at the end of Conquest. It's a very chilling and creepy scene, especially once you know it's basically an animated corpse you are facing. Truly tragic fate for my fave, but it still sticks in my head.

3 Houses/Hopes: Just putting these together, uh... I'd have to say the scene at the start of AM's post timeskip where you find Dimitri. It's especially memorable for me, because I got to it after a 12 hour gaming marathon at 5 am. Let's just say it made an impression right before I zonked out in bed.

32. What direction you wish this series would take?

Honestly, I'll just be glad if they take something away from 3 Hopes and that is 1) Shez worked a lot better than Byleth simply due to being an actual character and not the center of the entire plot. 2) Radically diverting from an established characters personality is a bad idea. 3) Pandering towards a character to the point where you warp the plot around them to suit their needs is also a bad idea.

That would really help. I would also like it if they somehow recaptured Tellius sense of storytelling, but I am not holding out hope.

Anyway, sorry again for the very late answer. Hope you still liked it.

[ranmaruliker]

about your post comparing danganronpa and yttd fandoms: you are right about the fandoms, but i think it's not just that. the narrative in danganronpa does a piss poor job at establishing and executing the message it aims to send. it actively villifies its own characters, horribly portrays victims (like hiyoko) and makes the characters terribly one dimensional. this attracts a certain type of crowd which causes the fandom to highkey suck :((

yeah, i didnt really wanna get into it too much as danganronpa is.. a shithole, but there are, obviously, a lot of differences in yttd and danganronpa that makes the two not exactly directly comparable, and danganronpa itself is just a pretty bad game at protraying what it wants to protray in a sensible way. the fandom it attracts with its storytelling is younger teens who aren't exactly in the fandom to like. disect the nuances in the game. victims like hiyoko, as you said, are horribly protrayed, and generally the game is just shit at what its trying to do.

i feel like sayaka is one of the only fair example of a character unfairy villified by the fandom without any influence from the game, as far as i remember, though i could be wrong, its been a while lol.

generally, danganronpa is a fucking ass game and the fandom isnt fully to blame for the fact that the game doesnt do a good job in its portrayal, however i do still hold that the fandom would be a lot better if there were more people who could recognize the grey morality of the characters within the game. although no 'new fandom' would be able to truly fix the huge dumpster fire that is danganronpa

[fuckblizzardbearlover]

So Thor: Love and Thunder

10/10 loved every second of it.

In regards to criticisms ive seen.

I didnt notice any bad effects. I mean its possible but like...ok people talk about the good puppets and cgi in the original jurassic park but...they are obviously fake. If u cant suspend your disbelief enough to accept cgi that doesnt look perfectly realistic u are going to hate everything but avatar. Even good video games have obvioua fakeness idk what u want.

People would link that one hologram and its... a 10 yr old boy using his powers for the first time...like it was obviously intentionally meant to look like a disney movie hologram

Thor is treated as a joke? Wrong. Hes def treated like a powerful established hero. Ragnarok utilized the moiri form of atorytelling in which the man who thinks himself greater is the fool, and thus made him the buff for much of it, but this doesnt do that. The comedy comes mostly atand alone jokes , the rom com vibe, and silly situations that come about from high fantasy nature (i.e. thor ia ao powerful that getting ahot by a laser iant a threat and so combat is more a backdrop for conversation than a problem)

Valkalrie got sidelined? Not really. I mean she was always the tertiary character and after thor and fem thor she had the most characterization. Korg merely existed as a storytelling device , an audience surogate and a supplier of jokes. Regardless it was def fun to see all 4 of them playing off each other.

The gods sucked, and they did a great job of making u hate them and chriatian bale did a great job.

The plot made sense, the jokes were good, i laughed everytime the screaming goats came. It was fun, it was sincere, it was a good part of the mcu

Hate no doubt comes from one or more of the following

Racism, gatekeeping bros, synder fans acting nuts because taika threw some shade in an interview .

He does need to apologize for that one video, however if u actually watch it i think its obvious it was meant to be a "director teases his own product" with a bit of "of course if u freeze frame animation its going to look worse, because its suppoae to be animated" like woth people doing exactly that with thor using the thunderbolt.

But it was still a n unwise decision

[watery-melon-baller]

I think that, overall, only four good things came out of Danny Phantom season three:

1) Frostbite. I like that he can serve as another ghostly mentor figure to Danny, even if he is coming pretty late in the game, and he adds some decent worldbuilding.

