#game essay

[brujahinaskirt]

idk man. every so often i poke into reddit to see if there is any kcd 2 news and i feel like the mainstream fandom just did not understand the game at all, even on a rudimentary character-writing level. just for example: somehow i still see walls of dudebros talking about what a wilding madlad babefucking cool guy chick magnet hans capon is, which to me is one of the most egregious willfully-failing-to-engage-with-the-text readings out there. and yet it's everywhere! to this day! i do not know (i do know: it's because they think literary criticism is for girls) how you can sit there and watch this bazillion-hour story unfold and not understand within approx. 3 seconds that hans capon is meant to be understood as a desperately lonely pathetic loser who talks big game about how desirable and badass he is, but in reality is a dork ass lamer whose only friends are the uninterested sex workers he pays to hang out with him, and who freaks out and insta-folds--repeatedly--if henry so much as shoots him a hard look. warhorse hand-fed, speed-delivered that one to us, man. that's the point. that is it. that's why henry befriends him despite their rocky start. that's the basic story, the fundamental device, the vehicle for a narrative that is essentially functioning as a historical Act I of chipping away at the omnipotence of feudal order pre-hussite rebellions. if you refuse to engage with a text to the point where you're missing out on even a surface-level reading of the main character's primary relationship, a human love that is critically juxtaposed with feudal order (the main theme of the game!) in order to highlight feudalism's inherent discomfort & instability, you can't really engage with much else. not radzig's relationship with henry (the biggest plot point, the twist-that-isn't-a-twist), nor istvan's with erik, nor divish's with stephanie, nor martin's with radzig, nor radzig's with the past (henry), nor any of it -- at least not at a level far beyond, "waw, henry really wants that sward!"

and maybe that's why some people still won't shut up about being asked to wait a little longer for that stupid fucking (it's not the point it's not the point it's not the fucking point) sword.

[changingplay]

[QOL] Queer On-Line – Creating Internet Playgrounds in Digital: A Love Story, Hypnospace Outlaw, and Secret Little Haven

Being queer in the real world is hard. The oppressive malaise of everyday live ensures encounters with microaggressions and hateful bigotry on a regular basis, and self-expression is subject to an encompassing suffocation due to the restrictive pressures intwined with living in a heteronormative society. Once, in an age of utopic thinking, we thought of the internet as a place of escape, a place of safety to “simulate online what so many people who are gay or questioning their sexuality are too afraid to do in the ‘’real’’ world” (Harrison 288). The internet eschewed the confines of the real world, our bodies literally left behind as cyberspace welcomed us to construct a new ‘I’ – one unbound by physical gender expression. The lack of physical boundaries meant that identity could be forged purely from the textual and the visual, aspects of oneself easily created and adapted to suit how one felt inside rather than how the real world projected them on the outside. This techno-optimism characterises the early-internet as a place of freedom, a “cyberspace” that “would free Internet users from identities tied to the body – sexuality and gender, among others – such that you can become whoever you want” (Rodriguez 6).  

The Internet of today is not freedom. Through the proliferation of social media, the anonymity promised by the early Internet has been abandoned wholesale for an overabundance of presence. We are no longer denizens of a cyberspace playground, but a cohort of billions of faces whose personal lives, histories, and physical appearances are available at a click of a button. Constructing a new identity in this landscape of overwhelming data, where every service demands your phone number, address, or even ID to ensure you’re truly human, is a herculean task. The internet is not a place of play, but a place of surveillance and harassment.  

Safe Little Haven (hereby SLH) (Hummingwarp Interactive, 2018), Hypnospace Outlaw (hereby Hypnospace) (Tendershoot, 2019), and Digital: A Love Story (hereby Digital) (Love Conquers All Games, 2010) are all interface dramas set in this utopic early internet of the pre-2000s. Where the reality of cyberspace in the modern age is a place that offers no escape from hate crimes or harassment, these games all offer an alternative. A playground that is built upon a nostalgia for an internet that many of us never experienced, if it ever truly existed. These three games live “outside of normative boundaries” (Ruberg 10), showcasing a queerness that distorts the reality of cyberspace through meticulous simulations of personal computers to tell distinctly queer narratives about love, identity, and nostalgia. They question the internet we are forced to use in our everyday lives by proposing an alternative: true playgrounds of experience that allow players to engage with a faux internet that accepts their identity and self-expression. They represent a bespoke queer game design, one that simulates a normalised concept (using a computer) and re-mystifies it, queering what was once non-normative back to its utopic shape of a place without bodies or time. They are “queer games with queer stories”, (Shaw & Friesam 3884), games that represent queer characters and allow you to play as a queer identity. They are also games that showcase queer design sensibilities through their aesthetics, textuality, and design sensibilities. 

