#sorry for the long post OOPS

[nvr-pass]

uugh can we stop trying to squeeze everything in a dichotomy already? (condolences to op, this is more @ the additions)

yes, there is a trend in media that is concerningly similiar to targeted advertising. media is treated more and more like a product(/"content") and less like art, and that sucks!

okay. that's no reason to act like "thinking about what you audience will think" is in and of itself the enemy of art. miyazaki's approach is cool and should be respected but there are many many other way to make art. you can make art that directly adresses the audience or plays with the audience's expectation, maybe using it to mislead or directly opposing it to create a certain effect. the concept of symbolism kind of relies of the audience bringing their own associations into the piece. meticulously planning when what information is revealed to build tension is technically "caring what the audience will think"! and it's basically the foundation of readymade sculptures! putting a urinal in an art gallery is not marketable, it pissed people off. duchamp's fountain is an influential piece that inspired unending discussion about the nature of art and if you take audience reception out of the equation your missing the point of the piece entirely. adjusting your piece to get a message across or piss certain people off does not necessarily mean you care about its marketability.

this is all in line with empowering artist who want to whatever the fuck want, whether that includes incorpating audience reception or not! both approaches need people engaging with new and unfamiliar art pieces on their own terms!! yes!! herein lies the call for audiences to be conscious of their own approach to media, which i also agree with. if you're whining about stuff not being tailor made for your comfort, you need to examine if you approach media as art or as content. stop consuming and start connecting with something.

the enemy is marketing. (again, correctly identified but unnecessarily associated with "caring about the audience"). authors are usually not in charge of marketing. this push is coming from the production companies, who care about what the audience will think because it affects profits. this struggle between creators and producers in the media industry has been going on for literal decades. (alex hirsch posting the ridiculous production notes disney gave him about what jokes were "appropriate" were everywhere at some point.) most authors very much would do whatever they want without worring about marketability, but unless they are as successful as miyazaki and can found their own production company, they have to put up with their producer pushing changes in the interest of profit. if anything, recent trends indicate that we're losing that fight, because huge companies have all the money and artists need to make rent.

there are of course creators who do this on their own, in which case they are kind of both the producer and the creator and are fighting against themself. usually it's either to suck up to the system by self-censoring before they can be censored or it's small creators who do actually have to do their own marketing. especially if your relying on social media and get numbers thrown at you all the time, it can be hard not to slip into the producer mindset. but if you're working on a passion project: please dont try to win capitalism at the same time. let the creator win.

you can't always tell who's a gleefull capitalist and who is just trying to make rent but on a societal scale it sucks to see this development. and it sucks that we let capitalism do this to our art.

tldr; kill the producer in your brain that tells you to be marketable! but also ... telling artists to be themselves will not make capitalism disappear from the industry.

fuck an "intended audience" how about we normalize engaging with new and unfamiliar art pieces on their own terms

[basement-vamp1re]

Famous last words

[voidheartkisses]

Subspace and Medkit sketches!!

[remxedmoon]

(you worked yourself to death.)

yeah i wasn’t kidding when i said these would be coming soon. <- haha funny joke marshall. so!! remember when i said that this post would be coming out last weekend? guess whose tablet broke a few days after saying that! so sorry for the delay!! this is long overdue. here’s a link to the drive, as always! everything in this part of the update should be in the miscellaneous folder (outside of the menu icons, which are in the menu folder. wauaua).

unedited versions below the cut, plus some notes. fair warning 90% of this is just ui stuff lol

so! all of this was already done by the time i posted the enemies. the delay isn’t *entirely* because of the tablet issues, i just managed to get distracted by making: even more redraws! i’d say new update soon but after what happened last time i shouldn’t jinx myself. but! almost All of the art for the initial mod release is done!!!! exciting!!!!!!

please be nice to me (silly) this is my first time doing frame by frame animation in… give or take 5 years? i followed the original animations pretty closely, so they don’t look Awful but i am Aware of the jank. i’m not an animator!!! they’re Good Enough for my purposes.