2) Danny’s ice powers and ice core. There area lot of fun things to be done with these, especially in fanon, but even in the show they can make fights more interesting and dynamic. It’s a new element to play around with without it being too overly obtrusive. It does come a little out of nowhere, and just adds to Danny being absolutely OP, but I can look past that and see it as a net positive.

3) The episode Forever Phantom. This and the episode I’m going to discuss in point four are the only two episodes I feel truly hold up and are genuinely good in this season. There are some others that can be fun to watch, but they’re overall pretty mediocre. That’s not to mention the fair share of flops that just completely missed the mark. Forever Phantom works because it pulls its focus back in to grounded problems. A lot of season three has the issue of being all action, no breaks; the writers try to up the stakes, but it doesn’t work because there’s nothing to tie it back, and therefore it has little meaning. It’s just spectacle. What Forever Phantom does is give us a conflict with stakes that are much lower, but at the same time have a very pointed effect on Danny’s life. That’s able to keep viewers invested. The tone, also, just works a bit better for me than a lot of other season three episodes; some of the humor really works. Finally, we get Amorpho. He’s a very interesting antagonist; his morally gray motivations and general presence make him interesting to watch, and his direct goal to screw with people (and Danny specifically) brings up some good situations.

4) The episode D-Stabilized. This one holds up, and even excels, in a different way than Forever Phantom. Forever Phantom was an excellent example of how this show does a low-stakes, humor-driven episode. D-Stabilized shows off the potential for more plot-driven dramatic storytelling. One thing of the episode’s major strengths is its use of the characters. It was a good decision to take Valerie, Danny, and Danielle as a focus. They in particular did a good job with Danielle; while she definitely didn’t get enough screen time in the overall series to be fully realized as a character, this episode was a good step in the right direction, making use of the limited time they had. Through the focus the episode puts on her, the writers do a good job of fleshing her out into more of her own character (seperate from Danny), but keeping her familiar as well. As for Valerie, she was criminally underutilized in season 3. Nevertheless, her inclusion in the episode definitely improved it. She’s one of Danny Phantom’s strongest characters. To be perfectly honest, she’s probably a more developed and realized character than Tucker or Sam, despite the fact that the latter two are part of the core cast. She has a level of depth those two simply don’t have, with more thought-out motivations and traits that make her more belivable and three-dimensional. As such, D-Stablized took advantage of her strong character and arc to further it, staying true to her motivations and personality. And, critically, the characters are in character. This was an issue that season three had a lot more than the previous seasons of the show. D-Stabilized being able to succeed in this was critical to making it a good episode. Another thing D-Stablized handles well is its narrative. As I mentioned earlier, it gives us a strong and continuity-driven plot which helps to push many of the series’ ongoing points. It continues the thread begun by Kindred Spirits, bringing back Danielle and Vlad’s cloning plan. This is a compelling choice, as for much of season three Vlad has been exaggerated and his motivations twisted out of proportion. His previous motivations, to get rid of Jack and take his family, and more than that his critical trait of wanting love above all but not realizing that one needs to give back to get it, has been largely dropped in favor of a more generic set. His main goals are now shown to be world domination, power, and wealth, which makes little sense for his character. But that is beside the point; to bring us back on topic, the choice to bring back Vlad’s cloning plot demonstrates that he still does hold the desires he was shown to have previously: he wants a ‘perfect son’. It brings his character more in line with earlier seasons, bringing back that more compelling scenario. Another thread it continues is Valerie’s arc. I touched on this briefly earlier when I discussed characters, but to go into more depth, this episode gives us excellent insight into her life and motivations, wholly building off of what we already know about her. It fits in with what we’ve learned, but the events of the episode’s narrative also push Valerie into growing. It makes excellent use of her established anti-hero tendancies, showing how despite her prejudices she still has morals, and it trying to good even if it is somewhat misguided with regards to Danny and her unwavering hatred of ghosts. Especially considering how we’ve seen virtually nothing of her over season 3, the inclusion of Valerie and ties to her storyline certainly helped this episode exceed the rest. The action was dramatic, the development was logical and satisfying, and the characters and interactions are well handled and compelling. This is not even to mention the episode’s ending, where Valerie figures out about Vlad. This was clearly setting up more, but the arc got cut off before it could reach its completion. It is a real shame that we didn’t get a conclusion to this storyline, as it would have been really interesting to see how Valerie would handle the shift to her worldview, and how that could affect Danny and Amity Park.