This paper will engage in dialogue with queer game studies and queer experiences of the internet to highlight how SLH, Hypnospace, and Digital all present welcoming playgrounds for the safe expression of queerness. It is dedicated to how these games allow for gender play and exploration of atypical queer relationships. SLH allows the player to embody a trans teenager who is slowly introduced to her gender identity through the safety provided by her online friends and the fandom forum she engages with. By controlling her PC, we can co-experience a feeling of acceptance of one’s identity alongside Alex, an experience many queer players will not have had the joy of having prior. SLH additionally creates a safe space for this queer exploration, while also complicating its narrative with the inclusion of periodic breaks of the safety as IRL aspects of Alex’s life invade the gamespace. These violations of the safe space are consistently the fault of Alex’s father and her IRL friend, Andy, both of whom demonstrate traits of toxic masculinity. Lastly, both SLH and Hypnospace introduce gameplay in the form of self-expressive customisation options, such as dress up dolls, which promote historically feminine play, a rare facet of games not directly marketed to girls. Elaborating on love in cyberspace, Digital presents a love story between the player and *Emilia, a character you interact with through email that is revealed to be an artificial intelligence. By presenting a conventional love story and then queering it through making one partner non-human, the game normalises queer romance.  

Gender Play in Cyberspace 

Figure 1. Secret Little Haven. Personal Screenshot 

While most games allow the player to embody the presence of a bespoke protagonist with their own traits and identity, few games allow you to take on the act of controlling a trans character – less still one in the process of discovering and experimenting with their gender identity. SLH puts players in control of Alex, a young girl gradually discovering what being trans is through engaging with her online friends and denizens of an online forum for her favourite TV show. The game is entirely interfaced through the faux computer operating system ‘SanctuaryOS’, which reduces every character to words on a screen and their profile picture, including Alex. This obfuscation displaces the player from reality or a simulacrum of reality, instead allowing them only to occupy a digital space. Without physical attributes to characterise Alex or her friends, players are introduced to the gender play the game promotes through a distinctly un-gendered lens – due to her unisex name, players are free to assume her gender or lack thereof as her online friends do. She is distinctly masculinised or feminised only through assumptions based on her texting styles by her online friends and the player. Through this, the masculine identity that society in the real world sees within Alex is obscured, allowing her to define for herself what aspects of gender she wants to portray and be seen to embody. Our gateway into her IRL life through interactions with her male IRL friend Andy and her father are the only times Alex is gendered male rather than agender or female, showing the safety that the online proffers is only sacrosanct if it stays a ‘secret little haven’, unopen to the real world. Rodriguez states “because the physical body is invisible on the Internet, cyberspace would free Internet users from identities tied to the body—sexuality and gender, among others—such that you can become whoever you want. In turn, people could create new, virtual versions of themselves that did not align with their physical selves and identities.” (6). This freedom to “become whoever you want” belies an ability for people to experiment with their gender identity, and the simulation of this phenomenon in SLH furthers this into a zero-risk, zero-stake playground that pushes anyone to at least question the fluidity of their gender through the simultaneous embodiment of a questioning trans teenager as protagonist and player character. This comes at odds with Reeser’s concept of masculinity in disguise, which establishes the ability for men to be wolves in “sheep’s clothing”, embodying “woman-like traits for ends that are anything but non-hegemonic” (2). The assumption in Reeser’s article is that male to female gender play is intrinsically tied with the idea of a predator invading “all-female spaces” (3). I would argue that SLH presents an alternative gender play, one that invites men to engage with and better understand gender so that they can be introduced to the concept of gender fluidity just as Alex herself is. SLH allows for safe gender play, without the scopophilia inherent with allowing men to observe the overwhelmingly female cast in the game, due to its graphical simplicity and fully obfuscated presentation.  

Figure 2. Safe Little Haven. Personal Screenshot 

However, narratively, SLH often unveils the digital. At key moments throughout the game, the player is jolted away from their digital safety and into a horror-coded conversation with Alex’s father. The narrative conflicts within the game are spawned by these fraught conversations with Alex’s overbearing and toxic father, and the disconnect between the two is what drives Alex further and further into her digital haven even despite her father’s threats of taking away her computer for spending too much time online. These interruptions of the gameplay flow drastically alter the colour composition and mood of the game. The once “vibrant pink and purple SanctuaryOS interface” that presented a feminised facsimile of the “utopic possibilities of the early internet” (Harkin 166) are distorted into monochrome, with vicious scanlines crumbling down the screen, the video desyncing in real time. The femininity of the online space, the rich purples and pinks, is overwhelmed by a masculine haze that follows Alex’s father’s presence, the literal toxicity of such acting as a computer virus infecting ‘SanctuaryOS’, one with the goal to remove the femininity (and subsequently safety) of the space. The chat box, your primary means of interacting with the game, is set to no longer obey plausible time – your father’s texts rapidly come through, with your choices in how to reply distorting. While in the normal game your choices are logical and fit Alex’s character, your dialogue choices slowly become limited and even change after you’ve sent them, demonstrating Alex’s inability to challenge or get through to her father. It is only through skills taught by her online friends, be they coping mechanisms to combat the anxiety and stress of Alex’s IRL life, or practical skills such as Laguna’s programming tutoring leading to Alex being able to hack into her father’s account (Harkin 166), that Alex can reconnect with her father and make some steps towards growth for their relationship. It is potent that the panacea for their strained relationship is that of digital code taught by Alex’s online friend – the digital is directly impacting the real as a positive force, a reverse of the dynamic prior where the real invaded the digital to corrupt and distort Alex’s online playground. Harrison describes internet chat rooms as “a space in which to write new narratives” for “those at the sexual margins”, allowing them to “(re)integrate themselves into a virtual world” (288). While most of SLH matches this freeing space of narrative creation, of self-discovery and identity forgery, it is in these dramatic conversations with Alex’s father that integration with the virtual world is no longer possible. Alex is thrust into the real world, with all her anxieties and struggles, as it corrupts her portal to her haven – the digital screen dies, she is booted out as we are as players, and can only continue the game after she is able to log back in the next day. By both giving players the safe space and taking it away, it shows how important queer playgrounds are for the forging of new identities and gender expressions, as we are forced to experience the harrowing terror of being denied our right to expression and the freeing sublimity of reclaiming it. 

