#not to be like 'youre enjoying this media wrong'

[askshivanulegacy]

Yeaaaaah the internet and social media do not understand what real cultural appropriation is.

Anything you buy from the original culture is totally fine, of course. You can also just make these things yourself, and it's totally fine.

In reality, there's not much of anything that an individual, private person can do that's "cultural appropriation."

You can make things, wear things, do your hair, fix food, be inspired by designs and elements from other cultures and it's cool if you put in the time to understand what different symbology means but also you don't have to. You're going to have a different perspective and interpretation of things anyway. That's ok! Things will be meaningful to you in different ways and that's totally fine! If you just like the design elements and you want to use them in things you make, that's great!

Cultural exchange happens forever, everywhere.

Unless you're a corporation profiting off something specific to another culture and not funding that culture, then you haven't appropriated anything.

The things you enjoy in the privacy of your home and in your personal life are your business. No one can tell you that you're doing it "wrong."

It’s difficult to tell what is and isn’t cultural appropriation to some people I think. There’s things I don’t wear which I’d like to wear that people from said culture have said anybody can wear this that I don’t wear because I’ve seen how people on the internet react to the fact I have dream catchers in my room

[raven-at-the-writing-desk]

So... twst anime—

I feel I should be much more excited than I actually am. Don't get me wrong- I am excited ( for Leona animated content ) to see how they'll handle some things- but apart from the worries you listed, I just... I know this sounds a little gatekeepy but an anime will mean more ppl will know and talk about the story and I fear that they won't go into the game/other content and thus have a limited opinion on characters/events and misunderstand them. Basically I fear that characters will be even more mischaracterized than they already ( sometimes ) are by the current fandom 😭 ( specially Leona- gunshots )

[Referencing this post!]

I feel like there's for sure been mixed reactions to the recent anime news. The general consensus is excitement, but occasionally I've also seen skepticism or worries that the anime won't be as good as the long period since the initial announcement would have had us believe. That's to be expected; we won't know the quality of the anime until we watch it ourselves.

Mmm, there's that age-old sentiment again 😅 The thought of, "More people will be exposed to Twst because of this; I'm worried they will misunderstand the story/characters." It always seems to make a comeback whenever a new major piece of Twst media is announced... It happened when the official EN localization was announced too. People were jumping to conclusions and worrying that the influx of "EN-only" folks and/or a sub-par localization would lead to newer fans not seeing the story and characters the same way as the JP side did. I'll repeat what I said back then (as I think the same logic applies), along with a few additional points/expansions, as are relevant:

As you've said, mischaracterization happens, even now. This is normal in fandom, and it doesn't necessarily make fandom a "bad" space. Variation in thought is a normal human thing in general and I don't think it should be discouraged. If everyone thought the exact same way, life would be boring and we would have a limited number of ideas circulating.

This thinking sort of presupposes that the Twst fandom is currently without issues (or has few of them) and that it is the growth of the fandom that will cause problems. From experience, I can tell you that fandoms always have their toxic pockets. Fandoms growing larger just exposes more of those pockets because, statistically speaking, with more bodies present, there's a higher chance something will come to light, be it a personal squabble, a cultural difference, actually serious allegations, etc. It's a natural part of a fandom's lifecycle.

How other people interpret the story/characters should have limited or no bearing whatsoever on your own enjoyment. It does not erase your own views on the story/characters either. If you find that your concerns about others are becoming overwhelming, I'd encourage you to take a step back and think about what in this fandom makes you happy.

I feel that the mentality I mentioned earlier stems from an "us versus them" mindset. We're viewing current Twsties as the "in" group and everyone else as the "out" group... when, really, I think it might be healthier to perceive the "out" group as potential Twsties. Like... instead of fearing them as strangers coming in to "taint" the fandom, let's try to think of them as "friends we haven't met yet". After all, these anime-first or anime-only Twsties could end up being your next buddy, someone cool you meet at an event, a Twst content creator you enjoy, etc. Try to reframe your thinking!

Lastly!! We have no idea how the anime will go. They might not make it solely the main story just because it’s a manga adaptation. The team might have weaved in vignettes/event stories or bonus content exclusive to the anime which helps flesh out the characters.

I think that about wraps up my thoughts. I hope that helps alleviate some of your concerns. Hang tight, keep an open mind, and pray that the L*ona content in the anime is good 🤡

[jellybeanium124]

also like you can enjoy your izzy fanon where he's a defanged secret nice boy with a sweet crush on ed without deciding that's the canon dynamic. like some people will still be squicked out by that, but like, you can do that. you can write izzy the good guard dog and steddyhands where everyone is chill and all kinds of OOC things without it being discourse. just tag your stuff and don't act like you're writing something all that close to canon. you are allowed to write fanfiction that doesn't remotely relate to canon because that's what you want to write. people are mad at you and call it "discourse" because you insist that your fanon ideas about izzy are coherent with the character we got in the show and that anyone who doesn't like your fanon izzy is actually the one who is wrong about media. no. just, go enjoy your fanon creation in peace.