hey did you know that the original teleport map is slightly off center. did you know that. that’s not the case for the redraw for the record but it did make things a little harder. despite that, i think you can tell i was having fun with the dormont part of the map. i would’ve put more detail into the house, but we never really get a more detailed look at it??? and i didn’t want to make assumptions. so that part’s just traced from the original 👍. anyways shoutout to the clocktower being Curved for whatever reason

outside of those, all of the added art is actually just spritework. i didn’t know this at first, but there’s a TON of copies of sprites from the icon set. Basically Everywhere. so those are added now! and should work properly! also added a few sprites that were Missing from my original batch. not going to put them all here, but a few Important ones (which i actually had to make new art for) are the rock paper scissors cheatsheet, the Larger versions of the craft signs (used in the calamité fight and. probably somewhere else idk), and the craft signs for the tutorial kid fight!

aaaand i think that’s it! for stuff from this update. yeah no there’s more coming buddy. my tablet already broke one time this week there’s no way it’s happening twice. i’m not working on portraits Just Yet (though the temptation has been There), but i’ve got the title screens, a few backgrounds, and the ending cgs done! along with a few other assorted cgs sketched out. because im out of my fucking mind. so, uh, see you soon!! enjoy!!

[milolovesbmc]

It’s Marvin’s Bar Mitzvah!

Little extra Marvin In Trousers :)

[starcurtain]

Hello! I just saw your latest post and you might have been referring to my ask if it was the one about Ratiorine's differing philosophies or of what philosophies they abide by (existentialism, absurdism, etc) then that's me! If you weren't referring to that I apologize for the confusion. Sending it off anon this time so maybe it doesn't disappear 🥲

Sorry for the ask disappearing the first time; I'm not sure what happened, and I was so sad because I had been carefully holding on to it to answer it! I'm glad you were able to resend.

I do have to say first that philosophy is not my area of expertise, so there may be much more qualified philosophy buffs out there who can answer this more accurately than me, but I'll give it a go with my personal understandings of the characters:

First, Ratio is the easier of the two I think. As many people have said, he's a good fit for existentialism. His entire shtick is basically believing in the power of the individual to improve and enrich their own life, to fight valiantly regardless of the hardships imposed by their life's circumstances, and to make themself into a better person by their own choices.

It's important to underscore that this means Ratio believes in self-determination, in the idea that people's lives are not foreordained but are actually actively shaped each day by personal decisions. Therefore, people have inherent freedom to decide the course of their own lives by accepting what they approve of, refusing to accept what they disapprove of, and harnessing their own individual power to ultimately achieve self-actualization.

Essentially, Ratio works under the impression that life is not guided by something as intangible as destiny, and no matter where you start off in life, what ultimately happens to you is within your control (or at least within the control of whoever controls you). This is likely a small part of why it grates on him so badly that he wasn't recognized by Nous, because the fact that one can dedicate everything to a goal and still not achieve that goal runs contrary to his central philosophy.

If he believes that people have the power to determine the course of their own lives, then what does it say about him, who fought so hard to do exactly as he claims even idiots can do--seize control his own fate--and yet didn't succeed? Are there some things outside of man's power? It's enough to make even a renowned doctor question himself, and Ratio decided to come out on the side of "It's a personal failing, not a flaw in my philosophy." He literally said "Skill issue" to himself.

Changing tack a tiny bit here, I think it's also important to emphasize that there is a difference between existentialism and nihilism even though these philosophies dovetail. Again, I'm not an expert in philosophy, so my understanding is very limited, but the basic idea of existentialism is that "existence comes before essence"--that is, things start as a blank slate and gain nature and meaning after the fact. We are not created by some grand design, nor is there any inherent "purpose for living." Things just exist because they exist.

This is where existentialism intersects with nihilism, at the starting point that existence is inherently meaningless. But, in my personal opinion, nihilism as a philosophy fails to move beyond that. Pure nihilism is ultimately self-defeating because it leaves us with no motivation to commit to growth. It's a philosophy antithetical to the continuation of life as we know it. Existence is meaningless and any meaning you personally derive from existence is also meaningless, so why bother attempting to derive any meaning at all? This complete apathy is the Device IX that Star Rail paints as so dangerous.