A key constituent of an interface is its propensity for customisation. Both Windows and MacOS offer and have offered a multitude of customisation options in their frontends, including wallpapers, colour themes, and the ability to download third-party applications and games. In support of the verisimilitude of their simulation, SLH and Hypnospace both offer similar functionality. One of the main applications of SanctuaryOS is Doll Atelier, a dress up game that allows Alex and players to customise and create their own avatar. One can also download additional costumes for this avatar by searching through the forum Alex frequents or by chatting with her friends. This type of play is often female coded, mimicking girl-focused games and applications that tie into brands such as Barbie. Because of this coding, it is a type of play that is often unimplemented in games marketed for boys (though character customisation is common in RPG games, the standalone nature of doll dress up games and their feminine theming I’d argue separates them into different experiences). Since SLH is not feminine coded in the same way, it opens this type of play to people who may have never experienced it before, dismantling masculine stereotypes of play and leaving players vulnerable to new play types. Narratively, this emulates Alex’s own experience with SanctuaryOS, a place she can express her own femineity while her previous lived experiences IRL have been largely masculine. Alex’s father comments on Alex’s less gendered avatar, imploring her to remove it, seeing it as a threat to her masculinity that makes her stand out and appear childish. His brand of hypermasculinity, emotionally closed off and overbearing, sees anything feminine as weak and therefore unfit for his “son” who should be studying for a good career. Gender play is unfit for men, in his eyes. It is notable that his own icon in ‘SanctuaryOS’ is that of an ever gazing, 1984-esque opened eye, staring at the player (and therefore Alex) from the corner of the chat window. Toxic masculinity wants to know, to control, to have the power to prevent/”protect”, yet it does so in ever oppressive ways. 

Figure 3. Secret Little Haven. Personal Screenshot 

Hypnospace also allows for customisation in similar ways, despite its theming being completely agender. In Hypnospace you play as an anonymous, ungendered spectator to a wider internet, tasked with exploring cyberspace as a moderator of its content. This distant approach makes the player even more vulnerable to queer design, as the player is free to adjust their operating system to express their own interests and experiment with different theming as they unlock more through play. “Playing with one’s own vulnerability achieves its own, queer and compelling, joy. But this is not the joy of mastery, amorous consummation, or triumph: it is the queer pleasure of playfulness that risks the self to imagine new forms of being with Others” (Gatí 98). By eschewing the traditional game win states of triumph or mastery, these queer game designs instead make finding your own identity part of the play through experimentation and customisation. They allow players to “imagine new forms of being”, removing physical barriers from their ability to express themselves.  

Figure 4. Digital: A Love Story. Personal Screenshot 

Figure 5. Digital: A Love Story. Personal Screenshot. 

Conclusion 

Creating queer game experiences is complicated precisely because video games are “contradictory: spaces of freedom and possibility” whilst being “simultaneously normative and oppressive” (Ruberg 21). The turn towards emulating nostalgic computer interfaces in SLH, Hypnospace, and Digital considers this contradiction and gives players the space for freedom and expression whilst separating their experiences from normative reality. The dedication to verisimilitude of computer interfaces and the consequences this has for the player to play with identity and gender makes space for a type of queer playground game design. Computers are everyday objects in society, but by placing them into nostalgic time-pockets and setting queer stories inside of them, we are reminded of their once utopic potential for us to “become whoever [we] want” (Rodriguez 6). SLH puts players in the middle of a young girl’s journey of trans self-discovery, allowing us to better understand the elation of finding an identity that aligns with our needs and the despair when people try to take that away from us. Both SLH and Hypnospace show the importance of customisation and self-expression in games for all genders, and how they allow for a deeper understanding of the intersections between the self and gender. Digital shows how love is boundless, and it's queering of heterosexual romance through the internet is an example of how providing places of safety to play queer is an effective way to open players up to the possibilities of queer expression. The internet should be a safe place to be queer; these games allow us to rediscover the utopian promise that real technology betrayed.  

References: 

Gáti, Daniella. 2021. ‘Playing with Plants, Loving Computers: Queer Playfulness beyond the Human in Digital: A Love Story by Christine Love and Rustle Your Leaves to Me Softly by Jess Marcotte and Dietrich Squinkifer’. Eludamos: Journal for Computer Game Culture 12 (1): 87–103. 

Harkin, Stephanie. n.d. ‘Girlhood Games: Gender, Identity, and Coming of Age in Videogames’. 