[possessedopossum]

The Veilguard: my full review [positive, long post, less about game mechanics and more about meta, spoilers]

The thing that makes Veilguard special to me is how self aware the game is. In every dialogue, plot twist or quest I can feel the presence of somebody who wanted to share something with me. Be it personal experience, message, pain or joy. As of 2024, many games have lost their creative spark. Video game industry is no longer a nerd only zone, it's a business no different than others. Many studios utilize AI to write their plots, chase after current trends or simply make decisions that would create the biggest audience possible at the expense of something people love the franchise for. Veilguard did well, because it showed me something I haven't seen in a very long time: the human soul.

Perhaps you have noticed it on your own. The world has gone completely nuts after the covid. Or maybe it has always been this way and I only noticed it now. It is not a surprise to me that players want their game to be darker, to have more aggressive dialogue and to have a morally grey or even evil protagonist. For the past few years I've been feeling like someone had turned the lights off. And the game gave me an impression that someone at bioware feels this way too.

Only negativity gives content creators views and money these days. Open any social media, read any post or watch any video. If something is on top, it's almost always a hate post. What was the last movie most reviewers enjoyed? The last game? Perhaps the one that was released 10 years ago? What was the last time, you, my dear reader, have smiled? Not bitterly or sardonically, but out of genuine joy?

It is extremely fitting that Rook's mentor figure is Varric. Varric is somebody who always sees the best in people. He grew up in one hell of a city but he still loves it. He can find something to laugh about no matter how dire the situation is. He is a people person who can build friendship with anybody. Varric is very charismatic and tends to avoid conflict. He is a chronic liar but that doesn't make him bad because he never lies with malicious intentions. And in some ways, Rook is similar to him.

Yes, Rook can't be a complete asshole. Because the game is not about being an asshole. One of our antagonists, Solas, considers the world to be sick. Modern Thedas is a grave mistake that haunts him. He can't forget and move on because even the elves themselves wear his mistakes on their faces. Many things that are normal to the player character aren't normal to Solas. The world is so wrong and disgusting to Solas that he is willing to sacrifice things and people who are dear to him just to make the twisted world better.

Rook is nice because they are supposed to represent what is good in modern Thedas. They are supposed to be somebody who thinks the world is worth fighting for. And to a certain extent, their factions as well. The crows are contract killers and the lords of fortune are thiefs. Grey wardens are very concerned with politics and all the secrets they refuse to share constantly get people killed. Mourn watch has their immoral power hungry politicians as well and veil jumpers are sometimes willing to trade people for ancient secrets. They all aren't without sin but that's not the point. The point is, even with all the ugliness and darkness, there is still a place for light. And the light in the darkness is the exact message bioware tried to convey. The crows not being comically evil is not bad writing. It is a conscious writing choice to give us a human face for something we consider ugly and not worth fighting for. The player is metaphorically Solas, who needs to be persuaded that the world is worth at least something. The writers didn't need to bare the souls of player factions in all their mistakes, imperfections and cruelty. Because they showed us the factions' humanity. Some cruelty is still there, on the background, but it doesn't overshadow what is good. The crows, no matter how terrible, are a family. Viago may call Rook an idiot and while Rook considers their training literal torture, they sure love Viago back.

In fact, familial love is one of the core themes of the Veilguard. We have Emmrich and Manfred, Davrin and Assan and uncle Endrin, Lucanis and Caterina and Illario, Taash and Shathann, Bellara and Cyrian. It's a bit less direct with Neve and Harding. Neve has a lot of love for her city which is almost like a person to her, and Harding...I'll explain with a quote. "You're Lace Harding! You're more than this rage! You believe that the world is beautiful! That people are good! Hold onto it, hold on to who you are!".

Even the evanuris share the theme of family. Rook can compare Elgar'nan and Solas to relatives who can't get along. Elgar'nan calls Ghilan'nain his sister. Both shards of Mythal consider modern elves her children. Different but no less beloved, as Morrigan puts it.

Veilguard shows family without rose-tinted glasses. It shows that sometimes to love your children is to sacrifice something else you love (Lichdom for Emmrich), that parents have their own problems that may harm their children no matter how much parents wish to protect them (Shathann understands she is not the best mother and has complicated relationships with the Qun that harmed Taash), that sometimes parents do not understand their children at all and it's only up to children themselves to close the gap in understanding (Mythal, Solas and Rook), that familial love and desire to protect your family may turn into something ugly (Caterina being cruel to her grandchildren to prepare them for harsh realities of the antivan crows).

There is conflict in Veilguard, of intergenerational nature. Companions and their families, Rook and their faction leader, elves ancient and modern. It's up to the player how to deal with the last one. Humans, dwarves and qunari may not share blood ties with ancient elves but they still live in the world ancient elves created. As Rook, you're allowed to lash out in anger at Mythal and Solas. You can call Mythal guilty of all modern problems and fight her. You can bind Solas to the veil by force, call him asshole and express your frustrations with him multiple times throughout the game. You can also express sympathy and forgive them both. Because forgiving is neither condoning nor condemning, it's understanding and letting go. Being understood and allowed to peacefully let go of his mistakes is the exact thing that Solas needs to change his mind.

