cobieeliseforsh

[cobieeliseforsh]

I've been reading a lot of theories on Twin Peaks tonight, and just wanted to offer my two cents and see what everyone thinks.

First of all, it's clear that Leland and Sarah are distinct from their more demonic alter egos. The truth is that the damage and pain are caused by things within Leland and Sarah that Bob and Judy are clearly pushing further, egging them on like two devils on their shoulders. Leland with the trauma of his child-hood abuse, Sarah with the trauma of Laura's death (hence why Joudy only really appears in her grief festering, as trauma often takes time to surface). This retains the humanity of the tragedy of Twin Peaks, but also shows the influence of the bad impulses as representative spirits, utukkus, demons or whatever they are - what Albert refers to as the evil that men do, just personified. Getting bogged down in the mythology ignores what Lynch is often doing: telling emotionally true and somewhat conventional stories using surrealism and mysticism to make the narrative and imagery more ambiguous. It's still very much a tale about family trauma.

(Incidentally, this also goes for most everything that happens in show: most of the dark secrets in the original show were connected to those with ties to the Black Lodge, such as Laura, Josie, Leland, etc. and in The Return, it can be argued that Mr. C's criminal empire and its influence, and Richard Horne, and Sarah Palmer tend to be where most of the problems are centred - all people whose traumas are represented by connection to the Black Lodge, not some grand conspiracy. The Black Lodge is merely a representation of things back in the real world, to some extent. The fact that Cooper loses his showdown with Windom Earle, and Annie suffers for it, and returns a different person, is more represented by Bob possessing a doppelganger of him than it is something that should be taken as the Black Lodge being literal.)

And the way that emotional reality is presented in Twin Peaks is through this ambiguous mythology. The idea of Ba'al and Joudy mating and producing an ultimate evil makes real logical sense in terms of Twin Peaks: The Return if you understand PTSD and the notion of cycles of trauma. Leland was abused, and became abusive. Laura was abused, in turn, by an abusive father and a mother who didn't protect her. They mated in the sense they had a child, and also came together to produce a traumatised child through their actions in another form of mating. Laura tried to end the cycle, and Dale Cooper suffered and sunk into a cycle of his own that caused all the trouble in Episode 17: his endless desire to save women rather than allowing them the freedom of their own choices - something MIKE encourages him to do as a Black Lodge spirit, and which The Fireman pulls Laura away from. Thus, he doesn't save Laura. More than likely, he was just delivering her back to the hell she was living in, had Cooper gotten his way.

So, Ba'al and Joudy are supposed to meet and have a kid that ends the world, according to Frost's book - but a lot of people fail to understand that this has already happened. Their hosts in the real world meet and have a child: Laura. But Ba'al and Joudy aren't from this world, and everything in this world has its doppelganger in the world they do come from, right? Including Laura. A doppelganger who seems to have been whispering into Dale Cooper's ear for a long, long time, manipulating events.

But, and this is important, the alternate Laura, Ba'al and Joudy don't matter as such as they are merely representations. Each of them are merely the manifestations of the trauma cycles that drive our existence, the trauma that these parasites then feed on. When we meet up with Carrie Page, that trauma of violence and misery is continuing, a horrible thing that she is drawn to in order to feed on, showing that even pretending to be someone else, symbolically, is no escape from the scars of your past. What Richard/Cooper ends up doing in the end is not some grand cosmic plan, but simple therapy: he attempts to take Laura back to face up to and process her trauma.

Think of the end: Laura is waking not from the nightmare of her death, but from this fake life, and having a flashback that is retraumatising her and returning her to the state she was in that made her so appealing to the things within the Black Lodge. Laura stopped the cycle with her death, unwilling to conspire with her father, and Cooper not only undid all that, but has also brought back all her pain, all her suffering. And whilst a lot has been made of the lights going out and the symbolism of electricity in Twin Peaks, there is a simpler explanation for the lights going out: it was often at night when Laura was abused in that house. It seems to be happening all over again - which is what a PTSD flashback feels like.

All of which was the point of that sequence over the credits, Laura's evil doppelganger, conspiring with the Cooper doppelganger, to push them towards a situation where Laura is brought back and forced into the trauma that can nourish them, and, then, we have to assume, continuing the cycle. And who did they choose? Someone who for all his smarts and wholesomeness can't see his own cycle of trauma.