And Ratio is not this way at all. His philosophy absolutely reaffirms that life can have meaning, so long as people create that meaning for themselves. He simultaneously asserts that anything that people create is not meaningless ...which basically means that meaning itself cannot be meaningless. (If that makes any sense to anyone.)

Frankly, I would argue that this philosophy may be a core part of why Ratio has not been recognized by Nous so far, rather than simply his "being a good person." (Nous is a robotic AI super-computer, why would THEY care about the presence or lack of human empathy?) Ultimately, Ratio's central philosophy about people being capable of determining their own fates and purposes also applies to his understanding of knowledge--knowledge is not something which is inherent in certain beings from birth or limited to the purview of the "special" (geniuses), but is attainable by all people. People are not "born talented" or "born untalented," they are simply "educated" or "uneducated," with the only barrier between these categories being one's own personal willingness to change. The mundane can become the divine--if they work hard enough at it.

Thus, knowledge is not wealth to be hoarded, but a currency to be spent to enrich other members of humanity.

(By the way, completely random aside--it also surprises me that everyone relates Ratio to Alhaitham from Genshin when they literally have such a glaring fundamental discrepancy in their understanding of the concept of wisdom... But anyway, back on topic!)

Ratio may (sort of) respect the members of the Genius Society, may recognize their incredible knowledge and abilities, but at the heart of the matter lies a single all-important question: Does Ratio even really believe in "genius" as a distinction (other than as a concept to insult himself)? Does he truly believe there is barrier between brilliance and idiocy that "ordinary people" can never cross?

He speaks convincingly about geniuses being different from "the ordinary," but if his core belief is that people have the power to pull themselves up out of despair and achieve greatness through effort and self-development, rather than some form of luck or god-given talent at birth, then... do born "geniuses" even really exist? Is there really an insurmountable difference between brilliant and mundane?

If knowledge is the equalizer of all sentient beings, do we not all have at least the initial capacity to become geniuses?

I personally think this central distinction about the capacity for knowledge among all humanity is the actual deciding factor in Ratio's rejection from the Genius Society, because, at the end of the day... how do you become a member of the "Genius Society" when you fundamentally reject the distinction of "genius" as an exclusive category from the start?

Ratio wants to share knowledge and uplift everyone (even if he thinks most people are starting off at the rock bottom known as idiocy).

His mission is diametrically opposed to the concept of a "Genius Society" in the first place.

He wanted in to the cool kids club because he desperately craves validation and acceptance, but the philosophical values of the Genius Society are ultimately incompatible with his own. In short, he would have to cease to be "Veritas Ratio" to succeed in joining the geniuses.

Okay, okay, back to the original point again, and just one more note about Ratio: Even though existentialism also goes hand-in-hand with absurdism, I don't think Ratio is far enough down the philosophical rabbit hole to believe in the wider definition of absurdism. Although I think he does agree with the inherent meaninglessness of existence, I don't think he views existence itself as truly irrational and the universe as as manifestation of unknowable chaos. I think he'd at least like to imagine that there are some ontological principles and inherent laws governing the operations of reality, and I think he does believe that certain things can be predicted with the application of enough thought... He certainly seems to believe in some form of "objective truth," at the very least.

I think he'd at least like to believe the universe is semi-orderly, even if he might deep down admit this is also wishful thinking.

So, to me he reads as a strong metaphor for pure existentialism, with deliberate rejections to both nihilism's apathy and absurdism's lean toward solely subjective reality.

PHEW, this is already long and I still have a whole other character to talk about... I had more to say about this topic than I thought. Sorry for the long read!

Anyway... Aventurine.

I've seen all sorts of things thrown around for Aventurine's philosophy, and while I think he does inherit a bit of Acheron's absurdism by the end of 2.1, I actually don't think Aventurine is an absurdist, an existentialist, or a nihilist.

I think Aventurine is a struggling fatalist.

He doesn't like it. We see him actively question it, but ultimately, he does come back to the concept of destiny over and over.