I believe that the Veilguard companions are one of the very best I've ever seen in a video game. They may not have as many different fates as for example Alistair has but is goodness measured with the amount of ways a character can be killed? I love the Veilguard crew because they all feel very real. Their personal problems are universal and very close to the player. Taash's story is not about being non-binary. It's about growing up, finding your place in the world, separating from your family and learning to appreciate it despite the mistakes your parents did while parenting you.

It's hard to decide who is my favorite. Taash's story made me cry but so did Harding's and Bellara's. The last scenes of Lucanis romance made me feral. I can't stomach the scene where Davrin and Assan die. The consequences of destruction of Minrathous/Treviso were hard to look at. I felt guilt, and if a game makes me feel something, it's a good game. I laughed, I cried, I was afraid and I felt joy, I was angry, I felt shame, I felt love. The game made me feel alive, I played through Rook's story like it was my own, what not to love about it?

The double blight wreaking havoc in Southern Thedas is sad but beautifully symbolic. Almost like a love letter from a long lost lover, It felt like bioware's meta commentary to me. "Yes, a whole lot of time has passed. We are no longer as young as we used to be, and so are you, not only the player, but our treasured friend as well. We have changed, you have changed and so did the world around us. Gaming and the video game industry are not what they used to be. We will never be able to go back no matter how much we want it because the only path that is left is the path forward. It doesn't mean that we no longer remember our shared past, no. We may not be able to go back but we promise to remember it fondly. We are still capable of creating beauty and the past will serve as a foundation for something new. We still have hope, and so should you".

The Veilguard to me is about nostalgia as well. I don't want to feed my inner Solas who sees the current world as sick. I want to make space for my inner Rook who is hopeful about the world just enought to fight for its future.

[itsfrenchfornothankyou]

okay so you said genuine question and im not from around here but i do have an answer! so you've unlocked an unskippable cutscene!

this is a much bigger topic than it appears on the surface, and i might be able to answer your question succinctly and briefly, but it would miss out on a lot of the stuff happening behind the scenes which is actually very important!

since this is going to be quite long (I did a rough notes on my thoughts and what i might say and it was almost 1k. so.) i am going to put the rest under a readmore

but now that you've clicked the button and commited, let's break this into parts for both our sakes.

part 1: moral purity and the loss of 'squick'

so there's been a fun phenomenon happening lately online, and it's the idea that you can assign morals by the type of things that someone likes. that the act of enjoying something or disliking something is an inherently moral act.

this in itself has a lot of reasons behind it, and digging through that history would be an essay in its own right, so im going to glaze over it. but the current state of affairs is that your own personal taste, be it in media, in people, or yes, sexual thoughts (even ones without actions) are in themselves, moral.

no matter the cause of these feelings, the outcome is this: if you find yourself liking or disliking something, there must be some reason behind it. if you find yourself grossed out by something, there is a moral and justifyable reason behind it.

this is, to me, related to the loss of the idea of a 'squick'; something that just grossed you out. 'squicks' didnt have to be triggers, they didnt have to be evil or harming you, they were a preference about something you just personally did not like.

now however, along with other terms, we have lost the idea of a 'squick' and so if you don't like something there must be a reason this thing is evil.

so now you have people seeing things like animal packers, and they are for some reason uncomfortable with them. where we might have once said 'oh well, not for me', we must now have a reason for why we are uncomfortable with this idea.

1.5: the perpetrator and the victim

in any given situation, to prevent discourse from becoming muddied or hard to answer, there must always be a person who is definitively in the right, and a person who is in the wrong.

this is a really normal reaction, it's hard to accept something as not having a clear answer, and so it's easy to find ourselves doubling down on something so we dont have to confess to the worst thing of all 'i dont know'.

Coming from disability advocacy, it's important to recognise that there are going to be situations which are not clear cut, in which nobody has done anything wrong, but people have ended up hurt or upset. sometimes needs and people are simply incompatible, and there's nothing wrong or evil there.

but that is difficult and scary, so instead it's much easier to talk about the victim and the villain. if someone is being hurt (i am looking at something that grosses me out) then someone must be intentionally hurting them (evil gross kinksters)

In this understanding of things, the discomfort itself must be harm done, and if harm is being done, then someone must be at fault. it becomes a matter of who is the perpetrator and who is the victim. So in order for them to be uncomfortable and not be evil themselves, the thing that is making them uncomfortable must be evil itself.

now that we've established these things we can actually get around to answering the actual question you asked:

Part 2: why zoophillia?

if this person has deemed the act that these people have done to be evil or bad, why not just call the act itself (which i am given to understand is hyper-realistic animal packers?) evil?

well what you surely understand, and somehwere in the back of their brain they understand, is that that's incredibly fucking stupid.

if you walk up to the average person and say hey, this person is doing this evil thing, and explain that, theyre going to think you're insane. so how are they supposed to tell the average person that this person is evil? they escelate it to most awful acusation they can think of in the moment.

in most communities, the terrible thing that they will accuse someone of is pedophillia, but in the therian circles, they dont need to escelate it to that point, because there is already a hot button topic they can point to instead.

