#The other thing is that the scale and quality of the backlash on this sort of thing scales with the marginalization of the creator

[titleknown]

Doing a pseudo-reblog of this fucking post because I don’t want to get in arguments over it or shove it into people’s faces, but like... I think we need to talk about the ugliness of the broader attitude in that comic (specific media referenced aside) because it keeps getting fucking spread in other posts by otherwise smart people and I hate it.

Rest of this after the break because it’s kind of ballooned into a wall of text.

Like... it is a common experience on the spectrum for people to earnestly gush about their special interests only to get shut down by a neurotypical in front of them because “that’s stupid,”

While the autism experience is diverse enough that it is difficult to categorize, that is A Thing I have seen people on the spectrum talk about time and time again, pretty damn common.

And that’s literally what that comic is doing, just on a wider scale and “funny,” Like, the setup is “the person is gushing about their interests” and the punchline is “the interest is stupid, I feel despair that this person likes such a stupid thing”

It is that exact fucking nightmare scenario for so many of us, but with the joke on the side of the Typical Neurotypical Viewer.

The core “joke” is literally "LOOK AT HOW STUPID THIS PERSON IS FOR BEING EARNEST ABOUT SOMETHING I FIND STUPID! DOESN'T THAT MAKE YOU DESPAIR FOR THE STATE OF BEING SURROUNDED BY STUPID PEOPLE INTO STUPID THINGS?!"

But it’s funny. It’s innocuous. It’s silly. Which lets it spread despite the fact that what it’s saying is; in the end; kinda fucked up.

But, the OP said this in the tags:

But like... this is really two-faced, right? Like, they’re basically saying “I don’t mean to be mean" while also saying “reading critical depth into what you like is bad because the source material is stupid,” which is like...

...Well, firstly I thought y’all fucking hated “the curtains are just blue” and yet y’all are making fun of people for doing the opposite of that, and secondly, it’s doing the same “I don’t get why people like this, therefore it is stupid/worthless” shit that y’all accuse people of doing with Shakespeare and the classics.

And like... I see that attitude a lot. with regards to the big post-Gamergate/post-Infinity-War backlash against fandom as A Thing and the fact it’s becoming more common worries me.

Like, in the common talking point of “I’m sorry that you think Toni Morrison is less good than your fanfic of Goku fucking Charizard” or “Dante didn’t write fanfic because what he wrote was actually good” (paraphrased), I want to deconstruct the core assumptions I see behind it:

The named author and the anonymous fanfic writer reflects the idea that authors working in approved mediums are important, whereas authors working in the Wrong medium aren’t. The “Goku fucking Charizard” thing is based on the assumption that sexuality (And “weird” sexuality especially) debases a work.

The idea that Dante’s “not fanfic” because it’s good primarily serves to define fanfic as based around quality rather than the bullshit insane walls of copyright law (Which is actually what the “Dante is fanfic” talking point was about).

The way the sex fanfic and Toni Morrison are pointed at each other shows that while fanfic must use its worst works as representatives, published literary fiction must use its best.

I wonder what the sorts of people would say about the fact that a novel about a woman fucking a bear literally won Canada’s highest literary award. But I digress.

It is an ugly view that is ironically pretty anti-intelectual in and of itself, but from a different angle than their opposition.

It seeks to demolish a very specific intellectual view of the importance of democratizing art/audience because it views the public intellect and taste as stupid and not worth commenting on. Better to return to a walled garden than to let the mob dictate public taste (even if they’re not really in control).

And like, to speculate from what I’ve observed, I hypothesize that comes from a view that; since corporate monopoly over media via copyright and consolidation is basically invincible, the best we can do is on a “grassroots” level.

And their view of the “grassroots” is that the culture is infantilized, by people who for stupid selfish reasons like stupid baby garbage instead of “real” art and give it all their money, and that fandom is primarily an engine for the most devoted of these stupid baby garbage worshippers.

You will note that what they deem as ‘stupid baby garbage” tends to cross over heavily into the diagram of “things liked by autistic people.” They’ll deny this, while ignoring how much a lot of anti-autistic ableism isn’t directly targeted but inherently stochastic responses against a perceived abnormality.

Point is, they feel this abnormal element is a key driver of what they think must be excised from the culture, like a tumor. So the core idea is that if they bully enough people into shutting up about their garbage baby interests, that “imperial core” of people into Dumb Baby Bullshit will be starved and Real Art will reassert its rightful place.

Note that none of this is conspiratorial, it’s stochastic. It’s a bunch of people with the same general beliefs adopting the same shitty tactics by sheer force of carcination. And they don’t even have to adopt all of the beliefs to act in the interest of that view, just enough of them.

And I am begging y’all, please stop boosting and reblogging this shit in the name of countering the excesses of fandom. There are better ways and better critiques you could be making and supporting.

And for the love of god, people who are saying this shit, you’re not helping. You are not going to break up Disney or elevate the fucking culture by shaming autistic people.

Go work on trying to decrease copyright duration, or expand arts programs, or push for antitrust, or fucking something that’s not bullying people for being publicly earnest about what they like!

[vitos-ordination-song]

It’s hard to have a stance in the middle of the quality of such a beloved and debated work. ‘Cause on the one hand, you have those who will hear nothing but praise for it, and on the other, there’s a kind of mindless backlash to frame popular works as overrated. I wouldn’t call LOGH overrated. Just, its diehard fans are overlooking some major issues.