[mymelancholiesblues]

No, Mia isn’t  "low-tier" compared to Ada (morally speaking, or w/e) – a measured answer?/essay

So, a couple of Ada haters tried to put up a false symmetry between both of these characters there on twitter, and it inspired me to put my own thoughts down in a more articulate essay as to why that's (Ada's somehow being morally worse than Mia) not sustained by canon in Resident Evil.

standing there, killing time

can't commit to anything but a crime

all the good girls go to hell

'cause even God herself has enemies

and once the water starts to rise

and heaven's out of sight

she'll want the Devil on her team. ⁕

First things first: let us debunk the false symmetry that they tried to establish between these two characters with extremely distinct archetypes – and worse, the following replies to this false symmetry and its poor arguments trying to validate it, pointing out that, in fact, no, character B (that would be Ada, btw) – which is so evidently and ridiculously different from character A (and that would be Mia) – is, in fact, WAY WORSE than character A, and then proceeding to assert some unsupported propositions about misogyny in Resident Evil (which, tbh, definitely IS a recurring problem in the franchise, but that in this case particularly, little or does not apply AT ALL) and how Ada contributes to "the perpetration of a biological cold war".

Starting with what differentiates Mia from Ada grotesquely: we know NOTHING of Ada's true alliances in RE's world. Mia, however, canonically worked for a group that participated in the importation and exportation as well as the manufacturing, testing and marketing of biological weapons: "The Connections", a CRIMINAL SYNDICATE which, amongst other things, was also involved in money laundering, assassinations as well as weapons and drug trafficking. I don't care at all about Mia, so I don't intend to waste much of my time going on about her role in the plot, but people should've already realized by just that much how infinitely dishonest is to try to put these two characters as "similar" ones, or argue that Ada is somehow worse.

Another detail that shouldn't escape anyone's attention too, are the origins and nationalities of both – and yes, I intend to briefly bring up racism against eastern-Asian looking characters (a silent plague that takes form by each passing day in all fiction fandoms) and anti-China xenophobia, but for now, hold this tea there just before I drop it: Mia is canonically American, and previously a Texas-state resident; meanwhile, we have no confirmation of Ada's nationality except for her pretty evident Chinese ancestry. But, as I said, hold it there for a while.

i) espionage — the job

red so silent

wait a minute

or just a little while.

what are you looking for? ⁕

At all times that Ada's "job" was brought up in this franchise, in ALL of her cameos, she has NEVER been called a mercenary in the original Japanese. She's always referred to as a SPY. Even in RE2R, the most recent title in which she's featured in, the original text of the game makes a point of labelling her as a SPY (and not a mercenary) in the dialogue that transpires between Annette and Leon.

It's the North-American translation and correspondent localization that now and then falls for the equivocal use of this other term. This distinction is important since espionage NECESSARILY implies operating in an organized service for, perhaps a country, or a political cause, or a class/group, or a corporation, or whatever. While a mercenary is someone who's acting per their self financial interests, indiscriminately selling their specialized "labour" and skills to anyone who'll offer more.

Ada's not a mercenary, she's a spy. But Mia, in addition to being hired to a canonically criminal company, was also the handler personally assigned to Eveline. I don't care how exactly Mia got in that predicament but the fact is: Mia was canonically employed by a company that profited over illicit activities and directly watched as a family was destroyed and toyed with by this new killing machine (Eve). Yet, we can't state for sure that we know to whom or to what Ada is truly affiliated with.

ii) sources — check them

who's a heretic now?

am I making sense?

how can you make it stick?

and I'm on a trial

waiting 'til the beat comes out. ⁕

This fandom should put a little more thought into which translation and localization of the game texts, dialogues and files they are using to support their arguments. I know that in some cases the United States people have a bit of an inclination to think of themselves as the owners of the planet and deem English as the only language that matters in this world, but let's not forget that RE is a Japanese franchise (wow, insane, right?!). Therefore, the most valid script, with the greatest amount of details, and highest credibility, is the Japanese original. Throughout these years, there have been several errors in translation and localization of the Japanese original to North-American English. And, believe me, curiously enough, plenty of those concern Ada, since she's often mentioned or referred to in a very vague way – without the use of pronouns or adjectives or adverbs that could help in indicating gender. This ended up causing those details and mentions to her to get overlooked, even though in the Japanese text it was a clear reference to her character (per observation of context).