Zoophillia, as i am given to understand, is one of the most hot button topics in the therian community. it is the group which is regularly aligning themselves with therians, that many if not most therians want nothing to do with.

it's also a group that is often conflated with therians, meaning that many therians have an immediate 'no fuck off that's not us' reaction to it, as a form of self preservation. because as soon as people have made a claim that you may be a zoophile, and you fail to respond in the appropriate way, you will be cast out of your own therian in group.

so the use of using zoophillia as an acusation is two-fold. for one, it makes people take the accusation seriously, and for two, it prevents people from doing their own research and looking into it.

because if you are told this person is evil, and if you support them you are also evil, at that point any questioning on your part is seen as complicity in evil acts. as apologism. this person is evil and if you ask my why, you must also be evil.

so lets circle back a little bit here, earlier i mentioned that the typical claim is pedophillia, which everything i said previously about evil acts is still true of, but you might not fully believe me about people escelating to the nearest most terrible thing they can think of, but the thing is that i have seen this before.

Part 2.5: tired asexual

hello again, youve probably never heard of me before, so let me tell you that I'm Asexual. more importantly, I'm an asexual person who has been on tumblr for a solid decade.

if you werent around in the mid to late 10s, you might not know just how bod aphobia on tumblr got, but i was there for it. and you know what the most common accusation of why asexuals, and anyone trying to discuss asexuality were evil?

because discussing asexuality was pedophillia.

yeah, asexuals. the well known 'lack of sexual attraction' community.

Now I can go into the series of claims that led to this, hell I could probably go diving on my old blog and find screenshots of these actual accusations, but that’s kind of besides the point. The point here is that the actual reasons people give for it being ‘insert evil thing’ are unimportant.

yeah, when i say it to you, a person who i am assuming knows a little something about asexuality, that that was the claim, your first thought is that that's an insane thing to say.

but for a lot of people the first time they heard about asexuality was in this discourse. so their brain is now primed to make the connection of 'oh, okay, asexuality is evil.' and now, when they see people defending asexuality, they're already defensive. they assume youre trying to trick them, or make them complicit.

asexuality is not the only place this tactic has been used though, you see it all the time. it's at its most common in things like homophobic legestation, anti-trans bills, or drag bans.

These people cannot justify the initial action as evil, so they jump to something you are more likely to agree with, and try to argue it is the same thing. this is what we call equivocation.

equivication is an incredibly effective tactic in fear-mongering, splitting up groups of people, and getting something innocuous labeled as morally wrong

'Think of the children' is a good example of this. No it’s not that im transphobic, it’s that I’m concerned about children. Therefore, if you’re arguing against me it must be because you yourself hate children and want harm to come to them.  

but not everyone is as obvious as to say 'think of the children' or some other line we've heard a bunch before. they find new ways to say it, and because the current safety tactics are to watch for certain phrases and words, people dont know how to look for underlying beliefs and sentiments, leaving people more vulnerable than ever to this kind of manipulation.

so now i've hopefully answered your initial question of 'why zoophillia', i want to take this a litte bit further and ask, 'what is the end goal?'

part 3: what next?

okay so would you believe me, if i said that until now ive actually been taking an incredibly good faith reading of the discourse so far?

currently I have been presenting this as a misdirection of discomfort, but not necessarily actively malicious. now however, i want to go back to the ace discourse.

bigots on tumblr weren't actually starting shit with the ace community because they really had a bone to pick with asexuals, they were doing it because they were transphobes. Surprise!

this isnt speculation on my part, transphobes have since openly discussed that they used aphobia as a kind of 'gateway' to 'gatekeeping'

if they come out of the gates talking about how 'transexuals are evil' and should be 'kicked out of the lgbt community', then they would be immediately revealed as transphobes and most of the queer community won't listen to them. these transphobic talking points have been around long enough to be identifiable and more easily discussed.

asexuality however was, particularly at the time, very under-discussed. it also wasnt a part of the 'standard' LGBT acronym, which made it easier for them to make the argument that asexual people should not be allowed to be considered part of the community.

aphobia at the time was considered less divisive, you could be more easily convinced that this community you have never heard of is evil, dont question it. theyre pedophiles and groomers, if that isnt enough to convince you theyre evil it must be because you're also an evil person, so don't question it or do your own research. then we might come for you.

This was wildly successful! And now that that campaign has gone so well, they can now openly admit that they were secretly transphobes all along! And wow, you already aligned with us, so you need to double down on hating trans people because the rest of the queer community doesn’t want you back after that bullshit!

now maybe you consider this to be a particularly poor faith reading of the current discourse. maybe i had you in the first half, but all of this stuff about secret transphobes and conservatives playing along in ways that are more acceptable seems a little far fetched and conspiratorial to you. a bit of equivication here and there isnt inherently a sign of deeper sinister intentions. isnt all of this a bit of a stretch?

and maybe youre right, maybe im just someone who has seen something similar play out before, and im jumping to defence at something that wont become the same issue.

but isn't it interesting that the people being most vitriolistically upset about all of this, and attacking the creator of these things and accusing them of zoophillia are also misgendering him?

[Tw: Zoophilia mention]

Genuine question: WHY do so many people in this community jump on everything they find weird and immediate label it as zoophilia?!

Like- animal packers, fantasy toys, yiff art, pet play, kink gear, LITERALLY ANYTHING.