It’s fine for a story to have limitations. “Plot holes,” wonky worldbuilding in places, etc. But as someone who’s read a lot of sci-fi, I found it to be full of anachronisms and questionable writing choices. I mean, why are the space imperials talking about Valhalla? We’re given no backstory for how this galactic empire came to have Norse religion. This is from a society which views Earth as a long forgotten backwater. Like??? There’s a lack of attention to materialism, like technology is just able to do anything; the battles feel more based on sea/ground combat than anything to do w space; the story will drop a huge bomb like “the first kaiser only allowed people of Germanic descent into the empire,” only to never explore the issue of race again; etc.

None of the above issues are enough for me to criticize the story really. I just view them as limitations. No one person, no creative team even, can create a perfect world in fiction. And there are really interesting things about it. For instance, I found all the history episodes compelling. The author clearly has an interest in history, especially military and leadership history. It’s fun to watch a story where the past is projected on to space. That’s not to say that the story does nothing original, and it does have harder scifi elements at times. Besides, there’s no reason that history can’t repeat itself on a galactic scale.

My issue really is with the ending. I’m not sure the promise of the first half was fulfilled. I’m still sorting through why, but I’d say the number one reason is that it feels too satisfied with itself. The story became cliched at the end—how disappointing! I mean, the Church of Terra was just there to be Evil and mess things up for the protagonists; there was absolutely no thought put into making that interesting. Every single character moment felt telegraphed. There was none of the tension and excitement of the first half. It was… corny? Maybe it was always corny. Maybe I just liked Yang Wen-li’s corniness better, lol. But his self-effacing nature kept the story from going full soap opera. With him gone, it was like, Reinhard’s just gonna keep being the same guy and then die, ok, and now Julian is a generic hero, complete with under-written girlfriend. So why did I watch to the end???

I’m venting but there was a lot I did like. I thought Reuenthal’s episodes were extremely well executed. I really only lost interest when it was like “the alliance and the empire have to fight again despite both sides wanting to talk.” It made Reinhard more boring to me that he was that predictable. And the show had never felt so complacent on the topic of violence. It’s just boring to be like, yep, we’ll end with the exact same values that we started with: might makes right. Ooooh Julian proved himself to Reinhard through combat. I guess if he died his opinions wouldn’t be worth anything???? When this was framed as Reinhard’s fatal flaw, a personal foible that led him to recklessly pursue Yang, I really enjoyed it. But I’m supposed to respect the character, right? Well what’s to respect when you always have the advantage and end up fighting a kid with way less firepower than you? I suppose you could say that Reinhard earned that right by fighting from a young age himself, but it felt like the story took a step backwards. I get bored of one trick ponies. Then it’s like “Julian gets Revenge for Yang by going on a murder spree” as if that’s also supposed to impress me. Cool, you created completely two dimensional characters for your hero to justifiably kill, you want a cookie for that amazing writing? In the end the story ended up being short-sightedly masculinist. But yeah I did enjoy it. Yang was the realest and I’ll love him forever. The rest of you hoes can go home.

[jcmarchi]

Will Replacing Creative Professionals with AI Backfire?

New Post has been published on https://thedigitalinsider.com/will-replacing-creative-professionals-with-ai-backfire/

Will Replacing Creative Professionals with AI Backfire?

Tools touting artificial intelligence (AI) haven’t been around for very long. But that hasn’t stopped companies from taking a leap of faith with them. Some have even attempted to replace humans with ChatGPT or similar apps.

One such experiment came from Sports Illustrated. The venerable publication has allegedly published AI-generated writers and content on its website. They went so far as to source AI author profile pictures as well.

They’re not the first to try this. CNET tested a similar strategy. There’s no doubt that other companies will follow.

The quest for cheap (or free) content is hitting writers. But it could impact all creative professionals in one way or another. Web designers, developers, and graphic artists are among them.

How far might companies go? And what sort of backlash could they face? I have a few thoughts on what might happen.

Let’s Go Hypothetical with Taylor Swift

Just humor me here. I’m trying to imagine the lengths a company might go to save money. And how they might replace a creative professional with AI. Thus, here’s a hypothetical scenario starring Miss Taylor Swift.

Swift is pulling in a massive amount of cash. Her Eras tour has raked in billions of dollars. She’s a media darling and has fans all over the world. She’s irreplaceable – right? Well, it wouldn’t be shocking if someone tried.

Let’s suppose a record label had all of her recorded music. Perhaps they feed these tracks into an AI model. The app “learns” her lyrical style and the tone of her voice.

Now, that record label has a big idea. Their AI model can generate new songs using Swift’s signature style.

They can replicate her voice. Perhaps they don’t want to go that far, though. It will likely have legal ramifications. But they can change things up just enough to sound similar. And that may be enough to produce a hit.

Would fans accept AI-generated music? The song uses a proven formula, after all. Therefore, let’s assume they do.

Playing this song on the radio may work well. But what about a concert tour? People will want to connect with this hot new artist – or a facsimile of one. It’s a key ingredient to a successful brand.

This fictional record label could hire an actor to lip-sync on stage. A modern-day Milli Vanilli, perhaps. But this doesn’t guarantee an Eras-like hit. The problem is in creating a personal connection.