Harrison, Douglas. 2010. ‘No Body There: Notes on the Queer Migration to Cyberspace’. The Journal of Popular Culture 43 (2): 286–308. 

Hummingwarp Interactive. 2018. Secret Little Haven. PC Game. Hummingwarp Interactive. 

Love Conquers All Games. 2010. Digital: A Love Story. PC Game. Love Conquers All Games. 

Reeser, Todd W. 2023. Masculinities in theory: An introduction. John Wiley & Sons. 

Rodriguez, Julian A. 2019. ‘Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Media: Key Narratives, Future Directions’. Sociology Compass 13 (4): 1-10. 

Ruberg, Bonnie, and Adrienne Shaw, eds. 2017. Queer game studies. U of Minnesota Press. 

Shaw, Adrienne, and Elizaveta Friesem. 2016. "Where is the queerness in games?: Types of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer content in digital games." International Journal of Communication 10: 3877-3889. 

Tendershoot. 2019. Hypnospace Outlaw. PC Game. No More Robots. 

[vampyverse]

THE LAST OF US FUNGAL INFECTION - INSPIRATION, ORIGIN, AND MUTATION:

INSPIRATION:

The fungal infection within The Last Of Us is fundamental to both the narrative of both the game and the TV show, but what was the inspiration for the infection?

The infection within the game, known as The Cordyceps Brain Infection (CBI), was inspired by a real parasitic fungal infection known as Ophiocordyceps unilateralis after the developers were inspired by an episode of Planet Earth that showcased an ant with this infection.

Ophiocordyceps unilateralis, also known as the zombie-ant fungus, is a fungus that alters the behaviour of an infected insect as spores penetrate the insects exoskeleton through pressure and enzymes and take control of their body by releasing toxins into their brain.

The fungus's main purpose is to reproduce and spread the infection so hijacks the ant's brain and compels them to leave their canopy nest to find a humid environment, prime for the growth of fungi, and attach itself to the underside of a leaf.

As the infection continues to grow, the fungi will drain the ants body of all nutrients before a fruiting body breaks through the ant's head in order to release the fungus's spores and continue spreading the infection to other nearby insects. Within 4-10 days the ant's body will have deteriorated to the point of death and the body will remain stuck to the underside of the leaf.

Currently, this fungus only infects insects, however The Last Of Us draws on the question, what would happen if this infection evolved to infect humans too?

In a recent article from Craig Mazin, producer and writer, and Neil Druckman, creative director of the game, spoke about the inspiration for the games infection. “We know from watching movies that there’s a zombie virus but we’re not doing a virus”, instead they decided to lean into science and nature to try and ground the games infection within a horrifying but possible reality, “we are realizing that fungus can be deadly and the very things we fiddle about with to expand our minds are very powerful neurotoxins and psychoactive drugs that can take over lesser organisms completely, and there’s no reason to think that this couldn’t happen in higher organisms as well." (quote sourced from here)

INFECTION ORIGIN:

In The Last Of Us, a mutated strain of the Ophiocordyceps Unilateral infection known as the Cordyceps Brain Infection (CBI) spread approximately on September 26th 2013, the date of Joel's birthday.

It's revealed through a newspaper report within the game that a “mysterious infection” had spread via “contaminated crops”, which in the show is said to be items such as wheat and sugar.

However, when someone is infected they spread the infection through biting others and once the host dies, their body will begin to release infectious spores, similar to the fruiting body of ants infected by the Ophiocordyceps unilateralis. Because of this, in both the show and games it is implied that the infection spreads much faster and ruthlessly within buildings and densely populated cities. However, survivors can protect themselves from deadly spores by wearing gas masks to filter the air.

Once a host is infected, symptoms will begin within a couple of days, with many notes within the game revealing that the infection started with flu-like symptoms, such as headaches and confusion before developing into aggressive and erratic behaviour.

The fungus grows while the host is still alive, developing over time to create multiple stages of infection. However, due to the mutation of the Cordyceps infection with some form of virus, the infection continues to affect the host while keeping them alive, rather than killing them from the inside like the Ophiocordyceps unilateralis infection.

STAGES OF INFECTION:

[ 1 ] RUNNERS

Runners are the first and weakest stage of infection that takes place approximately two days or less after infection once the Cordyceps have taken over the victims motor functions. They migrate in hoards to swarm enemies and are known for their speed, erratic behaviour, and aggression. As this is the earliest sign of infection, many runners still hold their human traits, such as crying and screaming, however the fungus has begun to affect their eyesight and give them a sickly appearance. Due to their human qualities, it's believed that the hosts are still fully conscious during this stage of infection.

[ 2 ] STALKERS

Stalkers are the second stage of infection, between two weeks to a month after initial infection. During this stage the fungus has begun to develop across their face, however, they still have human-like characteristics. Stalkers are easily recognisable due to their fast speed and intelligent tactics in order to ambush their victims. While they display a stealthy approach to hunting victims, once they are face to face with their victims they become extremely violent. If isolated within a building, the fungus may grow and cause them to be attached to the wall, where they will eventually become overgrown and die unless a survivor comes close, causing them to break free and attack.