iii) the good guys — one of

head in the dust

feet in the fire

labour on that midnight wire

listening for that angel choir

you got nowhere to run

careful son, you got dreamers plans

but it gets hard to stand. ⁕

Yes, as much as haters try to minimize it, it is SIGNIFICANT that Ada saved so many important characters and stood for unquestionably heroic actions in so many moments - like stopping everything she was doing so she could help completely random Chinese civilians with the helicopter she managed to pilot in that chaos in China (yeah, I know you haters love to forget about this, but it happened, it's there in canon, and no, it wasn't her direct OR indirect responsibility what was going on in China: REPLAY RE6 and for the love of GOD, never again argue that what she did was somehow "the equivalent of evacuating a city after selling a WMD to destroy that same city". It's a case of pure intellectual dishonesty to say such a thing. It's canon that Carla was the one who caused what happens in China, PLEASE, PLAY RE6).

Furthermore, Ada shows compassion on some occasions even for characters who are directly putting her in harms ways, like Annette (in RE2 OG, right after - in order to defend herself - she slaps Annette leading her to lose balance and collapse over the sewers fences, Ada makes an effort in trying to pull Annette back and prevent her from falling) and Carla.

Replay RE4 and pay attention to it, pay attention to her solo campaign: getting involved with Leon's journey in Spain hasn't brought any real benefit to her mission or herself: Ada deviates from her main path several times due to worrying about him and trying to help him and almost ends up dead in several of these occasions over her insistence in doing so: by saving him from Bitores Mendez, by helping him and Ashley against Sadler, by confronting Krauser and stopping him.

It's so lazy to only read/listen to a file in which she says in English that "Leon might be useful to her plans" (this is way more nuanced in the Japanese original of Ada's Report), and ignore everything that was SHOWN in the game: every effort she made to ensure that Leon could rescue Ashley, remove the parasite from his and her bodies, and escape from that hell-island.

The jet-ski she left for their escape was ALREADY there before she was captured by Sadler (or you think she arranged it while she was caught?). Leon having to intervene and save her from Sadler WASN'T her plan. It WASN'T her plan to take the sample from Leon's hands. She wanted to help him get out of there with Ashley and she guaranteed he could do so, she wanted to get the sample by herself and escape too while sending that hell to kingdom's come. But, because she chose to help Leon rescue Ashley right in front of Sadler, she ends up captured.

On her end, Mia never did anything minimally compared to that, and all of her "selflessness" or self-sacrificing actions involved a much, MUCH smaller scope than Ada's: wanting to help her husband and HERSELF is not at all comparable to saving a few dozens of unknown Chinese civilians. So no, they aren't "cut from the same cloth". They don't come from the same place, nor do they share the same intentions or goals, and their contributions to the RE storyline are quite different.

iv) unknown true purpose (shades of grey)

lining up in the background

waiting for the crowd shot to be seen

in the shadow of the big screen

everybody begs to be redeemed. ⁕

In databooks, Ada is recurrently described as "a Chinese spy with extraordinary physical abilities, vigorous health and composed mind and spirit, capable of coping with grim situations and handling even the most difficult requests without losing composure". If we are paying attention to the storytelling ingame, however, we know that this isn't always the case: Ada did let her mask of unswerving emotional and physical strength fall and showed a very fragile side under strenuous circumstances a couple of times already.

Also, in these databooks, they often point out that "she has her own 'true purpose' and has FREQUENTLY betrayed organizations and clients to achieve it". Huh, we can AGAIN, by this only, see how completely different she's from Mia, who personally watched an entire family being driven to insanity by Eveline's hand.

Furthermore, in these databooks, it's often said that "this true purpose is still obscure and whether she truly cared for anyone or simply used her charms to manipulate people that crossed paths with her isn't ever clear". If people are willing to be open-minded and exercise their text comprehension skills, though, they'll see that in multiple occasions of emotional confrontation it has been established time and time again that yes, Ada DOES care. She wasn't capable of shooting Leon and there has been a couple of other times that failing to choose a cool, sociopathic calculation and pragmatical demeanour over empathy and humanity towards others has put her in harms ways: nonetheless she still chose it.

v) positive impact

I'm gonna break the cycle

I'm gonna shake up the system

I'm gonna destroy my ego. ⁕

To this point, RE's plot systematically leads us to believe that Ada has been covertly acting behind the scenes of multiple biological incidents COLLECTING INFORMATION (the job of a spy, who would've thought! lmao), that is valuable to numerous organizations, companies, groups and different contexts, but at the same time of allegedly offering to handle this knowledge for the right price to the big players involved with bioterrorism and clandestine trading of bioweapons, she's also working to sabotage said players.