Swift connects with her fans on an authentic level. She has built her reputation over many years. The idea of replacing her with an actor who “visualizes” an AI tune may be a bridge too far for fans. At least, that’s what I’m hoping.

The Question of Long-Term Success

The scenario above may seem ridiculous. But it’s significantly cheaper than paying an artist. And that’s the worry. Companies will be enticed by the possibilities. And they won’t need to work at the scale of a knockoff Taylor Swift.

A website owner may decide that they can get by without a developer. An ad agency might trust DALL·E to do the work of a graphic designer. Anyone capable of writing a prompt could do this work.

The quality of the work is another matter. After all, it was relatively easy for humans to pick apart the Sports Illustrated articles. Search engines will probably do the same. Why should Google reward such laziness?

Now, back to our industry. I’ve opined before about AI’s impact on web designers. I believe that people will try all manner of ways to save money. But a great website still requires a human touch.

We may see a cycle similar to that of DIY website builders. People will try them. Some will be dissatisfied with the results. That’s when they’ll seek out a professional. I think the same is possible with AI.

AI tools will surely improve. But are they reliable enough for long-term success? That may be the defining question of this era (see what I did there?)

The Acceptance and Expectations for AI

How or if AI replaces creative professionals may come down to our acceptance and expectations. That goes for both decision-makers and the public.

The latter may inform the former. If the public consumes AI-generated content without complaint, AI will spread like wildfire. Companies will continue to test the boundaries.

But what if conversions and SEO rankings start to plummet? We’ll likely see a change in course.

Much may depend on where AI shows up. Consumers may not blink at “disposable” content like Sports Illustrated generated. But they may demand higher quality from journalistic content.

Expectations also play a role for companies. Will they consider an AI-generated website good enough? Or will they prefer the attention to detail of human designers?

We’re still early in the game. The answers will determine the impact on how creative professionals are valued.

Where Is This All Headed?

I’m betting that AI will become a foundation for many types of projects. Perhaps it seizes the low end of the market. For example, it could spell trouble for those building fast and cheap websites.

But it doesn’t signal the end for skilled humans. Talented people will continue to thrive.

It does feel like a period of adjustment, though. Thus, any feelings of unease are understandable.

I don’t have all the answers. But I hope that continuing to learn and grow will help. In the end, maybe that’s all we can do. Prove our worth time and again.

Meanwhile, we can watch as AI evolves and brings chaos to multiple industries.

Related Topics

[maeamian]

I tend to be less amused by the genre of post where we laugh at the angry reviews of conservatives who don't like that there are queer people in art than many of you, that whole "I don't get it how could this be queer" and "How come they're shoving this down our throat now when the comics..." style comment about Sandman being the specific animus for this post.

Where, like, obviously someone who sincerely wrote those things would have drastically missed the point of the show, but there's a key word in that phrase 'sincerely', a I don't think they're actually operating in a way that adverb applies. I think this scenario is a bit more like that Sartre quote, that they're just fucking around with words because serious people believe in words and they believe in power, fundamentally this isn't different from that news clip the other day where people got mad at Cracker Barrel for introducing their non-meat sausage, no one actually cares about the sausage qua the sausage the sausage is a stand in for how a large movement in our culture is tending towards greater inclusivity and the people who don't like inclusivity don't like *that* and that's what the yelling is about

I think something that people miss when they pick out the absolute point-missingest ones to highlight how dumb our foes are is that said foes don't care they're being dumb on purpose and also, we, the audience, aren't the actual intended target, they don't care if we laugh. The actual point, I think, and the place of critical stress, is on the publishers and creators, firstly they need a one star review that won't get scrubbed for calling someone a slur and will pass the extremely generous faith of the moderation algorithms over at Amazon/Twitter/Whatever and possibly even a casual human perusal, "I hate gay people they put gay people in this" is gonna get that review removed but "I was confused by the presence of gay people" sounds like it's in good faith if you refuse to apply any context to anything, which those algorithms and their overworked moderators do.

The other thing that I think we miss is the scale, we're just looking at like... the four dumbest reviews and going 'oho' but when you're the creator, if you're looking at your reviews you go 'Jeeze there's hundreds and/or thousands of people hating this for this specific reason' and depending on why you were putting that art into the world that can hit you in a lot of ways but plenty of them extremely discouraging. I'm drawing on my experience here as a part of a mildly successful YouTube channel and knowing a few other people with them as well, but that sort of backlash can absolutely make an artist go "I would like to not touch this live wire again" which is far more the point than expressing any sincere confusion about anything. Anyhow this is probably too many words about something that doesn't really matter, I definitely am not *so* annoyed that I think you shouldn't, but it does feel a little bit like by highlighting this sort of review you're helping (not substantially or anything) with their actual goal of making it more annoying to make diverse art.

[scrawnydutchman]

Smash Bros. Ultimate DLC: A Recap and Review

Well gang . . . . the time has finally come. The final Smash Bros. Ultimate DLC has been confirmed and is coming soon. There will be no major updates for Smash Bros. after this beyond maybe some patches and bug fixes. Before I go into what this post is about, I want to take a quick moment to give respect to Mr. Sakurai for all the incredible work and dedication he has shown for this franchise. Regardless of how you feel about any of the entries, nobody can deny Sakurai’s love and commitment to his work and it was his drive that drove him to legendary status as a game director. His work is no small feat. He created the single largest and most ambitious crossover property ever conceived. He also created a video game loved by millions. A game that is not only a blast to play on it’s own, but introduced many franchises to gamers like myself whom may not have given those things a try if not for Sakurai educating us on them. So Sakurai, this one is for you sir. Enjoy your vacation.