Seriously, relieving dysphoria, having "dirty" urges related to your identity, even straight up liking some freaky shit does NOT mean someone is attracted to animals. And it definitely does not mean they are actively harming/thinking of harming real animals.

People really take whatever is too weird for them and try to accuse it of war crime. Be better y'all.

[angelhummel]

if u think that Rachel berry shouldn't have been the main character ur Kinda a dumb dumb. the core values of the show is annoying theatre kids who are outcasts finding solace in a goddamned glee club,, and you think fuckin qu*nn, br*ttany or s*antana were gonna give that energy??? absolutely fuckin not all they were going to do was be annoying popular people who learn the valuable lesson that popularity isn't everything but

and if the show wasn't about Rachel it would have been about kurt, mercedes, artie or tina being annoying theatre kids who are outcasts

I do actually like santana a fair bit, think Quinn was decent and brittany was definitely a character on the show, but there was nay a reason for a single one of them to truly be the main character

same anon as before but I think I may have made it seem like I was complaining at you but I was just complaining about others who don't have the third eye to see Rachel being the main character was the most logical conclusion xxx

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

oh yeah lmao for a second i was like "did i do something to make them think i thought that way..?" but yeah no i totally agreeee

the people who insist the unholy trinity carried the whole show are sooo dumb like baby they didnt even carry the three seasons you watched :/ but yeah i do like santana but damn those blonde bitches dragged her down so bad

and it always makes me mad that the show was about being an outcast and yet the popular kids always outnumbered the nerds. like 5:7

and dont get me started about the bullshit parade in 6x12 about how the gay, fat, black, disabled, jewish, asian characters need to open their hearts and minds and be more accepting of the cishet white male jock that lowkey bullies them all but is kind of sort of nice bc he didnt call the fat girl fat and let the gay kid take off his jacket before his friends tossed him in the dumpster and also hasnt started using slurs yet. he's a saint that deserves a million second chances (but his girlfriend is still a bitch and we hate her forever)

ugh. screaming internally, screaming eternally etc

[courfee]

James who is a successful author and Regulus who is an expert in some very niche field and James' newest book happens to make references to said niche field. Only James got it wrong and Regulus absolutely drags him on social media for it, founds some kind of James Potter hate club and insists the entire book is bad because what kind of author doesn't even do proper research

[leonardalphachurch]

putting up some decorations for all the ppl coming back to the rvb fandom

[midnightsunnyday]

Nope, it's definitely a lot of us who agree lol. It may not be close to the millions of people who downloaded or play the game, in fact, I don't expect it to be, but it's still enough to warrant a complaint, especially if the same complaint has been stated for years by numerous people regardless of location. I also find it a bit insulting that you think my knowledge about the fandom only extends to the EN speaking or Western fanbase, but sure. Look, I'm sorry if me saying that a badly written game is badly written, but it is. Maybe me stating it to be an "objective fact" was wrong, but it doesn't take much to read through the plot and see the flimsy writing. Popularity doesn't mean much to me, as a lot of things are badly written and popular. I've played the game just as you have and can admit to its many faults while still enjoying it. It's not good and sometimes we have to accept that the things we like aren't the epitome of media quality. If someone gave me Shakespeare and asked me to compare it to Obey Me! I'd either have to lack total reading comprehension or be plain obtuse to think the former was worse than the latter. Me admitting that doesn't take away from its value or its impact, it's just how it is.

I also think you're showing bias in your opinions as well. While you claim my opinions are valid, you seem defensive in me stating them. In fact, I find you to be a bit condescending and your need to defend Solmare from something that was clearly wrong on their part odd, but that's fine.

And I'm not sure why you keep bringing up Solmare's contact information as if I or everyone else are one, not aware of it and have never used it and two, won't continue to state our opinions on the matter on social media regardless. If people are harassing Solmare or anyone else affiliated with them, then that's not cool. But me and others merely stating an issue we have with their conduct is not wrong.

Going to play Devil's Advocate (ha) here for a moment, as someone who has experience working in the industry & game development:

Remember, every single time that any new feature is added to the game (even if that new feature is "just a new artwork and phone call") it means that Solmare is -

Paying artists for the new artwork

Paying writers for the new scripts

Paying the voice actors to record the new voice lines

Paying the game devs, coders, debuggers, etc, to actually implement the new feature into the game without breaking anything

Paying for QA

Paying the translators for all the different language versions (Obey Me is currently available in 4 different languages)

Paying the localisers for all different language versions

Etc, etc

This is all on top of the monthly costs of keeping a live service mobage like OM running smoothly. Anything that isn't paid for by the players is being operated at a loss. This isn't a flaw with OM itself, this is a fact that exists on an industry-wide level.

Secondly, while any concerns about the price are entirely valid, I think that a lot of people are glossing over an important point - Solmare is not charging you $30 for a Date Ticket. Solmare is charging $30 for a BUNDLE, which includes the Date Ticket as well as 300 DP. So this is similar to all the other sales bundles that have been rolled out in the past.

And the price is consistent with the standard price for DP in Akuzon. It has always been about $30 for 300 DP, so the price has not actually changed or been increased. This is an optional, $30 bundle for 300 DP that essentially includes the Date Ticket as a bonus for free.