First, I think it's important to draw a clear distinction between Ratio and Aventurine: Ratio's existentialism is a philosophy that technically works even in a theological vacuum. Nous doesn't have to exist for Ratio's philosophy to function. Ratio's belief in the self-determination of humanity is, in fact, somewhat opposed to belief in aeons in the first place, and only works because technically the aeons of Star Rail used to be human (or were originally human creations). It's essentially an atheist viewpoint.

But Aventurine is a religious character. Like, he's just... religious. That's a fact about him. Even though we do hear his doubts, at the end of the day, he actually believes in Gaiathra, and believing in a omniscient supernatural being that is not human in origin (is from outside the aeon system) comes with a whole set of philosophical foundations that most aeon-worshipping characters just don't have in Star Rail. (Sunday is the obvious exception here, by the way.)

Kakavasha's like the one practicing pagan in the middle of an atheist convention. Awkward.

Being more serious: Religion requires faith. Faith requires the ability to believe in things you cannot verify with empirical facts. To believe in things you can only feel, never see. The belief that a goddess is watching over you, blessing you, and guiding you requires you to also accept the idea that events in your life are not always in your own control--that some of what occurs to you is decided by powers beyond your comprehension.

In essence, faith requires belief in fate. And that leads to fatalism.

No matter how much he doesn't like it, no matter how much we see him struggle with it, Aventurine does actually seem to believe in the concept of fate. He believes that some events in life are destined to occur, that some things are outside of individuals' control, and that ultimately not everything can be changed.

This is the dead opposite of Ratio's mindset: No matter how hard we fight, how far we push ourselves... in the end, sometimes people fail. Sometimes the only answer to our endless struggles is that we die, as we were destined to, before ever achieving the greatness we sought or the futures we were promised.

As an aside, I don't think faith or religion are necessarily the only factors connecting Aventurine to this particular philosophy either. Even removing theological aspects from the conversation, his extreme focus on the gambling aesthetic suggests a strong connection to fatalism too--if not a goddess, then one's fate may as well be in the hands of luck itself, of the whims of the rolling dice--or the push and pull of "powers that be," those figures of authority in the room where it happens, who make their shady deals according to preset rules and expectations, every bet resulting in an ultimately predictable outcome.

(He keeps gambling and gambling, hoping that he'll get a different result than the one he knows is inevitable...)

This is, of course, an inherently pessimistic mindset, a perfect dark-mirror to Ratio's deep-down optimism. Fatalism puts humanity into a position of powerlessness. All hopes and dreams are given over to the goddess, by whose judgment and whims the actual events of one's life are decided. Pain and poverty are inevitable trials. Suffering and death are foreordained.

And yet Aventurine has to cling to this, as much as he doubts it, as much as he hates the idea that things in his life are beyond his power to control.

Because if fate doesn't exist... If it wasn't destiny, if the tragedies of his life weren't trials from the goddess, if things weren't supposed to go this way... Then every single thing in his life really is meaningless. Everything he suffered, everyone he loved and loss, his mother's and sister's sacrifices, the torment he went through--just sheer bad luck. All of it, completely and utterly meaningless.

How can you convince yourself to keep living, in the face of such supreme and all-encompassing Nihility?

This is the central struggle of Aventurine's character, the actual mental and emotional journey we see him undertaking from 2.0 to 2.1. He is literally on the precipice, swinging between a viewpoint that he hates--his fatalistic belief in destiny--and an entirely self-defeating philosophy--nihilism--whose only possible final outcome is suicide.

This is what his talk with Acheron at the end of 2.1 is all about. This is how she saves him. In that final cutscene, we witness Aventurine reach a mental compromise, managing to finally reconcile his necessary faith in the concept of destiny with the reality that life may truly begin meaningless--but beginning meaningless does not mean staying meaningless, and believing in destiny does not bar you from making your own choices or finding your own purpose in life.

Later on in Penacony's story, we literally see Acheron use Ratio's philosophy to reject the same nihility that crept into Aventurine's:

Acheron wards off nihility's apathy through an absurdism all her own, but one which manages to enclose both Ratio's and Aventurine's otherwise incompatible mindsets: We have no way of ever knowing for certain whether the events of our lives are fated or mere nonsense. We have no way of knowing if our choices are our own or foreordained. But we don't need to know this to find meaning and value in them. Whether life is nothing more than unpredictable chaos or a predetermined pattern of cause and effect, what matters is what you make of it.