So allow me to ask a controversial question . . . what makes a good DLC fighter for smash bros? Seems like every character no matter who it is sees SOME sort of backlash eventually. Anybody who’s been a part of the community is aware of the memes and the arguments. “too many sword characters” “too many fire emblem characters” “Banjo hasn’t been relevant in decades” “Who asked for Minecraft Steve?” “what the fuck is Xenoblade?”. It’s all been said before. Many might say that a good DLC fighter is purely subjective. After all, SOMEBODY out there is getting their favorite character in the game regardless of who you pick, so why be a spoil sport?

Well . . .  .what if I told you I can measure the quality of each smash DLC through an objective, impartial scale? I can feel some gawking at the assertion already, but I’m serious. What if I could give an evaluation of each fighter that has nothing to do with my personal attachment to their franchises or their playstyles?

Here are the ground rules. A smash DLC fighter gets 1 point for each of the following 4 criteria it meets:

1. It’s a yet-to-be represented or under represented IP. Smash is first and foremost a crossover game, so the more representation of franchises the better.

2. It’s an impressive get copyright wise. Some characters are more difficult to acquire for the game than others for legal reasons, so their inclusion at all is something to behold. A character meets this standard if it’s either a brand new company being represented or if it’s from a company that’s known for being stingy with it’s IP representation (looking at you Square Enix).

3. It’s a highly requested character. Pretty self explanatory.

4. It’s fun to play as. Now, this one is especially tricky because whether or not a character in a game is “fun” is as subjective as subjective gets, so I’m gonna tweak the definition a bit. Rather than whether or not I personally have fun with it, I’m gonna judge it based on how faithful their moveset is to their game and how innovative their kit is for Smash as a whole (whether it does unprecedented things and is ultra unique to that character). This way I can evaluate based on who would likely play that character the most (a fan of the franchise that character came from).

As a result of this criteria, every character will be evaluated on a scale of 0 to 4. 0 being it doesn’t meet any of these standards and therefore sucks and 4 meaning it hits ALL of them and is therefore as good as DLC gets. Okay? Okay. Let’s go.

1. Piranha Plant

The very first DLC of the game is also the only outlier to the criteria I just set up. I decided it cannot be evaluated on the same level as the rest of the DLC. For one simple reason . . . it’s free. It’s free DLC that was released just for the lulz and bares no consequence of any kind to anyone so . . . this one goes into it’s very own “meh” category.

2. Joker

Okay, now let’s get into the actual fighter passes. Joker is the very first paid DLC fighter of the roster this time around and he’s an immediately interesting choice. While I don’t believe he’s particularly highly requested, he’s certainly a welcome surprise. He’s representation for a yet to be rep’d franchise (+1 point) and he’s an impressive feat as NOBODY expected a character like this to appear in smash (+1 point). His moveset is faithful to his games and he has a meter that’s unique to him, so I suppose he breaks the mold enough to earn that last one (+1 point).

Joker’s score: 3 out of 4.

3. The Hero

Now, I have to admit that when I first saw this DLC announced I did not immediately understand the significance of him. I was not familiar with Dragon Quest up until this game. But now that i’ve been more educated, not only is this a major contribution for the Japanese player base, BUT Dragon Quest plays an instrumental role in gaming history as one of the original RPGS. So give him a point for unrepresented game (+1 point). I would also consider him an impressive grab since it’s a Square Enix IP and Square has been notably stingy about allowing others to use their IP in the past, ESPECIALLY Nintendo after a particularly rocky history between companies. So that’s another point (+1 point). Now, I don’t think he was particularly highly requested as I haven’t seen him in any lists (and haven’t heard of him at all up until this point) so for now i’m not gonna give him that point but i may come back and make an edit if someone can provide a citation. Gameplay wise the most dramatic things Hero brings are his magic meter and his RNG down B. Sort of fun in a fucking around type of way AND true to his character. Plus no other character has anything like that. So I’ll give him that point (+1 point).

The Hero’s score: 3 out of 4.

4. Banjo & Kazooie

Alright. Goes without saying that this is easily one of the most requested characters in the game’s history AND it’s a very impressive grab to boot. Making a deal like this with rare and microsoft is no small feat. points for both (+2 points). It’s also a not-yet-represented IP so point for that as well (+1 point). As for gameplay, while it’s true that Banjo’s moveset is VERY faithful to the games, it’s unfortunately widely known to not be that exciting for a DLC character. See, most DLC fighters have some sort of mind blowing gimmick to them like a meter or an extra ability or a way they interact with the world. The closest thing Banjo has is his limited use of Wonder Wing, which unfortunately is more of a handicap than anything. I’m afraid I can’t give him this point. Such a shame, too. This was SO CLOSE to a perfect DLC character.

Banjo & Kazooie’s score: 3 out of 4.

5. Terry Bogard

Now, in spite of not necessarily being a highly requested character, Terry has a lot going for him. Not yet represented IP (+1 point), Impressive grab since this is SNK’s first and only rep (+1 point) and most of all his fighting game moveset is IMPRESSIVELY mapped to the smash bros layout. The KoF inputs are there and the character really rewards you for being familiar with how that game is played. Kudos! (+1 point).