This even explains the world they end up in: not Joudy as reality, but a world where Laura's terrible, unknowing influence has been allowed to spread for years, leaving a darker, harsher place, as her buried trauma influences her behaviour, and the world around her. Death, hiding... this can never heal the trauma that Laura has been through, but neither can being forced to confront it directly. Laura needs to acknowledge, process, and grow beyond the things that limit her - something Twin Peaks has not yet allowed her to do - she remains a still picture in a frame for much of the show, a ghostly figure from the past, the words of her history in her diary, the bitter memories of her ethereal presence. In other words, Dale Cooper saving Laura can only hurt her. Only Laura can save Laura. This isn't a story about two people, Dale Cooper and Laura, but one, and Laura is the one. And Twin Peaks is about trauma, but also the ways we fail to deal with it. That is the true Lynchian horror, the all too true cycle of trauma.

[cobieeliseforsh]

The weirdest thing is that everyone assumes Biden is riding to the rescue, not that the Deomcrats watched Trump do whatever he wanted for four years and went: We want in on that!

[cobieeliseforsh]

I'm getting pretty annoyed with the amount of bullshit in the media right now. I just read an article about the "antisemitic" conspiracy theory Qanon. Calling Qanon antisemitic is like calling the KKK a group opposed to the career of Will Smith - technically true, but clearly a small subsection of a greater whole.

So, to remedy this...

COBIE'S FRUSTRATED GUIDE TO QANON FROM SOMEONE WHO LOVES CONSPIRACY THEORIES AND WISHES THIS ONE WOULD FUCK OFF BECAUSE IT IS BORING AS SHIT BUT NOT FIZZING WITH ENERGY, EVEN ON A MOLECULAR LEVEL, BECAUSE IT IS A DUMB AND LAZY REHASH FROM THE 80S OR EARLIER!

PART 1: DA FUCQ IS QANON?

Qanon is a grooming organisation for the Christian Far Right Death Cult that has held the Republican party in its sweaty hands since the ascent of Reagan in the 1980s. They believe in some bullshit I won't reprint here because I have no intention of spreading their ideology, but if you've heard of the Satanic panic, this is Satanic Panic 2: Now With Pizza!

Qanon is, by definition of their own supporters attacks on Muslim terrorism, a terrorist organisation. And, though it seems impossible, they're stupidier than ISIS ever were, because at least there was some twisted logic behind ISIS: poor young men fighting revolutionary wars against what they see as corrupt and immoral authorities and ideologies is nothing new. Qanon is literally the powerful declaring war on those without power out of fear that those without power (Satanists) live only to physically abuse their ugly, fat, prejudiced, stupid children. Despite the statistically most likely people to abuse them being them themselves, and there being plenty of evidence that many of these hypocrites have done that in the past (numerically many - one thing I believe Qanon followers on is that the majority are gullible Maud Flanders types, so statistically it won't be that many).

Donald Trump supports them over the "violent" Antifa (Antifa haven't killed anyone since 1993 (and that was a suicide), aren't actually an organisation, and are against facism, which Trump also claims to be against), despite Qanon followers carrying and firing weapons regularly, having shot up a pizza place in a terrorist act, refusing to wear masks, and other acts of violence designed to terrorise people.

PART 2 WHO DO THEY HATE?

Um... like, 98% of people.

Qanon is primarily an Apocalyptic Christian Far Right Death Cult. They believe in what they call SRA (Satanic Ritual Abuse) which happens at such a low frequency as to make it as serious a problem as being invaded by pookas. You might find anecdotal evidence here and there, but the majority of cases are hearsay spread by people who weren't there who were a part of or raised by people who were a part of the Satanic Panic. If you hear about it, it's likely bullshit. Just look at the West Memphis 3: accused of Satanic Ritual Abuse, they were sent to prison for wearing black clothes and being teenagers without any evidence. Now, whoever killed those boys is still loose, because Qanon, like all right-wing groups, is about being obeyed, not about justice.

So, with Satanic Ritual Abuse being fucking vapour, they can accuse ANYONE. And if there is no evidence, they cry COVER UP. There is no way, at all, to prove this mindset is wrong as it always self corrects, because being religious in origin, it is driven by BELIEF, not evidence.

So, whoever they believe is evil, is, as far as their reality tunnel goes.