Stalkers are mostly silent, making them unlikely to spot on listen mode, however at this stage of infection they have begun to possess echolocation, similar to that of clickers. When coming into contact with stalkers it is important to check your surroundings.

[ 3 ] CLICKERS

Clickers are the third stage of infection in 'The Last of Us' universe, that appear after approximately a year of exposure to the cordyceps fungal infection. They're easily recognisable due to the fungus growth that has mutated and overrun their face, leaving them completely blind with layers of fungus covering their entire body.

This loss of sight has led them to develop a weak form of echolocation in order to locate prey through sound waves, causing them to create unsettling clicking and screeching sounds and become extremely sensitive to sound. While they have developed a form of echolocation, it is not strong enough for them to locate nearby prey unless they make sound by running or are stood directly in front of them, making it possible to sneak past them if needs be.

Clickers are also stronger and more aggressive than both runners and stalkers due to the development of hard fungus that provides protection for clickers from certain attacks, making it harder to kill them as they're defended by a shield of fungus mass.

[ 4 ] BLOATERS

Bloaters are the fourth stage of infected that form after years of exposure to the cordyceps fungal infection, making them extremely rare as very few people are able to withstand the effects of the infection long enough to become a bloater.

As clickers become bloaters, their echolocation massively improves and allows them to locate targets through sound waves, regardless of where they are around them.

Bloaters are known for their physical strength and aggression, often instantly killing their victims once they are within melee attack range. However, they are also extremely tough to kill due to the thick fungus that covers their entire body, allowing them to withstand large amounts of brute force.

In addition to their brute force, bloaters also have the ability to release bombs of mycotoxin, a deadly toxin produced by fungi, that causes damage to humans over time and allows for distance attacks as well as their melee strength.

[ 4.5 ] SHAMBLERS:

Shamblers are a type of infected, first seen in The Last of Us part two, that form when clickers that are transforming into bloaters are exposed to high levels of water or humidity, making them common in sewers and rainy environments.

Similar to bloaters, shamblers are covered in fungal growth that provides a layer of protection and also have the ability to attack prey using acidic mycotoxin spores, that are also released after they die. However, unlike bloaters, shamblers are not entirely blind allowing them to hunt prey using sight rather than echolocation but are slightly weaker than their related stage of infection.

END NOTES :D

hi guys !! i'd just like to start this by saying thank you if you managed to reach the end of this slight infodump. i'm genuinely not an expert in fungal infections, just a giant nerd who's obsessed with the last of us.

i'm planning on making a seperate post on the rat king as, as far as i'm aware, there has only been one. plus, there's more to say about the rat king than other infected.

i'll put a link to it here once it is done ->

[prokopetz]

The constant rolling disaster that is Overwatch's game development aside, what really perplexes me about how Blizzard is handling the broader franchise is their continual insistence that a canon narrative exists in spite of their equally continual refusal to tell anyone what it is.

Like, okay, the events of the games aren't canon. Fair enough: the games are multiplayer-only, and you can't account for player actions.

Oh, and the animated short films aren't canon either – they're properly understood as in-universe propaganda, not depictions of actual events. That's a little high concept for you guys, but fine.

But surely the comics are canon, right? Well, no; some of the comics (we're not telling you which ones) were canon at one point, but the writing team has decided to go in a different direction.

My dudes, what is left? The weird Source Filmmaker porn? Is that canon? Well, apparently it's at least as canon as anything else!

[setaflow]

Gay pride happens in June and gay wrath happens whenever hbomberguy drops a 3+ hour video essay about a specific topic

[supernowa-art]

it fit them too well to not draw it

[filipmagnuswrites]

Star Wars Jedi: Survivor's Ending is Peak Star Wars | Video Game (Video) Essay

The video and text below spoil the ending to Star Wars: Jedi Survivor. Trust, betrayed. Friends and mentors slaughtered. Unendurable loss, endured. But how well? Jedi Survivor’s ending cutscene highlights a side to Cal Kestis we haven’t seen, and illuminates before the player an emotion that games continue to struggle in representing: grief. Despairing grief, the sorrow of not only losing the…

[tossawary]

I just know in my heart of hearts that in "Star Trek" at one point, there was some moral panic somewhere on Vulcan (among the uppity sorts) because Human culture was "infecting" the local youth with their overly emotional, destructive, unproductive, frivolous, and uneducational ways.

And what was actually happening was that a bunch of Vulcan kids got really into 23rd-century "Minecraft" or something.

Small Vulcan child @ another Vulcan child: (in a tone that sounds flat to Humans but angry as hell to Vulcans) "You have compromised the optimization of my fortress. I am having an emotional urge to blow up your house... in Minecraft."

[freenos]

I think it’s so interesting how Medea is the person Melinoe tends to discuss moral quandaries with, especially on her way to battling Prometheus.

[a-chaotic-dumbass]

i hate the idea of sansa ending up as this cold ice queen when through out the books one of her defining characteristics has been kindness. kindness to dontos when joffrey wanted him executed, kindness to the woman with the baby during the riot, kindness to an injured lancel despite cersei's words, kindness through warning margaery of the type of person joffrey is, kindness to sandor clegane and sweetrobin in the vale. sansa even says that once she was queen, she'd wish to rule with kindness when cersei encourages her to rule with fear during the battle of the blackwater. i cant imagine a world where grrm would genuinely go with the idea that only once you refuse love and warmth can you rule

[minyard-05]

no no no guys do you. Do you get it.