Terry’s score: 3 out of 4.

6. Byleth

Okay . . . I don’t have a lot of faith for this character. You already know where this is going. For one, DEFINITELY not an underrepresented franchise (this is the 8th Fire Emblem character to be featured). Certainly not an impressive feat copyright wise since it’s a Nintendo property (and, again, a very much represented one at that). Not a highly requested character by any means. It’s last chance for a point is it’s gameplay . . .which I would argue doesn’t deviate much from what plenty of characters in the game already do. This character is just more of the same.

Byleth’s score: 0 out of 4

7. Min Min

Min Min is a bit of a mixed bag. On one hand, it IS a yet to be represented franchise, so as per my criteria that deserves a point (+1 point). She’s also very innovative gameplay wise as her moves are more about mapping the two hit buttons to each of her arms(+1 point). Unfortunately that’s where the points end. She’s not a highly requested character and she’s not an impressive grab copyright wise as she’s a Nintendo IP.

Min Min’s rating: 2 out of 4.

8. Steve

Remember when Steve’s inclusion literally shut down Twitter? I sure do. Definitely one of the most befuddling entries in Smash history . . .but that does NOT make him a bad choice. Definitely a yet to be represented franchise (+1 point) and a VERY impressive get copyright wise (another retrieval from Microsoft). It also technically is a highly requested character . . . granted one might argue those requests were more just a meme than anything else, but i mean . . if he wasn’t requested he wouldn’t be here at all so . . (+1 point). As for gameplay? Well, Steve is definitely unique. So unique that for his patch EVERY STAGE IN THE GAME had to be restructured to match his mining gimmick. That . . . is crazy. so that’s another point (+1 point). Holy shit . . . I think Steve might be the perfect DLC pick.

Steve’s score: 4 out of 4.

9. Sephiroth

Sephiroth was an ENORMOUS shock to be sure. Not at all predictable, but VERY welcome. He may not be a highly requested character, but he’s one of those characters you didn’t know you needed. He definitely gets a point for increasing rep for an under represented franchise (+1 point) and thank you for introducing much more Final Fantasy music to the game. He’s also a VERY impressive get copyright wise. Final Fantasy representation is hard to get enough, but Sephiroth himself is a copyright nightmare as Sakurai laid out in his showcase. (+1 point). Gameplay wise Sephiroth is interesting. His gimmick is similar to Terry’s but distinct in the bonuses it gives him, and he officially breaks the record for sword character with longest reach. I’d say he deserves a point (+1 point).

Sephiroth’s score: 3 out of 4.

10. Pyra/Mythra

Now I must admit, I was disappointed by this entry and still kind of am. However, that’s my bias talking. If I’m to be fair I should evaluate her based on the criteria. For starters, Xenoblade has only one other rep besides her in the whole game. So she gets a point for increasing rep for an under represented IP (+1 point). She’s also pretty highly requested as I understand it (which surprises me because I literally did not know who these ladies were until this reveal but fair is fair) (+1 point). As for being an impressive grab copyright wise . . . not really? It’s another Nintendo IP. Gameplay wise she doesn’t really do anything new. Basic sword character stuff and a stance switch.

Pyra/Mythra’s score: 2 out of 4

11. Kazuya

In contrast to my personal bias against Pyra/Mythra, I had the complete opposite response to Kazuya. I was PUMPED to have him in the game because I love Tekken to death. But even I have to admit he wasn’t a highly requested character so no point for him on that front. It IS a yet to be repped franchise though (+1 point) AND I would consider it an impressive grab copyright wise as this is the only Namco rep besides Pac Man. It’s always super impressive to get a third party character. (+1 point). As for gameplay .  this dude is the ultimate example of how to map fighting game controls to smash’s layout. EVERYTHING Kazuya can do in the tekken series he can do in smash. he has direcitonal inputs and true combo potential . . it’s fucking awesome. defs deserves a point for that. (+1 point).

Kazuya’s score: 3 out of 4

12. Sora

At last, the final DLC fighter is here. May I say . . I can’t think of a better way to go out. This is the single most requested character ever. You know it. I know it. That’s a point (+1 point). It also goes without saying that this is an ULTRA impressive grab copyright wise. So impressive many touted it’s impossibility for over a decade (myself included). (+1 point). It’s a yet to be represented franchise (+1 point). Finally his gameplay . . .well, he hasn’t been released yet so whether or not I personally find him fun will remain to be seen. But I will say, in spite of being another sword character and subscribing to some of those conventions, they were VERY clever with how to map his projectiles as well as how to optimize his aerial combo potential in a way no other sword character can match. That deserves a point. (+1 point).

Sora’s score: 4 out of 4.

So there you have it. My rankings of each smash DLC based on the criteria set above. This isn’t to convince anyone that they’re wrong for playing who they play or liking who they like. I just thought it’d be a fun experiment to judge each entry based on the number one things people consider for every character. I can’t wait for Sora to come out and I can’t wait to continue enjoying this game in it’s completed form.