Muslims? Evil child abusers. "But there is no evidence of that. In fact, the Muslim community is actually very protective of their children and other children. They're amongst the kindest people you can meet, even if their political leaders in their own countries are jerks." Well, says Qanon, that's because their community covers up the abuse. There wouldn't be any evidence. But my cousin went to school with a girl who was groomed by a Muslim. It's clear it is something all Muslims do. "But that's stupid. That's like saying that because Ted Bundy, a heterosexual white Republican, murdered loads of women, all heterosexual white Republicans want to murder women!" Now, says Qanon, you are just being silly. Besides, I believe Muslims are bad and Republicans aren't. You can't question my beliefs.

But we can, and we should.

Qanon followers use this vague structure to create complex webs that link up various conspiracy theories, but they aren't a complex web. They're just a list of petty grievances they have from living in their own personal echo chamber.

They hate women, they hate girls, they hate boys who don't conform to their expectations, they hate men who vote left-wing, they hate gay people, bi people, really anyone who isn't heterosexual, they definitely hate trans people (see: trans people want to use bathrooms to abuse children as merely an extension of the Satanic Ritual Abuse claims), they hate people with coloured hair, bright clothes, they hate Jewish people, they hate Muslims, they hate anyone from a fringe religion that doesn't look right, they hate foreigners, black and brown people... anyone they define as different. And to back this up, they claim to be "the majority" being dictated to be a "minority" - they aren't. They're a minority of gobby cunts, a Karen of Nazis (Karen being the best collective noun to describe these childish crybabies who were so desperate to remain in a state of childlike innocence they embraced both religion and then keep insisting their imaginary friend, Jesus, is following them everywhere, like a psychotic stalker ghost).

PART 3 WHERE DOES THEIR BULLSHIT COME FROM?

This is probably the most important part. Not what they believe, but where these ideas come from, and why they aren't new.

Qanon is a mixture of young-and-edgy YouTube/8chan influencer, white supremacist religious manipulation, pro-Capitalist Protestant religious "life is shit, embrace misery" ideology, pedophile hysteria, and "we hate the idea people have rights because we're power mad, but we're going to frame this as a backlash, normal people making their voices heard, a culture war, or whatever else we can rebrand PREJUDICE because even we don't want to admit we are bigots".

So, first of all, the angry white online teenagers: have always existed, will always exist. Their parents don't give a shit about them unless they cause trouble. So, they learn quickly that the best way to get attention is to cause trouble, which leads to kinship with other troubkemakers, forming an echo chamber of escalating troublemaking. But they're also angry, and often poor (in their eyes, or in actuality), so they're drawn to outrage, and like causing it. They're attracted to movements like this because they believe it's a chance to get some attention, someone to notice them.

And who notices them? White supremacists are always on the lookout for recruits. They feed their need for outrage and attention by misrepresenting everything. They take puff-piece news articles and shoddy journalism and further twist them into movements around positions that have no basis in reality. Vaccines? Designed to hurt you. "Uhhh, no," you say. "That's literally the opposite of what a vaccine does." I don't believe that, they say, and you can't question my beliefs. BLM? Terrorism. "No, they just want to not be shot." No they don't, they want to take over and put the Jews in power, and you can't question my beliefs! "You have no evidence!" COVER UP! they scream.

So it goes, so it goes.

Meanwhile, the Protestan work ethic of, "If you didn't suffer, you don't deserve it," goes on and on. They believe that shit things just happen, you can't stop them. Capitalism is founded on this very, very relugious principle: work should be pain for it to have value. This justifies promoting assholes, and making things difficult. But it also promotes the idea that you can't do anything to combat inequality, as that is natural, and you can't do anything to stop bad things happening, they always will, so why try? This lends Qanon a specific pattern: complain, do nothing, complain nothing is being done, still do nothing, repeat. It's wrong to intervene, you see. This allows them to say racism is bad, but God wants us to suffer so we deserve phony-heaven, a paradise they think is built on bricks of human misery... does that sound glorious to you? And if you have something, clearly you did suffer to get it, and so you are worthy, which is why Trump is a hero to them and they believe his every utterance of verbal diarrhea about him being persecuted (to be fair, he is, but he deserves it because he's lazy and incompetent).