This is evident throughout the franchise: she intended to hurt Umbrella's business. She outwitted and deceived Wesker multiple times. She even undermined Simmons, someone who was in a position of power in the US government and actively using that position to lead bioterrorist ventures on the parallel side.

There's no concrete evidence or hint as to what she does with the information she collects, and for all purposes and effects, I can presume that she's gathering this knowledge to assist in the discovery of countermeasures and vaccination studies. I might as well argue that she is a Chinese spy who is working against European and North-American capitalism and the imperialism that creates such monsters like the biochemical and bioweapons industry and that her real objective is to dismantle the market for bioweapons and bioterror supported mainly by the USA (see: Simmons and The Family).

That is, as long as it is unclear what her true purpose is, I have the freedom to surmise whatever the heck I want and that all of what she's been doing was for the sake of the greater "good" - and I'll even have canon moments to support this reasoning as it's clear that she regularly sabotages her customers (customers that are unquestionably established as playing for the "evil" side, with perverse intentions) - throughout the franchise. She did this on RE2, RE4, RE6 and Damnation. It's there, transparent in canon, people just choose to ignore it.

She laughs in the face of whoever she's talking to by the end of Damnation, saying she doesn't intend to deliver the Plaga; she scoffs at Simmons; she betrays Wesker and kills Krauser. She had been sabotaging Wesker for so long, that he sent Krauser to be the main agent in the mission in Spain, and Ada was just a "side effect" that he didn't have in control and had to keep an eye on, so he ordered Krauser to keep tabs on her. It's not a mutually beneficial dynamic. Ada doesn't want Wesker to succeed, she despises him; this is clear in the games in which they interact. There are even files that indicate that she was trying to double-cross and get in the way of his plans for at least 2 years before Spain, and he was constantly catching up with her. See here and here.

On her end, Mia was employed by and consciously working for a criminal syndicate.

vi) a (secretly) helping hand

oh, I'm a master pretender

just felt more alone

the further I'd go

but I'll stick around

I'll be your master defender

yeah, I'll stick around. ⁕

Ada approached characters such as John Clemens and Luis Sera, and both had a canonical intention to, in addition to putting an end to their connections with the criminal companies and organizations they've been working for, also expose and denounce them for their crimes. It's in this context that Ada comes into contact with them. And why is that?

Check John's background: he had made up his mind about disclosing Umbrella's crimes to the public. Check Luis' background: Ada went to Spain to assist in his extradition since he feared for his own life if he resolved to turn his back on the cult of Los Illuminados, and also dreaded the consequences of the liberation of Las Plagas on an international scale.

Keep in mind that Ada handed over to Wesker a USELESS Plaga sample. Wesker only got the sample currently circulating in the underground market because he went after Krauser's body. We don't know what Ada did with the master Plaga sample she obtained. We only know from Ada's Report and the Plaga Recovery file that she didn't deliver it to Wesker, and he needed to go out for a plan B to get it.

Even the G-Virus sample that fell into the hands of the clandestine business, it's possible to argue that Ada's involvement in it was flimsy, since Simmons CANONICALLY made over a thousand laboratory tests in Sherry, and, as we know, he was a leading figure in bioterrorism and bioweapons trading with the aid of his position in the US government.

But, guess what, Ada clearly is a non-white character with obvious Chinese heritage and Mia is white, so of course, OF COURSE, someone can so nonchalantly affirm that Ada, this "vile bitch", is somehow WORSE than Mia. The same Mia who watched the Bakers being destroyed. Right.

Also: trying to validate one's point by claiming anything related to the misogyny present in RE franchise, while IN THE SAME BREATH AND TWEET reducing Ada's entire character arc to that of "a sociopathic bitch cured by the magic dick of her love interest" is supposed to be a joke, right? No, really. Joke.

conclusion and a word against misogyny

we are waiting on a telegram to

give us news of the fall

I am sorry to report

dear Paris is burning after all

we have taken to the streets

in open rejoice, revolting

we are dancing a black waltz

fair Paris is burning after all. ⁕

To any Ada fan that has been reading this so far: PLEASE, I ask to consider refraining to use the "oh yes, Ada did some bad shit, bUT" take to defend the character because that isn't sustained by canon in RE, lmao. She didn't do anything evil that had an indisputable bad impact on the plot and other characters arcs. For one, I myself do love some villains, but that isn't the case with Ada.