4 out of 4: Steve, Sora

3 out of 4: Joker, Hero, Banjo, Terry, Sephiroth, Kazuya

2 out of 4: Min Min, Pyra/Mythra

1 out of 4:

0 out of 4: Byleth

omitted for being free: Piranha Plant

[davidmann95]

JJ Abrams Superman Movie officially announced, with Ta-Nahisi Coates writing

Anonymous said: Just a few days after you said you were happy with DC taking a break from Superman movies and just focusing on him being on tv again, they go and announce a new Superman movie. How do you feel? Coates is an exciting choice, I think

Caught me red-handed! But to be fair a couple times I said that I left a caveat of ‘barring extraordinary circumstances’, which I’d say this qualifies as.

There’s only so much to go off of at this point, but even these tidbits open up a lot to think about.

* As out of left field as Coates feels at first blush - he’s a Marvel man! - it’s not entirely shocking that he’d be on WB’s shortlist to be their ‘how to fix Superman’ guy: he got a MacArthur Genius Grant the same year as his #1 bestselling book about what the American Way actually means, after which he got into superhero writing with a run that ended up having elements incorporated into a cultural moment in Black Panther, and then Between The World And Me was cited as the inspiration for the Watchmen show that substantially drew on Superman iconography and won 11 Emmys. People are already talking about him admittedly not being a DC or Superman guy (though in that same interview he notes his love for the DCAU, specifically including STAS), but if he’s here he’s got something to say and, y’know, probably read a decent amount of Superman stuff either since then/prior to this or to get ready for the gig, so can’t say I’m worried.

* Related note: I’m seeing folks concerned about how much control he’ll really have over the project, which is fair. But that it’s his involvement that’s being touted over JJ Abrams’ (the guy who, like him or not, rebirthed Star Wars as a going concern to the tune of over $2 billion), and that they’re formally announcing and hyping it up as TA-NEHISI COATES’ SUPERMAN MOVIE™, COMING 202X before even having a director or lead actor attached, says to me that whatever his vision is it’s one WB’s going all-in on for the time being.

* I’ve seen plenty of discussion already about the appropriateness of this potentially starring a black Superman given both the dynamics/thematics of Superman as a character, and more significantly the implications of Coates maybe only being brought onboard to do ‘the black version’. That is a conversation I have precisely zero qualifications to wade in on with my own takes, but given that he is a dude with enough options that he could probably even turn down an opportunity on this scale, and the aforementioned weight being given to his role in this, I think it’s safe to say whatever we’re going to get is something he’s onboard with.

* Also seen concerns re: his pedigree as a fiction writer - another one I’m not that qualified to weigh in on, I’ve only read the first year or so of his Black Panther and Captain America runs (though I got the rest of his BP on Comixology while it was free, gotta check it out sometime), which were solid if a bit more workmanlike than you’d hope, along with the (other category altogether) Between The World And Me some time ago, which was...considerably more than solid. I know however his fiction novel debut in The Water Dancer was well-received, his Marvel work rather than staying ‘grounded’ hasn’t shied away from the sort of outré high concepts you’d want to see in a Superman movie, and the main criticism of his runs of ‘they’re too slow’ wouldn’t likely have the space to apply in a 2-3 hour Hollywood blockbuster, so again, not too concerned.

* Perhaps time will make me eat my words, but hot take: there is a basically 0% chance this is about Calvin Ellis or Val-Zod. Yes, yes, the DC movies are reportedly embracing the multiverse an excuse to do standalone stuff, but the two examples of that thus far in Joker and The Batman are still broadly rooted in the conventional trappings of those characters even if they’re separated from the ‘main universe’. Maybe someday the options might go further afield, but right now, when Superman hasn’t had an unambiguous silver screen hit in over 40 years? They’re not going to pour a quarter-billion dollars into a movie with the premise of “last son of the doomed planet Krypton, imbued beneath Earth’s yellow sun with powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men and raised with the noblest ideals of truth and justice, Some Other Guy Most Of You Don’t Know protects the world...as Superman!” Not even getting into Val-Zod being just one member of an ensemble cast from a largely overlooked book and having the baggage of being Zod’s kid, and the EVERYTHING of making a four-quadrant tentpole film about Super-Obama (when you haven’t even been able to make your regular Super work) - this is either going to be Clark, or if they do make Superman black or brown but still want some distance it’ll be a Jon movie so it’s still got the direct connection to the original and the ‘son of Superman’ pitch in its corner too.

* Abrams is an interesting partner. He’s Hollywood’s big nostalgia guy, and that’s...probably not what Coates is going to be going for here. I assume he’s basically there to keep things familiar enough for WB’s tastes, which itself raises questions about the nature of Coates’ pitch and how it was internally received even if they’re clearly very publicly committed to it.

* Michael B. Jordan probably won’t really be the guy - he apparently talked about it, reasonably concluded he didn’t want to face that inevitable scale of backlash after what he already went through just playing the Human Torch, and the tradition is to cast an unknown in the part - but I guess never say never. Heck, while I sure wouldn’t bet on it I don’t think Ryan Coogler ending up involved is out of the question either; Coates’ previous screenwriting experience was working on a project with Coogler and Jordan that evidently didn’t come to fruition (Wrong Answer, a drama about a 2006 Atlanta public school cheating scandal), and they seem to have maintained a relationship as they had a public discussion regarding The Water Dancer in 2019.