Ultimately, I think that this post has really helped me recognize just how well Aventurine and Ratio work as philosophical foils.

They really are perfect opposites.

Aventurine's fatalism is deterministic, while Ratio's existentialism is self-deterministic. Aventurine's philosophy is inherently pessimistic; Ratio's is inherently optimistic. Ratio's philosophy operates on a core belief in the freedom of humanity to decide their own paths in life, while Aventurine hates but does ultimately believe that people aren't really in control, that even if no gods are guiding us, we can't rise above our own natures. Ratio's philosophy makes meaning from growth; Aventurine's makes meaning from loss...

And they both struggle with fundamental doubts in their own philosophies, core questions that are directly tied to their own lives. Aventurine worries that his faith might be misplaced, that destiny might not exist, and that everything he suffered might have been in pointless, empty vain. Ratio faces the crisis of recognizing that his core belief in the power of humankind to determine their own paths and make their own meaning might not actually apply to everyone--because it doesn't seem to apply to himself.

It's literally only by bridging this philosophical binary with Acheron's anti-Nihility absurdist rhetoric that we can reach some sort of healthy outcome. That's why it takes both Ratio's note and Acheron's comments to finally lead Aventurine to acceptance. Ratio probably needs a little bit of Aventurine's "If you didn't make it into the Genius Society, there's got to be a reason" mindset to finally reach some peace with his situation too.

I'm not even a philosophy expert and even I can see that there's really only one takeaway here: These two characters were totally written with each other in mind.

Aventurine and Ratio need each other on core metaphysical levels! 😂

It's so good guys. You can't see it, but I'm making chef's kisses, I promise.

[goldensunset]

o spring, distant spring, where i close my eyes

you who gave me love, i hear your dear voice

[molathesunfish]

my limbus bugs mainly based on characters that may or may not show up later... and one mystery feature for your guessing fun:]

[sojutrait]

lil family get together at the park for the kids!! chu hua got to see her nephew joshua now that he's aged up and also cuss out some paps

[wdwdiotr]

She's left handed because she drives on the wrong side of the road

[quacktities]

I don't care how wishfulfilment-y and ooc it is but I like to think that after C! Wilbur moved to Utah, he kind of healed a bit and reflected on a lot of his actions and he's in some community service job because he feels like he's making amends for what he's done by doing it (and also he likes feeling important and like he's helping people). And maybe he's taken up a writing hobby, and he has a book in the works and he keeps rewriting his drafts but he is genuinely having fun for what feels like the first time in a long time. He still occasionally goes back to his old bad habits but he's in a better place now and he's made some new friends and connections. He still tries to keep contact with some of the people he knew though.

He's trying to give Tommy some space but also trying to keep in touch and he's been semi successful with it. He's given Fundy complete space and tries to respect his decision that he doesn't want him in his life anymore but he does try to leave the door open for if Fundy ever changes his mind even if he doesn't count on it. He's sent Tubbo a letter but hasn't gotten a response and doesn't think he will. He's tried getting closer to Niki and it hasn't exactly worked out but they're still in contact and send eachother letters at least once every 5 months (the letters take a while though because they both live far away). He did see her when he visited Philza once though. And even if they're not as close as they used to be, he's glad they're able to keep in touch after everything.

Him and Quackity surprisingly exchange letters quite oftenly. It started out with Wilbur sending him one to properly apologise since he never got the chance to and it had been on his mind and to his surprise, Quackity actually replied (with a snarky response but a response nonetheless). And then it kind of became a pattern for them to send eachother letters quite regularly since Utah and Las Nevadas aren't that far apart so it travels faster. Their letters range from playful stupid banter to insights about eachothers weeks to snarky remarks laced with genuine advice to occasional glimpses of sincerity and care. Despite everything they're actually on pretty decent terms and Quackity's actually visiting him in a week. Wilbur's quite excited and giddy about it even if he won't admit it

Overall he's in a better place now even if there's a still lot of things to work on and even if what he's done still haunts him some days, he's coming to terms with it. He hasn't healed completely nor is he really truly happy but he's getting there and maybe it will be okay

[cyborgghost]

I have SEVERAL question, does Nas'hrah's immortality come from Enlightement or from being a New God?