You're totally justified if you don't want to spend $30 on this. I'm definitely not arguing that. While I think that this feature isn't as bad as some people are saying (I never would have expected any new features to be totally free) I do think that Solmare could have rolled this out in a better way than they did.

I think that most, if not all, of the complaints would disappear if they simply offered different bundles for different price tiers. This is something they've already done in the past, even! Just give people alternatives, like...

$1.39 for the Date Ticket by itself

$10 for 100 DP + Date Ticket

$20 for 200 DP + Date Ticket

$30 for 300 DP + Date Ticket

And so on. I think this probably would have alleviated many people's concerns, and would have made the new feature more accessible for more players.

Now, I don't think that harassing the official Twitter account is the way to go about communicating your thoughts. There's a difference between genuine constructive criticism/feedback given in good faith, and needlessly rude hate comments. "Fuck you, hope your game goes broke" doesn't help anybody, and will only make Solmare less likely to listen to the EN fandom. They've dealt with a lot of harassment from Western fans before, including death threats, and you aren't communicating anything useful or constructive by sending hate to the EN social media account.

Solmare has a Support team that you can email, if you have feedback and you actually want to reach the JP game devs. If you want to let them know that you want other/more affordable options for the new Date Ticket feature, this is the best way to do that. Just remember to be civil, since harassment and hate mail are extremely likely to simply be thrown out before it reaches the hands of anyone in charge.

[perkeleen-lavellan]

I have to say, from my brief foray into the HOTD fandom I can only say, you're all equally toxic and ruin the internet experiences of your own favourite ships by constantly bringing fandom drama into the tags. I have been in some real questionable hot mess fandoms over the years, but considering the newness of the show you guys did in a year what took the whole ass Dragon Age video game series at least 5 to really get going. Congratulations.

[queer-reader-07]

queer characters are allowed to die in media. and it isn’t inherently A Problem or homophobic when they do.

i understand that it hurts seeing queer people die in shows and books and movies, especially if you’re queer and you saw yourself in those characters.

but the thing is, if you want better queer rep in media you have to be ok with queer characters being treated the same way cishet characters are treated. and that means letting them die sometimes.

Bury Your Gays is a problem, I’m not going to pretend like it’s not. but Bury Your Gays isn’t synonymous with every death of a queer character that happens. you’re allowed to be hurt and devastated by a character death, but i don’t think it’s fair to act like that character death is part of some wider issue just because that character is part of a minority group.

not every queer story is sunshine and rainbows with a happily ever after. some queer stories are violent, some are devastating, and people die in some of them. and that is OK.

if we act like queer people can’t die in media we’re contributing to the othering of our community. it’s saying “queer people are this special group you can’t ever do a bad thing to in media because if you do it’s homophobic.” which is not a true statement.

we can’t act like every death of a queer character is homophobic or has capital I Implications about the writer’s opinions on queer people. if we keep pushing that specific narrative queer stories are going to be stifled. writers need to be able to tell the stories they want, even if that includes a queer person dying. and acting like they can’t is doing more harm than good.

you can dislike a writer’s decision, you can stop watching a show because of that decision. that is OK. but you don’t get to go around saying the writer is homophobic because they did something you didn’t like to a character you loved.

[hadesknockedupintheunderworld]

"If you ship these characters together at all you've fundamentally misunderstood the plot of the story"

Bro I get this if like. It's a case where people genuinely are misunderstanding the story

But like bro you know shipping is inherently neutral and doesn't necessarily tell you anything about how someone interprets a piece of media, right?

You know that people who ship something don't always want the thing to be canon, right?

You know that people shipping something doesn't change canon

Right?

[flare-dragon]

Ron's Gone Wrong: An Analysis

I recently rewatched (most of) Ron's Gone Wrong and remembered a few reviews I'd read of it, describing how its message seemed muddied and not very clear...which, ultimately, is true.

But, with that said, there's something I realise about it that it almost gets right (literally, all the way up to its second-last climax is so perfect, and even its ascent to its final climax is still consistent with this realisation). The realisation is that there's one thing it describes really well:

Artificial/Algorithmic "Friendship" vs Organic Relationships

It seems almost simple or obvious that this is the message the movie tried to portray, but the way that it ultimately ended tells me that they either missed the point they were making or someone else forced them to have a different ending (sadly, I think it's the former). I cannot call it a bad movie for missing that point (it's still one my most watched recent movies), but it makes me wonder what it could've been had it brought this point home.

So, without waffling on for too much longer, here's a quick analysis on how it goes about this message, and why it's a good message that doesn't inherently contradict the pervasiveness of social media (even if it also didn't do much about that point)

Barney vs Friendship

The beginning of the movie shows us a "revolutionary invention", designed for making friends: The Bubble Bot (B-Bot for short). From the get-go, we're given a presentation of what the modern friend-making dynamic intends to be: Interact with interests and media, share them online, and the algorithm uses that to help connect with others who shares those interests and enjoyment of media. It's an intentional reflection of modern social media, albeit a somewhat simplified version.

It quickly shifts to a large number of kids connecting to their B-Bots for the first time in a short montage, cut at the end with a hand touching a similarly-coloured door. An assumedly unintentional, but well-placed, contrast and summary of the story. Here we meet Barney.