* Ok I know making fun of Snyder people is passé at this point and usually more “NO SUPERMAN MOVIES MAY BE PERMITTED UNTIL THE CIVILIZATION-REDEFINING FIVE-FILM SAGA IS COMPLETE” howling into the void is barely worth notice, and “this is solely WB retaliating against us for bending them to our will!” in response to a Superman reboot would normally be just an amusing side-note too. But trying to get #HenryCavillSuperman/#HenryCavillIsOurSuperman trending in response to the possibility of a black Superman...I mean obviously so fucking many of them are fully aware they’re just not saying the quiet part loud, but what’re the percentages here?

So that’s what I’ve got so far. How do I feel about it all? It’s odd; given that there are basically no actual details beyond a name attached I’d never thought about in this context, and that this came with no forewarning just as the prospect of Superman in movies for the next long while seemed as dead as it ever had been, it’s so ill-defined and seems so unreal that I don’t feel much of anything about it yet? Plus I’m no longer driven on a day-by-day basis by a savage, all-consuming desire to slake a thirst for quality Superman stuff long left unquenched the way I was even a couple years ago, which likely also plays its part. But objectively? This is a guy formally, nationally recognized for being smart who’s also a journalist and comics fan being given Superman, with what sure feels like a lot of leeway and presumably a blank slate, which is basically the abstract concept of a perfect pick. So yes: I formally rescind my “please no Superman movies in the 2020s” plea.

[myinnerscarlett]

Just call me Madam, Maestro, Majesty, Master, Mistress...or Mensa member

Do any of these conjure up a particularly positive connotation?  Not in the latter case (at least among some who have tested into the group just to infiltrate our camps). Yes, I’m referring to a certain comedienne (no, not “The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel”) who reported it was a bastion of right-wing politics. “Camps” not just Steiner summer camp in the Catskills. So much for the “alt right” am I right? Mrs. Maisel did that bit, too. The Nichols and May reference. I only steal from the best. Back to politics... Especially in our current climate, when we would find it difficult to travel to Tuscany even if we could find a house for rent, well that’s what he said. That is, looking back fondly on that episode of Seinfeld, the guy who insisted because he conducted on-the-side gigs his friends must refer to him as “The Maestro” is of particular poignance. Master is, of course, taboo, and reminiscent of our history of slavery. Madam has mistress written all over it. A madam runs a brothel. Majesty is right out of the question in a democracy. Characters worthy of a play, most of them unworthy of honorable mention, I’d say...save for alliteration’s sake “The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel.” And that's the point, princess. Even “Mr.” and “Mrs.” or “Ms.” is considered an “honorific.” But let’s not get ahead of ourselves, missy. The world is full of examples like “The Maestro” nothing more or less than a light-hearted and humorous attack on the use of “honorifics” that sprinkle the writer’s pad. Dr. Seuss is an example of one who has neither a PhD nor an MD. In honor of this season of The Grinch, let’s remember a talented man, who gave himself a pseudonym. Or, as The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel puts it a “nom de plume.” A stage/pen name. Jackie says it sounds like a sex toy. I won’t elaborate. Jokes are almost always better than taking yourself too seriously.  A fault I find with all who insist on using an honorific. Just like the Maestro. Earned or given, the quality of the degree matters. As does the dissertation. The word honorific does not apply only to an honorary, but usually to a two letter abbreviation that seems to invite way too much controversy. The best among the academics and the medical field alike are not wrapped up in themselves. Public servants, remember, not slaves, as no one should be on either side of the desk - and I should know having frequently worked both sides of that desk simultaneously. It’s up to you what you call someone, not that individual. Or else, this is not a free country. No one can dictate the words that come from you. You are the boss. If students refuse to refer to professors that way, which is their right, so can customers of health care, sometimes known as mere patients. I know it seems like an either or proposition and I think there are many people who agree, but it seems the majority want to defend the honorific not of Mr. or Mrs. X at The Gaslight but that good ole doc. They defend it like it’s their reputation or their own skin. Or even their religion. In this way, I might be more like tRump than I care to admit. Is it a zero sum game if you want it so much it seems like a win for you to be called Madam X. If I don’t follow suit, do you lose and I win! I’ve voted once and I’ll vote again. It’s the run-off. I live in Georgia. Sorry if the Scarlett reference is under attack. It still fits especially where I landed. It’s tongue-in-cheek, a pseudonym I gave myself years ago, myinnerscarlett, knowing all too well I have no mean bone in my body and could never imagine beating a horse, as she is shown to do in the film, now a film rightfully explained in context of the time frame. The actors in the film defended their various roles, regardless. In retrospect, I hope we don’t lose every shred of our sense of humor in our pursuit for the betterment of society. On this point, however, I am taking no one’s side. No one hears me pronounce the honorific because it doesn’t mean a thing, save perhaps pretense. The letters belong behind the name. That goes for everybody. Period. It’s a habit worth breaking. What’s amazing is the backlash on this topic in times of so much real turbulence. Is this just another distraction? Scary thought. Even scarier than Halloween. And, as for true honorary degrees, just think of how many of those are revoked after the honoree falls from grace. Master aside, Mister, the old use of mistress, which Mrs. or Miss or Ms. is meant to abbreviate, as in lady or mistress of the house, is old-fashioned; and, as with slavery, there’s always a backstory. Now we can add to the list John’s Hopkins, which officially acknowledged a long held belief or mistake made in reference to its founder not having held slaves. Or is that too white-washed a term; owned is more to the point. The backstory is told, as the statues are removed. Ours is a haunting history and I’m not just talking Halloween. Sadly, all of these characters could be made into costumes. Some have been worn, unfortunately, in blackface. Thanksgiving is not much better in terms of the hidden backstory of abuse and even slavery of indigenous peoples. We prefer pretty pictures or cute, funny stories. They make us happy. We could all use a good laugh, but not at others’ expense. We don’t like stories of human or of animal abuse. We want heroes/heroines and we foster that sort of worship. We ignore the crux of the matter when (as one member of Mensa put in a recent letter to the editor about Aristotle) there’s a greater lesson to be learned. In reference as to whether or not nonhuman animals had rights, the gist was that politics was the highest form of ethics, and if ethics were the basis of animal rights, the world would be a better place. It’s more than academic. So, after the backlash, Edison fans focused on the Topsy scandal and diminished his role in the cruel electrocution of the former circus elephant; however, it’s also been reported that he performed the same cruelty on stray dogs and cats as well as cattle and horses. If he or his company affiliates filmed any act, I’d say complicit is as complicit does and this is just a matter of mincing words. He used to describe the gory details of electrocution, or so I’ve read, in its defense. Again, I get those were other times but there’s nothing pretty about it. It happened. Even if it was deemed less cruel than other forms of “execution” and even if it was practiced on humans at the time, have we learned nothing? Topsy, the elephant, was innocent. The cruelty on the part of a drunken handler (much like a slave owner) caused behavioral concerns that justified in the twisted minds of the circus owners and their cronies using her one last time. It was a cruel demonstration. Edison is also purported to have cheated his most famous assistant, Nikola Tesla. Geeks and nerds love this guy. I say that in jest. Hopefully, Mensans still have a sense of humor. It’s a sliding scale, right? If Edison was alive today, what would he say? Well, apart from the usual rhetoric, how’s this for an anecdote. True or not, believe it or not, he had a reputation of being a slob. That’s slob, not snob, as he wore his shoes two sizes too big in order to slip into them more easily. No bending over to tie shoe laces. Sounds like he should have invented the slip-on loafer. Self-promotion we know exists among showmen or editors and reviewers alike from within the least admired or lesser known organizations to most highly publicized and political platforms - sometimes to the point of being unethical. What else can you expect from a self-educated guy. As some have also pointed out, Mensa (overall) has a certain sartorial reputation. Subtlety, not discretion, is the better part of valor. Mincing words doesn’t make it right.