Pedophile hysteria is also generally religiously motivated. Children should be protected, but they are not innocent angels. I've worked with children. Some are nice, some are sneaky, some are violent bullies, and so on. The one thing that unites all children is that they are ignorant. That's why we send them to school. And there are people who want to prey on children. The world we usually use to describe those who most often hurt, abuse and damage children is, "family". Promoting the idea of gangs of rampaging pedophiles snatching children into vans and harming them in shadowy rooms, or murdering them in some Satanic ritual, is laughable compared to the epidemic of children being harmed by those parents terrified the pedophiles are out there. Such fear motivates them to do untold harm to children, restricting their freedoms and their growth, teaching them that all sex is bad so they never enjoy it, forcing them to be things they aren't, and turning a blind eye to obvious abuse because those doing it are not the model of abuse being put out by the press and Internet communities. In that last way, Qanon is a driver of child abuse: it actively encourages Apocalyptic Christian Far Right Death Cult members to nit even ask the obvious question: if Epstein was abusing kids, and Epstein was hanging out with Trump, was Trump maybe involved in some way?

And then there is just the prejudiced crowd, most notably the American-exceptionalism delusional whack jobs. Let me be clear, all forms of exceptionalism are prejudiced, as they suggest that those who are exceptional are better and mire deserving than others, and the real world does not contain such hierarchies, just stuff that happens until it stops happening. A monkey may be the alpha, but one day they won't be. It's not a hierarchy, it's just a thing that happens that we project a power structure onto. Who knows what monkey culture is like? Maybe to them deference is more honourable and respected than being in charge. No-one has asked monkeys for their views of ideology or power structures.

This often manifests itself in ideas of, "We shouldn't be ashamed!" and that movements they don't like are, "Against us!" Well, if you're setting out to hurt people because you believe you are better than them, you should be ashamed. That queer Pakistani girl you keep out of college could have been the one to cure cancer! She might have had the unique perspective to make that breakthrough. And, yes, some of us are against Qanon, because Qanon is hurting people. That is the point of the movement: to harm its enemies, by denial if freedom all the way up to outright murder. It isn't a Pride parade or BLM demanding equality and an end to deaths, its a hate movement driven by a desire to punch down, and ultimately perpetuate the very system that isn't even working for those who follow its own ideology.

It's based on fear of the new, even if that new place is better than the old one, change can be scary. They think equality will hurt them, the way collective bargaining would hurt them. But we don't live in a system where resources are so finite you have to do without, we live in a system where resources are finite but we throw away an excess because capitalism couldn't make rich people richer by giving it to those who need it, so they dispose of it and introduce scarcity to drive up the cost. Working together would force them to stop doing that, which is why movements like this exist: to perpetuate a form of exceptionalism more like a cult, where only the leaders reap the rewards.

PART 4 WHAT IS THE END GOAL OF QANON?

It doesn't have one.

Qanon is a right-wing movement. Right-wing movements are about winning arguments now, and then feeling smug, even when the damage is undone later. It's about a sense of self-satisfaction, and not anything else.

Plus, Qanon has so many stake-holders who hate each other that the movement will eventually descend into cannibalism as all these things do.

Finally, being primarily religious in its design, it won't take long for many religious types to realise Q is kind if a God-like figure, a false idol, and when that happens, plenty if their leaders will become worried that their followers are so focused on Q they might "stray from the path" of donating all their money to their church.

Unless it turns out that Q is Q from Star Trek, in which case their end goal is to test Jean-Luc Picard.

PART 5 SHOULD WE FEAR QANON?

Nah. It's a group of fringe lunatics whose time in the spotlight will be fleeting. As I've already said, even their ideas aren't original - this is the Apocalyptic Christian Far Right Death Cult version of Fortnite stealing dances: everyone goes crazy about it for a bit, but it's so insubstantial in its original form, nevermind the cover band version, that almost all people with a lick of common sense will dismiss it. Plus, it doesn't serve any agenda: Trump could easily find himself on the receiving end of it, that one Qanon politician just elected will likely be marginalised the moment Trump vanishes, and having a single person won't sway any votes in such divisive times, which means they'll be proclaimed ineffectual soon enough, and with Epstein it is already showing that it isn't something which helps the powerful, meaning a lot of people who do have secrets will want it gone sooner rather than later lest it bite their own hands. Plus, they are actually harming people - and say what you like about the Republicans, they don't tend to respond well to the PR disaster of groups they side with directly attacking or killing people unless they are their own ACAB stormtroopers.