She did do some unconventional shit yes, since she's a morally GRAY character and an anti-heroine, but by the end of the day, each and every action of hers had a positive impact on the journey of other characters and main plot. Just pay attention to it.

Like idk man, Black Widow, Elektra Natchios, Scarlet Witch and Black Cat from Marvel, Catwoman from DC, Yennefer from The Witcher (some pop culture examples that come to mind).

Saying that this is an "extremely selfish prototypal bad bitch except when it comes to the magical redeeming dick of her love interest" it's a grotesque reduction of a complex female character, and, in its attempt to critique the misogyny present in RE's franchise an expression of misogyny in itself.

Remember: Ada has actions and impact on the franchise ASIDE and IN ADDITION to her romantic involvement with Leon.

[transcendentcacophony]

Thoughts on Worldbuilding: Storytelling with Geography: Lunar Lakes

So I've been thinking about worldbuilding for awhile, and one of the things that I like about certain worlds is that they tell a story with their geography. I think Lunar Lakes is one of these worlds.

Image: An overview of Lunar Lakes from Sims 3

All Lunar Lake images will be from here

This is going to draw from James C. Scott's The Art of Not Being Governed and the concept of Zomia

So one of the central concepts behind Zomia and The Art is the idea that not everybody wants to be a part of centralized governments or nation-states.

Traditionally, most academic fields have held that as societies centralize around agricultural centers that evolve into urban centers, they draw everybody to them through some kind of unexplained magnetism as they gradually expand. It's usually held that this is because the centralizing power of agriculture allows for population booms not supported by hunting-and-gathering. At least one philosopher <cough> Daniel Quinn <cough>1 this is a result of these populations controlling access to food. Not just surpluses of food, but access to food at all, forcing those within their borders to join the system or die.

This idea that agricultural societies are somehow fundamentally better. We see this reflected in different cultural evolution models (all of which are horribly racist but still manage to hang on in weird places, particularly developmental models). As such, the shift from hunting-and-gathering to sedentary agriculture tends to be heralded as a good thing in most history text books and is pretty much always seen as a step towards "modernization.2" But what if you don't want that? What if you have zero interest in joining the agricultural community and implied state control?3 What options do you have then?

You, then, may be interested in Zomia or one of the other extra-territorial spaces that function similarly.

Image: A village in the mountains

So what is Zomia? Zomia encompasses a large territory that ranges across Southeast Asia up into Tibet. Its primary defining feature is its rugged terrain and various populations that have no interest in different state-sponsored "civilizing" projects. While different agricultural centers expand outward to fill the lowland regions seeking to bully those they encounter along the way into joining, various people along the way say "f*ck it" and go up into the mountains. Why? Because the rugged terrain makes it harder for their valley-based neighbors to control them while providing plenty of hiding places push back against their expansion.

Image: A map of the Zomia area highlighting the Southeast Asian and Himalayan Massifs, areas encompassing the geography of Zomia itself.

Agriculture tends to lock people into place and makes them easier to control, therefore nation-states interested in keeping track of large populations have a vested interest in convincing people to farm. Buggering off into the mountains offsets this. Agriculture isn't necessarily harder in these mountainous areas4, but you do have different crops as a result of altitudinal zonation and a fair amount of people choose to engage in animal husbandry instead because the high altitudes impact calorie consumption as your body spends more energy keeping you warm.

This impacts cultures in these regions as well. People may choose to define themselves in opposition to the lowland culture they are avoiding. They may hybridize with cultures already in the mountains, create new languages, or define themselves by the fact they are there for political or semi-political reasons and expressly avoiding the control of an outside party, even if that outside party is the nation-state they are legally considered a part of. There is also a tendency of these cultures to discard literacy for orality, in part because orality is easier to carry around and in part because it marks them as Other compared to their lowland counterparts. It also gives you a since of control over your culture itself, as orality can't be shared unless you want it to whereas almost anyone can learn a writing system and open a book.

So what's this got to do with Lunar Lakes? Let's look at LL more closely, shall we?