We've seen its possible to kill New Gods in the game. But how does Nas'hrah survive as a severed head? A heavily burnt severed head too?

There had been other Enlightened Ones like Betel, who Nas'hrah allegedly killed?? But perhaps he didn't completely kill him, just weaken him enough to silence him forever. Like when O'saa threw him in the lake.

Do Enki and Nosramus as Enlightened Ones posses this kind of Death Becomes Her-esque immortality too? Where no matter how critical the damage inflicted to the body, it cannot ever die?

Does it have a limit? Like when Le'garde decomposes in Termina. Or is the Kaiser's immortality defective from his body being previously subjected to the Rebirth of the Beloved spell??

Idk perhaps Le'garde just started rotting from being such a huge loser, same goes to Valteil. Both died after losing their sense of purpose, which leads me to believe that one's will to live may affect their immortality.

I'd love to hear it if anyone has any answers or theories (game theories..)

[nyxofdemons]

unable to get behind the idea that fizz "forgave blitz too quickly" or that it was a writing flaw how easily he accepted blitz's version of the story or whatever like. no!!! it makes sense!!!

blitz was his best friend!! of COURSE he wouldn't want to believe that blitz tried to hurt him so badly!! blitz tells him what happened and fizz IMMEDIATELY softens in the way he's looking at him. he doesn't even look mad or like he thinks he's being lied to, like -

LOOK AT HIS FACE HE WANTED TO FORGIVE BLITZ SO BADLY. HE NEVER WANTED TO BELIEVE THAT BLITZ DID THIS TO HIM ON PURPOSE.

even all his little microexpressions in this one scene say SO MUCH

fizz probably spent SO LONG trying to rationalize or explain what happened to him, he probably spent AGES hoping so badly that there was an explanation that DIDN'T involve his best friend hating him so much he tried to kill him as painfully as possible

and to say it feels contrived; i just. fizz CARES!! the same way blitz has always CARED!! they never wanted to stop being in each other's lives - they both suffered a major trauma and were made to believe that the other one hated them, but they were BEST friends and always had been. how could either of them ever not jump at the chance that it was a mistake? how could fizz not cling to the possibility that his best friend might be able to still be his best friend?

[palmolli]

I did not care for Breath of the Wild.

WAIT WAIT WAIT! I CAN EXPLAIN! DON'T SHOOT!

It's not that I HATE BotW. I certainly don't. I just don't love it. Though I very much DON'T like totk... that's an opinion for later. This is in no way a good critique or a review. It's just my opinion.

Breath of the Wild was the first Zelda game that I ever played, like many of you in the fandom right now. I bought it with my own money (I'm a jobless minor) after interacting with the fandom for a bit before even picking up a game. And like most people, the feeling of starting the game and waking up in that bathtub, that feeling of wonder and mystery, was awesome.

I will give credit where credit is due, BotW got me through a time when I was at my lowest. It gave me an escape to a much better world, a safe space, one I could go to when I had no hope for reality, something to hold onto if you will. The release of TotK gave me something to look forward to during a time when I didn't want to wake up the next morning.

I have every reason to love this game, but I don't.

Honestly, I'm TIRED of BotW and all the sequels and spin-offs.

Botw came out since people were so tired of the linear Zelda formula. ... that formula lasted for longer than I've been alive, yet it's only been about 8 years, and there's been such an uproar of people complaining about the new shiny open world formula.

Why? Well, because most of the gaming industry is open world now and having a linear formula is what made Nintendo feel unique... oh, and also because Nintendo completely failed at making totk's map feel new and interesting. They just slapped a bunch of random crap on the map here, and there with almost zero thought. When I first played totk, I felt like I was playing some kinda modded version of botw. It felt a little illegal. And playing it feels like a chore. That's never happened with any other Zelda sequel.