^^^^ this wasn't aaron warning neil off of andrew!! this was a test!!

it was a test in the exact same way andrew threatening katelyn at the library was a test, the same way andrew drugging neil at eden's was a test– this is aaron assessing neil as a threat to andrew and to him. if he'd wanted andreil to be over, he would've fucking said it– he would've outright told neil to stay away from his brother. but he doesn't. he asks why. admittedly, he doesn't do it in the best of ways, but that's the point. he purposefully gets neil angry to see if he'll slip up and give something away. that's why he brings up drake and that's why it had to be aaron. aaron doesn't give a fuck what neil thinks of him, he's well aware that neil doesn't like him and he doesn't care. but he's able to get to him through andrew, essentially, and if anything, aaron's right. neil is exactly as much of a violation of their deal as katelyn is– aaron is approaching the situation the exact same way andrew did. andrew understands that, so if he did know that aaron talked to neil (and i think he probably would've figured it out if neil doesnt tell him), he wouldn't be able to hold it against him the same way aaron can't hold andrew's threats to katelyn against his brother.

nicky is the one that thinks it's hate sex, aaron thinks its something else. neil passes aaron's test the second he punches him, really. the fact that he leaves after neil admits he doesn't think andrew would fight for him is clear evidence– aaron didn't approach that conversation expecting neil to admit he was just using andrew (and if he had, aaron probably would've punched him)– he went into it knowing that it had to happen in order for the deal to be ended. neil tells aaron to figure out what you have to do to make him let you go, and that's exactly what aaron does. he figures out that neil is how he breaks the deal and he takes that to andrew as an ultimatum– either they keep the deal and break things off with both of their partners, or the deal is over; andrew keeps neil, aaron keeps katelyn.

aaron minyard is a LOT smarter than he lets on– the reason we don't see all of this play out is because neil doesn't realise that he's technically part of that deal.

[lucabyte]

Yeah, that about sums it up.

[ordi3nary]

zzzzz

[prokopetz]

You've heard of "spending eight minutes very slowly summarising a topic's Wikipedia article is not analysis"; now get ready for "spending eight minutes exhaustively listing every time a video game's any% speedrun record has been broken, on what date, and by whom is not discussing the history of the run".

[canine-economy]

Daisuke’s Death and the Invisible Abuse of “Privileged” Children

tw: extensive discussions of child emotional abuse

Another mouthwashing text analysis before I post any polished art? Shocker. But I really really appreciate the reception on my Swansea post, especially as a new account! This Daisuke-centric analysis is gonna be a quick one (< this was a lie. long read ahead!) but he is a character who resonates deeply personally with me as a victim of abuse that looked very much like his own. I do plan on doing a larger analysis of his character, but the abridged version necessary for this piece goes as follows:

Daisuke’s treatment in the narrative—both his implied home life and Jimmy’s taking advantage of him to go into the vent—is another one of this game’s excellent portrayals of normalized (and thus invisibilized) abuse. Children are often cited as one of the most vulnerable classes of people, if not the most vulnerable (I acknowledge that Daisuke is not a child, but Mouthwashing implies that this narrative of his inadequacy has persisted throughout his upbringing and, to this day, he is dictated tasks and lacks independence, treated like a dependent. His youth is also an undisputed feature of his character and, most importantly, the cast treats him like a kid). Children’s dependency on adults and our willingness as a society to accept that the adults in their lives provide the most objective perspective on these young people renders them particularly prone to abuse easily swept under the rug or “justified” by wardens who possess the power to dictate the narrative. Jimmy’s engagement with Daisuke is an extension of the latter’s vulnerability. The co-pilot’s assertion that “he’ll be fine (…) mommy and daddy have him covered” at the birthday party represents a deference to Daisuke’s parents as adequate caretakers who will ensure his longevity and comfort on the basis of their wealth. And we know that Daisuke’s parents think the same—the Q&As reveal that they believe they are doing the best to secure their son a good future. However, the same Q&As indicate that they don’t actually engage with or understand Daisuke’s interests and that their approach to parenting him is entirely understood through their personal beliefs, not those of their son. And Daisuke clearly carries that quite close to his heart. He seems to struggle with identity and acceptance, seeking validation in the form of praise. Daisuke is defined through what he can do for others and not what he independently brings to the table, because that has never mattered where he grew up. The consequences of his parents’ failure to meet his emotional needs ultimately conditioned Daisuke to be perfectly available to be taken advantage of in a corporate setting defined by capitalist attitudes and hierarchies.