Image: The downtown region from Lunar Lakes

The most densely developed part of Lunar Lakes is easily this "downtown" district in the lowlands region. This area contains most of the community lots for the world, and, most tellingly, City Hall and the Perigee, which we're told in the original blurb brought the (human) sims to Lunar Lakes to begin with.

Image: The Rim

There is a little bleed over of rabbitholes from the city center onto the Rim, a slightly elevated area just above it, but these are no where near as "mountainous" as the craters we'll get to in a minute.

Image: The Canals

Another defining feature of the lowland central area are these canals. As these canals do not extend to a beach or other waterway, they can't be for trade, thereby lending themselves to the idea that they are intended for agricultural uses. They could, of course, predate the colony, but that doesn't change the intent.

Image: The Crystal Mine, the Outpost, and the Depot

On the backside of the craters, we have the Crystal Mine, the Outpost, and the Depot. We're told in the original backstory blurb for the world on the Store page that the residents had to harness the crystals to to make their colony sustainable, but it feels abandoned now. Given the importance of the mine in the early days of the colony, it makes sense they'd have a transport depot here for the workers and an outpost, possibly for the military, to protect it, especially if the world was inhabited and the indigenous people wanted nothing to do with them or actively apposed them.

Image: The Craters from Lunar Lakes

Which brings us finally to the craters themselves. Here's where Zomia comes in. If Lunar Lakes was inhabited and if the native population had no interest in joining the colonists or being exploited by them, where would they go? The craters, of course! This would also hold true for anyone who didn't want to fall in line with the colonial leadership among the human sims themselves. We know the Louie family, for example, had to move to the craters after they were exiled by Patricia Cross, the current colonial leader. It therefore stands to reason that, even if the people who live here are colonists, this is where they are expected to go if they are exiled or want to get away from the political milieu of the central powers in the downtown district.

Image: Suburban Subspace lot from Lunar Lakes

And, of course, architecturally, this is where we got those distinctive mushroom houses, which again, suggests an alternative development of this region compared to the lowlands even if the people here are exiled colonists, deviants, etc.

Regardless, we end up with a setting that is rife for internal worldbuilding and storytelling based on its geography. If you add an alien population seeking to escape SimEarth colonization by fleeing to the craters, it establishes a political backdrop for stories, making the world feel more lived in and providing a ready-made backstory. This is one of the things I think is drastically missing in the Sims 4 with their itty-bitty neighborhoods and lack of connecting spaces.

Anyways, these are the things I think about when worldbuilding myself. What story does my world tell geographically? Does it have a built in backstory represented by its geography? Are the different regions/neighborhoods connected in a way that makes cohesive sense? Are their other worlds you think do a good job of storytelling with their designs?

If you build worlds, do you take into account the storytelling potential of your geography? Why or why not? If you play in worlds like Lunar Lakes, does the geography inform your storytelling? Does it help build a metadiscourse around your game? Are there other worlds that inspire your gameplay with their layouts?

Edited in response to @nornities excellent feedback.

1) This is not meant as an endorsement of all of Quinn's arguments; he's got a weird overpopulation theory built into his writing that's a little too close to Malthusian for my liking, but I'm not one to throw out the baby with the bathwater, as it were.

2) Ever notice how "modernization" and "development" are always fundamentally anchored in how Europe moved from feudalism to imperialism to democracy etc.? Yeah, that's the remnants of that "cultural evolution" model I'm talking about. "You're not successful until you look like us!" "Take these developmental loans from the World Bank or the IMF! We promise the strings attached are for your benefit too!" "What do you mean you want to skip industrialization and natural resource extraction and invest in your environment, happiness, and long-term sustainability? You'll never be like us that way! You're a failed state! Ignore the coup in the background we swear we had nothing to do with!"

3) This is the section that was edited after @nornities pointed out that it could be read to imply that non-agricultural societies don't have taxes, class warfare, epidemics, subjugation, slavery, conscription, etc. That was not the intention, although it is clearly stated in Scott's original work that he considers these and other negative societal effects to be the direct result of such "civilizing projects." It was not my intent to perpetuate that idea as these things do happen in non-agricultural societies, so I have changed the original wording. Thank you, @nornities

4) I also forgot to mention the clear exception to this: the Incan Empire. Unlike most empire models, the Inca engaged in a top-down society (literally) that was based in the mountains and expanded downward and outward over time. They were predated by two earlier Andean civilizations.