Without rehashing too much of the beginning of the movie, we learn that everyone else at his school (supposedly?) has a B-Bot and he's the only one without it. Similarly, he doesn't have any friends he talks to during school (or outside of it apart from family). He himself states that he "kinda, actually" needs a B-Bot to make friends these days. One could call this a simple set up to the idea of "You won't make real friends using computers" by starting us off with a B-Bot-less Barney...if it weren't for the fact that he gets one the next day.

This is when we really start to see what I mean by "Barney vs Friendship": His attitude towards what his new B-Bot should be is pretty consistent with how everyone else has been using them: "You are meant to be my friend, and know everything about me." It's hammered in later on during the friendship montage, with Barney making a board on "How to be my friend" (underline by me).

Barney's perception of friendship, then, is revealed as "You are my friend. You are on my side. You like the things I like." A very selfish and self-centred perception. This might seem to set up Barney to be a selfish person...but isn't that how the algorithm is supposed to work? Finding people with the same interesting ("the things I like") and rejecting those who don't share it (which we see at the school, two B-Bots rejecting each other, and thus the two kids, Savannah and Ava, simply walk away from each other). It isn't Barney's fault his understanding of friendship is like this. He's been inundated and surrounded by it.

Barney vs Ron

Up to this point (after the school "riot"), we see Ron as trying so hard to be Barney's friend, to the point of taking Savannah's words to heart and going outside to find people to be friends with Barney (since Ron wants to not be pointless and is connected to Barney). It isn't until now that Ron asks the question: "Barney, are you my friend?"

Barney's response is typical and expected: "What do you mean? My dad bought you for me." After all, Ron is just a robot, right? It does make the idea of the message "Artificial Friendship vs Organic Relationship" difficult to apply since Barney literally doesn't see Ron as a person. He's just a self-moving machine designed to be a friend.

But, interestingly enough, that makes Ron a perfect vehicle for the message. A machine that was intended to just follow the algorithm, instead forced to (and willing to) create their own way through life by whatever limited tools it has access to. Even in the moments Barney sees Ron as just a machine, he's also treated him as an important person in his life.

When they meet up again in Barney's shed, it all finally shifts into what it always should've been: A two-way street. They'd already spent so much time bonding, regardless of the way they'd perceived each other before then (Barney seeing Ron as just a friend machine, Ron seeing Barney as the one person he needed to be a friend to), that the change to actually being a friend to each other and allowing each other's individuality to shine but never be the only priority allows them both to be better friends, differences and all.

To contrast, we also follow in pieces the journeys of Savannah, Rich, Noah, and Ava's own experiences with their functioning-as-intended B-Bots. We see Savannah and Ava miss an opportunity to be friends (and Ava's loneliness from very few B-Bot owners showing an interest in science). We see Noah's constant struggle to be at the top of the leaderboard. We see Rich attention-starved and making as much "content" as he can just to get some. Instead of exploring the possibilities of relationships with people who may not share the same interests, they're steadfast focused on what they're used to, never really getting a chance to evolve it into something more joyful (more on that later)

Barney & Ron vs The World

...a dramatic subtitle, but this is when the two of them run off, away from Bubble's attempt to capture Ron to stem the damage they've seen from him. Barney still doesn't have any friends aside from Ron, and Ron doesn't have any friends aside from Barney. Barney refuses to lose his one and only friend, so they run off, separated from the rest of the world, and just...enjoy each other's company.

In the montage and subsequent scenes, we see more bonding from both of them. Ron is still trying to be a good friend, but Barney gives him a chance to say things for himself and to do things for himself, even if Barney doesn't like it. Even when they argue later from the stress of living outdoors in the woods, they stick together and try to keep warm.

There's not a lot to say about these scenes, except that we see a very stark differences from when they'd first met. It's almost as if this is where we get to see how far they've come as friends. We've seen the relationship grow over time, shifting from seeing each other as a particular purpose into treating each other as individuals. A shift that would've been impossible if Ron simply followed the same algorithm the others did.

Would Barney have found friends if Ron functioned as intended? Would Ron have shown the personality he does if he had ever been connected to the Bubble Network? Would there have ever been a discussion on how to actually make friends? It isn't until later that we find a likely answer to all of these: No. Barney would have fallen into the same trap every other B-Bot user did: A constant hunger for validation that only resulted in disconnection and loneliness.

It al comes to a head when they both find themselves in danger from being caught by Bubble (by remote-controlled B-Bots being controlled without user consent or knowledge. Makes one wonder~). Barney does everything he can to hide and protect Ron (which only succeeds due to Andrew's complete disregard to human life), even risk death from asthma. Ron then does everything he can to ensure Barney doesn't die in the woods, even if it meant being taken away and destroyed.

It's a beautiful relationship, given a chance due to them having to discover who each other were over time and in an organic matter. Ron had to learn Barney's interests manually and even began to observe new things about him over time. Barney shifted the way he looked at Ron to seeing him as his own person, and spent the time to learn his own likes and desires.

Barney vs "Ron's Gone Wrong"

I figure it's also important to include where - in my opinion - the movie loses the message and the storytellers mess up. In the last segment of the movie, we have Ron having been connected to the Bubble Network and losing everything that made him unique, each interaction with Barney being a shallow facsimile of what made Barney become best friends with him (right down to Ron's individuality being erased).