While it’s not concrete to say that Daisuke grew up in an emotionally abusive household, it is most important that we cannot dismiss the possibility and that his behavior as the outcome of some obvious degree of neglect is well-aligned with this theory. Moreover, the young man who comes out of that household is easily targeted by Jimmy’s abusive tendencies as a direct result of what he internalizes growing up. Daisuke is apparently financially well-off (contextually we can’t be sure if Daisuke’s family is upper class, middle class, or somewhere in between), and with that comes privilege. Even the way he packs—multiple personalized outfits, entertainment devices, etc—reveal that he’s used to certain comforts and hasn’t yet acclimated to the harsh expectations of companies like the Pony Express. But, especially where young people are concerned, it is all too easy to allow this privilege to act as a curtain between abuse and the outside world. We can acknowledge the privilege and also recognize that it benefits his parents much more than it benefits him as a young person.

Emotional abuse is complex and extremely damaging and Daisuke *does* show symptoms of at least being constantly verbally accosted and emotionally neglected by his parents to the point of permanently warping his sense of self. It also generated his overreliance on authority figures to tell him how to keep himself safe in their world. His mother apparently insulted him to his face (“such a slacker, she said”, and being reprimanded for being too talkative [from the Daisuke teaser]), and a lot of his negative self talk (“total screw-up”, “fuck up”, etc) is reminiscent of how people define themselves by parroting what they are called after internalizing consistent externally-imposed definitions of their identity. While these are not surefire indicators of abuse and I am not willing to diagnose a situation as abusive purely predicated on these factors, the behaviors Daisuke exhibits as a result share many commonalities with those of victims of childhood abuse. In fact, just about every time Daisuke speaks about himself in Mouthwashing, he mentions his failures and his work. It’s not lost on me that the teaser for the whole character is him pondering his mother and how she might not recognize him if he isn’t noisy and obnoxious. He personally puts a lot of stock in their assessment of him as lazy and annoying, but nevertheless tries to accomplish learning through the internship. Furthermore, Daisuke takes on a lot of his mother’s pain, hoping she doesn’t blame herself for the negative things that happen to him (even though in the same scene he reveals that she’s the reason he’s on the stranded Tulpar at all), indicating that he has taken responsibility for the feelings of people in his life even when those people are not his to care for and even bear responsibility for his pain.

Now in young adulthood, Daisuke rarely seems to have any sense of self beyond his parents and his work aside from one-off quips about baseball and babes. It suggests that he has always had to prioritize his parents’ desires growing up to avoid being treated unfairly and even cruelly, stunting his self-discovery. In abusive situations, your understanding of safety and your pursuit thereof are radically impacted and we see this manifest in Daisuke’s continuing willingness to accept those in command as the pinnacle of safety over what one might consider logical, personal acts of self-preservation. He equates safety with obedience, and I contend that that equivalence suggests a lot about how his parents reprimanded deviance from their plans. And not to be that guy, but it is kind of outright cruel to dump your utterly inexperienced teenager-to-early-20-something on a 1 year, no contact, unsafe space voyage in a failing industry knowing that he doesn’t have the necessary skillset yet. That’s what his parents do when they aren’t satisfied with his progress, and it’s intense and disproportionate and alarming! Especially for the dependent! They toss him into the deep end of the corporate machine and insist he learns to swim in such an oppressive, stifling atmosphere. It’s no surprise that he drowns, especially when he himself can’t recognize this as an unrealistic expectation and tackles it with everything he’s got because his parents are theoretically always right about what he needs. I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that normalized emotional abuse from the home and how it maps onto a victim’s adult life is a topic Mouthwashing would endeavor to touch on, because visibilizing invisible abuses of power in heteropatriarchal capitalist schemes is arguably the central undertaking of the game.

I don’t think Daisuke has evil parents or anything, rather that what we accept as “good parenting” and “good mentorship” is often negligent with regard to emotional needs and can easily become a source of heavy trauma for the children and mentees if that emotional aspect is stretched too thin in the pursuit of success. Not all abuse is intentional, and the dev Q&As imply that Daisuke’s parents thought they were sincerely investing in his future. They cared, just not in the best way for his wellbeing. Because capitalism emphasizes the individualistic pursuit of success above all else, it’s no wonder that a parent would think that the best thing they can give their kid is an avenue to prosper financially. But in doing so, Daisuke’s parents deny him the opportunity to define himself, to experience agency, and to build up confidence. Effectively, they create a young man so vulnerable to abuse by higher-ups (a manifestation of abuse that is often intentional at the systemic level) that he decides to climb into that vent at Jimmy’s discretion under the pretense that he will make somebody proud. Because that’s how Daisuke has been raised to understand himself and his place—the presumed screw-up boy as a default, making you proud by doing the right thing, who has learned to pursue that achievement to avoid the condescension and disproportionate backlash (e.g. the internship itself) that comes with failure. Everything circles back to his parents’ expectations that he makes for a good worker. When the cocktail knocks Swansea out, Daisuke makes an offhand comment about getting a bad reference—even in the most dire of circumstances, he can’t stop thinking about their capitalistic expectations for his “good” future.

I find that Daisuke really is such a good subtle portrayal of how parents with resources can get away with emotionally stunting their children because we perceive their ability to put a roof over their heads, food on their plate, etc as adequate parenting and even a privilege for the child when it should be the bare minimum. Jimmy certainly buys into it, and even some of the fandom parrots that, really and truly believing Daisuke is some good-for-nothing kid who doesn’t try hard when all we see is him working, including climbing into the vents to try and help despite not being assigned the work (foam scene, not his death). I find this reception shows how inclined we are to accept those narratives of the privileged child’s inadequacy before we address the parent for not fulfilling a child’s emotional needs, which are just as important if not more than the material.