Even though Majora's Mask's assets were all reused from Ocarina of Time, the game still felt new and inventive. The game had meaning. The game had a THEME. AND THAT GAME WAS MADE IN TWO YEARS. TOTK TOOK SIX!!!

Cough cough. Pardon me.

Another reason I'm just sick of botw.

It's everywhere. It's Nintendo's golden goose. Just about everyone who plays games has played BotW. It's so big that it overshadows the rest of the franchise. It's basically Ocarina of Time all over again. Just... worse.

A sequel, a prequel, and another on the way. Ocarina of Time was never THAT BAD. It was given one sequel. That's it! Nintendo is just turning into Disney. And let me tell you something.

I loathe disney.

Too afraid to make anything new, so they rely on things that they know will make them money. Too afraid to say anything and spark controversy, so all of their content is void of anything actually meaningful. There's no particular audience. They appeal to no one by appealing to everyone while overly reliant on a fan base they know will bow before them and just buy whatever they churn out.

And, again, it's just like the word Zelda has just become synonymous with Breath of the Wild. Any Zelda content on most platforms like Tik Tok, YouTube, Twitter, Pinterest..

I AM SICK OF HIS FACE. WHEN I CLOSE MY EYES HE'S ALL I SEE. WHEN I OPEN THEM, HE'S ALL I SEE. HE IS EVERYWHERE AND I CAN'T ESCAPE HIS STUPID. FACE.

EVERY DAMN SKYWARD SWORD EDIT IS SOMEHOW MADE ABOUT BREATH OF THE WILD ZELINK I CAN'T TAKE THIS ANYMORE!!!!!!

and this isn't a you problem, by the way. If Breath of the Wild's your favorite game, own that, bro. This is a Nintendo problem.

Like... echoes of wisdom... seems like everyone kinda forgot about it. Including me. It brought new things to the table. AND NOBODY CARES!!!! BECAUSE THEY'RE TOO FOCUSED ON BINKLE BONKLE'S MISADVENTURES. Though, it did keep the art style of Link’s Awakening... which I honestly do not like all that much. C'mon Nintendo, give us a new art style, you bunch of greedy cowards.

Now, to get off track for a moment.

My favorite game is Skyward Sword. Yes, this is relevant. Breath of the Wild and Skyward Sword are almost complete polar opposites of each other. One leans into tradition, while the other runs from it. One is reliant on story and characters, the other on gameplay.

People absolutely HATED Skyward Sword once upon a time. Now more people are starting to like it. People LOVE Breath of the Wild, and now more people are starting to think differently.

This point I'm making here is expanded further in this very ahead of its time video that explains this far better than I ever could.

Basically. People complained. Nintendo over corrected. Now we're here.

These two games are what REALLY got me into the franchise. Breath of the Wild was the first Zelda game I ever touched... but Skyward Sword was the first game I ever finished. Like ever not even lying, I'd never finished a game in my life before Skyward Sword.

The game actually motivated me to continue. The dungeons were fun and engaging, and same with the characters. I was genuinely invested and finished the game at one in the morning, shaking and in tears. Keep in mind I'd watched a playthrough of the game before I was able to play it myself. I already knew the story.

Then I finished breath of the wild.

I did not cry.

I did not shake.

I just finished it and put the game down.

Skyward Sword gave me a reason to give a damn, Breath of the Wild did not. Sksw Link felt like a person to me. He wanted to get his Zelda back, and so did I. Breath of the Wild Link, however... he just woke up, and he has no idea who the heck Zelda even is, so he's just gonna go collect koroks and blow stuff up. No motivation... just... do whatever whenever. Which is fun, yes... but it's not all that impactful.

Skyward Sword gives me a cozy, warm feeling, while Breath of the Wild gives the opposite. Empty. Cold.

Like... I just don't care about Breath of the Wild. I really just don't. And I am just so tired of it being the only thing on the menu nowadays. The characters felt like cardboard cutouts to me. You have to actively seek out any character or personality in them (the main ones). That was not a problem in Skyward Sword. Just sit down on a dang bench, and you'll find more character in Link there than in most botw memories.

I know botw Link's whole silence thing has a reason behind it, but it just feels like an excuse. They could've expanded on it a bit more. In concept designs, he's shown to have a family. But they scrapped it. They really could've done so much more with that.