Plus, it's a bunch of saddos on the Internet. Chances are if you see someone screaming about Qanon and waving around a gun, they'd have done the same and screamed about lizards had it never got started.

PART 6 WHAT SHOULD I DO?

Stop giving them attention. This is one of the most BORING conspiracy theories ever created. Seriously, since 9/11, conspiracy theories have really gone downhill. They used to be about aliens and subterranean kingdoms, and now they're just attempts to misdirect pedophile hunters from the right-wing types who have covered up child abuse, and tie it to phony "think of the children" and "Satan is out to get us" religious hysteria.

With covid-19, the press is having a very slow news cycle, so they're desperately grabbing at anything that can drive search engine algorithm clicks to their sites, so they're covering Qanon because they've seen it trending. I doubt most people involved with it really believe in it, but it is so directionless that it wouldn't matter if they did. Qanon Con would descend into bloodshed fairly quickly because everyone would be angry and arguing that the tater tots are secret SRA code for cannibalising children or that it reveals that Hilary Clinton buries children beneath fields of potatoes. It's stupid, the people involved with it are stupid, and the bigger question is what they believe that led them to this:

Disenfranchisement. Having to respect the beliefs of others. Prejudice. Anger.

Well, boo-fucking-hoo. If these shitbags actually want to stop harm to children, maybe stop supporting gun rights so kids aren't being gunned down in schools, and black kids don't keep getting gunned down everywhere. Until you do that, Qanon, you're the child abusers.

[cobieeliseforsh]

[cobieeliseforsh]

[cobieeliseforsh]

[cobieeliseforsh]

"One more note, one more day I stay alive" game.

This has the makings of a great creepypasta.

[cobieeliseforsh]

“Women” and “People who can become Pregnant” are not synonyms

Not all women can become pregnant. Not everyone who can become pregnant is a woman. 

It is important for us to use accurate and specific language when talking about important issues, because we always want to include everyone who is impacted by an issue. Exclusion and erasure are forms of oppression. 

[cobieeliseforsh]

Avengers Endgame is the best film of a bunch of middle aged men trying to deglove a giant purple dickhead for five hours and mostly failing.

To be fair, there are only two of them that I'm aware of.

[cobieeliseforsh]

Does it seem to anyone else (all the zero people who read this, lol, like I'm not talking to myself) that a lot if our problems are down to the fact that we now have greater opportunities to make our voices heard, but in doing so are now just one amongst many, and therefore we feel marginalised before our blogs, YouTube channels, and Facebook posts don't land with the impact that our egos and our social conditioning by the media given how their similar missives are received, are?

I'm looking at all those across the spectrum of politics, and it seems to me we assume we have a right to be heard just because we can now point cameras at ourselves, and when that doesn't translate into action, we assume conspiracy rather than, you know, it being because we don't have anything worthwhile to say. I know I'm disillusioned by the lack of hopeful narratives for the future, and as a viewer I sometimes find it really intoxicating to see those who agreed with me taking down those who don't, but it just seems like intellectual masturbation the more I think about it. It can be fun, but it's not leading to anything significant or emotionally nourishing. And that lack of something nourishing just leaves you hungry, and hungry people soon get angry, and when we search for why we are angry we splinter and marginalise, and forget we have more in common than what separates us because we assume everyone else is getting that nourishment - when they aren't.

Perhaps what we need to realise is that this might be a good thing: it's accelerating the point at which people might realise that these people don't have answers, and that being all talk is not helping anyone. It's just hot air.

[cobieeliseforsh]

Maybe we should stop using the word "privilege" to describe people who, in general, are only privileged in a single, or a few ways, that don't necessarily help them. There are many who have real privilege who are now using this term to perpetuate a culture war, and recruiting those who should stand side by side with us. Further, it plays into the language of winners and losers that those who perpetuate this system wish to encourage. It also suggests that there is a validity to having privilege: hereditary wealth, political positions and ownership are all things people don't tend to argue with based on self-benefit and it having been a social convention for many millennia.