I'm sure there was a way to make this work, but it instead has Barney try to rescue Ron's personality (a backup Marc created somehow) and then, after getting it back, Ron sharing his personality with every other B-Bot (due to seeing how the original algorithm just lead to sad kids disconnected from each other) at the cost of his own life (although that's technically ambiguous, especially with the ending).

I'm...not sure what the intent is, but it misses something big. What made Ron special to Barney was not simply that he existed outside of the mould that every other B-Bot was forced to fit into. It was that Barney got to know him and his eccentricities, and Ron got to grow and evolve alongside Barney. They both grew organically alongside each other, and demonstrated the need for a more natural approach to friendship making compared to the rigidity of the algorithmic connections that occurred through the B-Bots (and not questioning this algorithm or given much chance to examine the issues).

By simply sharing Ron's personality to every other B-Bot, it only really achieves one thing right in relation to the message: It forces each person to operate on their B-Bots level and develop their own connection to their now-chaotic buddy (I suppose not focusing on "online vs offline" as far as friendships go was also a good point for it, as it didn't really feel like a strong enough point for the movie and there's better ways to go about such a message.)

Had there been a greater focus on how it was that Barney's friendship had developed - or at least some kind of portrayal that the updated B-Bots weren't just copies of Ron but had actually become wide and varied individuals for their owners(?) to get to know - the ending might've been able to work better. Ron's sacrifice was a tragedy, but it displayed Ron's sheer selflessness and self-developed kindness and generosity.

If there's one scene that at least supports the message of "Artificial/Algorithmic Friendship vs Organic Relationships", it's the moment Barney sees how unhappy his former-now-again friends as they stare at their B-Bots screens and try to make some semblance of happiness, however shallow it is. Having a contrast of their artificially-built connection compared to Barney and Ron's hard-earnt friendship felt like a good way to help demonstrate the point. I just wish it could've lead to a more satisfying ending.

Barney and Friends

This is just a short little bit, but I wanted to at least point out one other good thing that happens in the last segment and ending. Barney may have started out friendless, but his friendship with Ron and Ron's selfless sacrifice (to get him medical attention) allowed Barney to reconnect with his former friends. It was a moment of realisation for Savannah, Ava, Noah, and Rich: After all this time, they let their friendship decay and be lost.

Seeing them, then, be together and hanging out alongside Barney? It showed another element of an organic relationship: Organic connections. Algorithms can give you other connection points, but it may leave you limited to other perspectives too similar to your own. Organic connections, though, force you to figure out if this thing that you never really thought about before is something you like or not, and if this person's appreciation and interest in it is something you like. It's one of those things that can just grow on its own and become something beautiful.

Just to note: I do not believe online friendships are worse than offline relationships, nor more shallow. Rather, it's algorithmic friendships that fall flat. The power of the internet is that it lets you get in touch with so many people you normally wouldn't have the chance to. Leaving it entirely in the hands of an algorithm (and not thinking critically about it) has you miss out on the beauty of the mish-mash nature of the internet. It's why Tumblr's such a fun place to be~ ^^

Conclusion

So yeah. The thing that always disappointed me most about the movie isn't that it didn't stick the landing. It's that it has such a beautiful message and the story it tells is so heart-warming and charming, but the message isn't carried to the end so you wonder if it was ever intended (I believe it was, but it's hard to say).

Seeing the way Barney and Ron's friendship evolves - and the way they each grow as individuals - contrasted with everyone else using B-Bots as they were originally designed/programmed makes for a pretty compelling portrayal of the differences between a friendship formed and informed by entirely through an algorithm, and a relationship that grew from organic interactions that, even when influenced by expectations from and of each other, created something much more different and complex and much more fulfilling for the two of them.

It's a beautiful friendship, and it's still worth watching to the end~

Bonus

It's more a funny coincidence I noticed, but the way that Andrew kicks Marc out when Ron loses his individuality, and then how Andrew was removed and Marc taking charge again when Ron's personality was distributed to every other B-Bot? Almost feels like its own reference to that message (Algorithmic Friendships may be ubiquitous and everywhere, but ultimately Organic Relationships will last the test of time)

A funny comparison honestly~

[gu6chan]

tbh i don't know how i ever followed or even respected the "they don't even like it for the plot" complaint because OH MY GOD why do you CARE STOP POLICING HOW OTHER PEOPLE LIKE THINGS AND JUST TALK ABOUT IT WITH YOUR FRIENDS THE WAY YOU WANT!!!!!!!? why do you even let them matter to you shut UPPPP

[fabcreature]

in my post about the muppet christmas carol and kermit and piggy's hypothetical kids and interspecies muppet reproduction, i am acting quite serious and really dramatic, because it's funny you know. it's the muppets and we're discussing something meaningless on the internet - of course i'm being dramatic for the laughs

but the amount of people in the notes interpreting the conversation as people (me and others commenting) actually being angry or serious.

they're making me go apeshit.

[alexcabotgf]

this isn't a hot take by any means but a lot of you would be so much happier if you stopped having parasocial relationships with celebrities oh my god