To wrap this up with a quick discussion of the symbolism of his death in the context of the emotional abuse of children (which is the reason I made this whole post but I can’t talk about this guy without going off): Daisuke getting so badly injured trying to do what’s right is a very physical manifestation of the suffering he was already going through. It is the pain of constantly people-pleasing and of holding it all in when he’s lashed out at. He gets injured at all in the pursuit of appeasing Jimmy and (theoretically) Swansea, both of whom he blindly trusts despite how they treat him because he has always been expected to just adhere to the adults with authority in his life. Being talked down to by them is not new and has never been a reason to question their judgement. Daisuke sees this as a product of his own inadequacy as implied by other people, and not of external cruelty. He was raised not to question the system for fear of repercussions.

Jimmy is perfectly situated to coerce him into a dangerous situation because Daisuke has never been taught to say no. The safest option for a scared child is to trust their mentors, and an adult Daisuke does just that. Even Swansea’s teachings of safety are dismantled by Jimmy’s tactical use of captainhood to break the camel’s back. Authority. Daisuke must always listen to authority. Jimmy knows the vent isn’t safe. Swansea tells him directly and he observes the foam incident (if from a distance). For as much as he acts like he cares about taking responsibility for Daisuke’s safety, his individualistic pursuit of “fixing” things manifests in Jimmy again taking advantage of a vulnerable person on the ship. Jimmy doesn’t reconcile Daisuke’s eagerness to help with lessons on safety like Swansea does, but rather uses it only when it benefits him. Daisuke is taught by his upbringing to accept this kind of treatment—for safety, defer to the leader in the room even if it hurts and you don’t want to do it (just like he didn’t want to be on the Tulpar in the first place).

Then, once the intern is out of the vent and mortally wounded, Jimmy applies the mouthwash (a product to be sold, hauled in the interest of the corporation) to “help” sanitize the wounds. But the sugar content negates medical utility and only worsens the pain. We can interpret this as the application of material privilege, “sweetness”, that wasn’t actually any help at all to solve the deep wounds left by emotional pains. Mouthwash rids you of the bad taste but doesn’t kill all the underlying germs. One could argue further that in this scene, the mouthwash is specifically representative of the Pony Express internship: a rare stepping stone in the corporate hustle gained through privilege and presented as a boon. Like the mouthwash, the internship is imposed on Daisuke to try and “help” him succeed and be better, but it only elevates the pain by irritating the wounds and ends in his agonizing demise. However, this fine-tuned comparison isn’t necessary to my point. I find the broad implications of the mouthwash as an antiseptic immensely representative of parents and caretakers who don’t seem abusive to the outside world but who are actually subversively hurting their children and ultimately conditioning them to be victimized by capitalist attitudes. Our deference to material comforts and corporate opportunities as indicators of wellness renders us blind to where caretakers fail to address the emotional needs of young people. At the end of the day, Daisuke is still killed by the values his parents have instilled in him. It’s always the “captain’s” (literal or figurative) orders that seal the deal and cut off any of his autonomous doubt or dictation (for example, his desire to listen to Swansea and not go in the vent). His parents’ symbolic and saccharine gestures mean very little in the scheme of creating a person who can survive the pressures of the “real world” when malicious actors (JIMMY.) and the capitalist enterprise as a whole bear down on the cracks of an emotionally taxing youth.

A/N: Maybe I’m thinking about all of this too hard, but the beauty of Mouthwashing is that I’m never quite sure that’s the case as this game feels so deliberate. Anyway, as somebody who has clinically diagnosed PTSD stemming from childhood, this has always been a really important analysis to posit and I finally found the time to put it into words. I feel like Daisuke as a symbol is often overlooked by the fandom. He’s enjoyed, yes, but not really broken down like the others are. That diminishing of his importance and his feelings about the situation also feels like a symptom of his age. But that’s neither here nor there—like I said, I believe I could do a much more in-depth analysis of Daisuke as a victim of subtle abuse but this will have to do for now. A lot of my major points have been made, anyway! Perhaps video format would be best for something longer-form. 🌺

[dykedvonte]

Awareness is a thing specifically attached to Anya while ignorance is specifically attached to Curly.

I think it's so poinignt that she wears contacts. It hides a weakness if you think about it like Jimmy. But they are also this invisible thing that allows her to see better. Perhaps it's her position as the only woman on board. Maybe it's her being acutely aware of how dangerous Jimmy is. Or maybe it's just to point out how she specifically always sees how the little details make up the big picture. She dies with her eyes wide open, she never was able to look away even in death.

I think it's so important that Curly only lost one of his eyes but also his eyelid. He's half blind to it all, like he was originally. Never quite aware of Jimmy but not completely unaware of who he could be. To be honest, maybe he is still half blind, the damage would make it a responsible conclusion. He still might not be able to see the little things, but now he can't look look away. He is frozen with his eyes wide open looking at all the little things he accidentally ignored.