This rant was incredibly messy, I know, but I just needed to get this out somewhere. This has been boiling within me for far too long, and I had to put it into a teacup and make tea, or else I'd go insane. I'm not trying to be a contrarian or anything. This is just how I feel. And I'm not trying to say any fans of botw or people who don't have access to the other games are fake fans. I understand that games are expensive and hard to access.

This is purely my opinion, and you're allowed to think differently. Thanks for coming to my TedTalk, and have a nice day.

[graynide]

Trick or treat :D

you get...

a petrified Paranoid!!

[inanimateinsanitywiki]

thought about bow inanimate insanity too hard and made myself sad.

she was originally created as the mascot of a one-off joke commercial for chairs, she was never supposed to be a contestant. but she kept showing up when she wasn't supposed to because she wanted to be one. eventually mephone is told by a.d.a.m. that she needs to join the game because the viewers love her, and in hindsight, that was most likely cobs' doing. mephone let her join, but constantly made it apparent that he did not want her there. and none of the other contestants seemed to want her there either, except for marshmallow who tolerated her at best. when she's eventually eliminated, she's confined to a small metal box just barely big enough to fit her, just so she doesn't come back.

and then she dies in a freak accident. she's sent to the inside of melife as mephone is unable to recover her, but she refuses to stay dead. she plays the red line game and risks being erased from existence just for another chance to be alive, but she fails at the very last minute. most of her body makes it across, but her legs get caught, and she's turned into a ghost and trapped within purgatory mansion. she can't leave, and nobody knows she's there. she's alone again.

though we don't know how much time passes between the finale and s2e6, it's safe to assume she's alone in there for at LEAST a full year. finally, somebody finds her, and it's the one person who tolerated her presence. they agree to team up again so marshmallow can win that episode's challenge, and bow gets a chance to mess with the people who used to despise her so much. but marshmallow keeps talking about someone else. she talks about how apple refuses to leave her alone, and bow decides to intervene. she can rid marshmallow of the person bothering her, while also ensuring that she can have her all to herself. it's a win-win situation, right? so she does, and it works. she's marshmallow's only friend now, so she has to pay attention to her. they don't win the challenge, but now bow has marshmallow all to herself. even if she can't leave the mansion, she has someone in her life who cares about her. someone who remembers her.

then some guy claiming to be her brother shows up, but she does not want him around. it comes full circle in a way: now bow is forced to put up with a one-off joke character who refuses to go away.

time goes by, and marshmallow is worn down by everything going on. she doesn't know how to feel about her falling out with apple, she's still grappling with her guilt over indirectly causing bow's death, and whenever she tries to talk to someone about it, she's cut off. so she goes to the one person she knows will acknowledge her, hoping that she'll reassure her. it doesn't work, and bow ends up confessing to intentionally driving her and apple apart so she could have marshmallow all to herself. she tries to explain herself, she explains how now that she's no longer a contestant, no longer relevant, she might as well not exist at all. she has nothing to do except remain in a dusty old mansion, trapped with nothing but her phone and the maniac who thinks he's her brother.

a dumb and gay little musical number happens and while i'm of the opinion that bow and marshmallow's relationship should have been sorted out via actual dialogue instead, it gets them to reconcile, and bow is reassured that marshmallow won't forget about her or leave her behind. she leaves the competition behind, and even brings apple along with her. despite everything, bow got what she wanted in the end.

but she's still trapped there. still trapped within the parameters of the mansion, trapped in an incorporeal body and unable to make physical contact with anyone. she survives the mass deletion and fights cobs, but is held back by her entrapment. everyone gets revived, everything is back to how it was. but she's still there. she's still trapped. everyone is free to live as they please on the island, but not her. and now, the guy who burned her best friend alive for fun is trapped there with her.

no matter how many times she fights for her right to exist, to be with everyone, to form meaningful connections, to be remembered, it's too late for her. sure, she has marshmallow and apple, and she's kind of warmed up to dough, but is that really enough? despite everything, despite how much she tries, she'll never be free.

can you really call that a happy ending?