Perhaps "preference" would be better and more accurate, as the very notion of privilege is a made-up one. White people are prefenced, preferred, and given preference and preferential treatment. This also makes it clear that it isn't something they have gained, but something that has been given, and something that is being continually given by someone with a preference. It also eliminates the notion of winners and losers, and reduces it down to a matter of individual choice: racists choose to prefer one race over any other. This also puts it squarely in the language of consumerist choice, one which we understand, and which even conservatives consider democratic given their obsession with the market, and therefore takes the emphasis away from social conventions considered innate and generally a force for good, and instead places it on the idea that people are making a choice to promote hatred and bigotry.

Many white people do not have privilege overall, and reminding them of this by pointing out one area where they receive preferential treatment, because of their race, has only made them feel ignored by the many ways they are not privileged. But by talking about the preferential treatment they receive, and putting the emphasis not on poor people with little power, and instead on those who grant them that power through preference, it can instead lead to a greater voice as they are then feeling less victimised and able to lend their voices to support for those who are similarly maligned, or given far worse treatment.

And this is important, because BLM should not be made out to be a fringe movement. Like feminism, LGBTQ rights, and promoting the rights of religious minorities, these rights they fight for affect us all. BLM pushing for reforms of policing can only benefit all other POC and those disadvantaged by their socio-economic status. Feminism ensures that men are granted rights and treated as equals by allowing men who do not fit a rigid macho, toxic stereotype to have their voices heard, and allows those who have been stereotyped to feel free to allow psychologically healthy aspects of all our personalities to come out. Strong laws protecting the rights of Muslims always extend out to those of other faiths, protecting their right to worship. And LGBTQ rights ensure that a broad range of straight relationship choices are respected as well.

All of these also ensure that we all benefit as a society. My best lesson for this is the cancer cure question: would you hold to a belief that black people, other people of colour, women, Muslims, Jewish people, other religions, or LGBTQ people should be excluded if you had cancer, and the only person insightful enough to develop a cure was in the group you hated? Because that is what happens whenever we discourage anyone from engagement within our society - a bold, brave and unique new perspective is shut down, and all you're left with is more of the same that has failed to deliver the results so far.

[cobieeliseforsh]

This. So much this.

[cobieeliseforsh]

This is so cool!

This year’s best halloween costume goes to theses Japanese art students -

[cobieeliseforsh]

[cobieeliseforsh]

[cobieeliseforsh]

Reposting because ACAB.

Monday, June 1, 2020

Cops are trying to push a narrative that pits protesters against small business owners, they’re trying to ingratiate themselves to seem more liberal by putting rainbows on the sides of their cruisers, all the while violently acting against small business owners who stand in solidarity with the protesters. They are not only terrorizing non-violent protesters (Medics! They’re terrorizing MEDICS!), but they’re carrying on in their longstanding tradition of wrecking LGBTQ+ spaces. Cops don’t actually care about small business owners, and they sure as fuck have never been LGBTQ+ Allies.

[cobieeliseforsh]

As of now, The Last of Us Part 2 has not come out. Yet, still, we're being told it is the game of the year and will dominate discussion for years to come.

I remember this being a trend when Microsoft entered console gaming. Prior to that, Nintendo, Sony and Sega hyped games with interviews about the game and demos, then the game came out and people formed their opinions. A consensus was reached between critical love and public love for a title.

Then came Halo and Splinter Cell, and I had people telling me that these were the best games ever, so revolutionary, game of the year, better than anything else... six months before they played the games.

Let's be clear: The Last of Us Part 2 will likely be similar to other recent Naughty Dog games. Fun for a single playthrough, with highly derivative stories, a lack of immersion, poor stealth and combat, long stretches of beautiful environments where you basically do nothing, lots of pointless cinematic button mashing that barely counts as interactive, as well as being proclaimed as massively progressive which being basically a right-wing fantasy and chock full of ludonarrative dissonance.

It will not be game of the year. Most sensible people won't be talking about its sub-par Children of Men/The Road meets The Walking Dead claptrap a fortnight after release, never mind years to come. This isn't Psycho Mantis shaking your controller, or either of the Half-Life games, or Resident Evil 4, or the jump to HD gameplay. It won't ever have the emotional resonance of Lee and Clementine's journey. It's just an Uncharted zombie reskin without climbing or the insane action set-pieces, and an obsession with glorifying realistic violence from a developer who traumatises their staff, treats them like shit, and fired one of the few female talents helming big-budget games because of the undeserved hype for the first game.