The narcissists are running our country now. You need to understand what this means. Read and share this book today! 

[wandworkshop]

Wand suggestion for @aad17.

Length: 13 1/2 in Wood: Aspen Core: Phoenix feather Flexibility: firm

--

I did have a look at your own suggestions, but only after I already chose a wood and core myself, so that I wouldn’t be influenced in my pick. I find it very interesting that my suggestion is fundamentally different from your own ideas! If you want to, feel free to drop me a message and tell me what you think about my pick, and also why you thought that some of the other woods could suit you. I feel like my approach in this situation is quite different from yours, but maybe you like it!

Wood: Aspen

When I read your answers to my survey, one thing that stood out to me is that you seem to value justice and moral actions quite a bit. To some extent you seem to feel the need to ‘do the right thing’, even though it might not always be easy and you might sometimes experience backlash for it. Therefore, for your wand, I felt like giving you a wood that would support you in that. Aspen wood likes to choose an owner who is strong in their beliefs and determined to make some sort of change in the world. Much like yourself, aspen wands believe in attack as the best kind of defense. They’re particularly well-suited for innovative spellwork and duel magic; however they also constantly look for new tasks and challenges. With an aspen wand you won’t want to let things slide too much because it could affect spell quality; I imagine this might help a little with the procrastination issue. Aspen has a reputation of producing ‘wands for revolutionarys’, but this doesn’t necessarily mean it has to happen in the large scale. An aspen wand owner is someone who believes that the status quo is not the be-all, end-all and who has a desire to somehow change it for the better. Whether in politics or in law enforcement, this should really suit you well.

Core: Phoenix feather

I will actually admit, I was very indecisive about the core, but ultimately I decided on phoenix for this particular wand. You are quite in touch with your gut feeling, but you also mentioned that your emotions sometimes get the better of you, which is why in the end I decided against dragon and for phoenix. A phoenix feather core is more reserved than the others and probably the most ‘head-heavy’ while still providing a good balance between head and gut feeling. It might help you in heated situations to keep your emotions in check a little better, to gather your arguments before you speak up (and hopefully destroy everyone with your words :D). Aspen is an instinctive wood and can really do with a core that’s keeping it in check a little. This combination won’t dismiss your gut feeling, but might help you to connect your heart with your head and make good, balanced decisions based on both. Additionally, a phoenix core isn’t quite as flighty and quick to change interest as for example a dragon core, so this might help as well to avoid ‘active procrastination’ (also known as ‘getting distracted with all kinds of other things while not doing the task you’re supposed to do’).

Length: 13 1/2 inches

I would like to put quite some emphasis on the wood here, which is why I chose quite a long wand. I usually tend to add some length when I feel like a person’s character is nicely in sync with the wood, so that the wood’s traits stand out a little more. Adding length will make the wand a little slower, but I feel like speed isn’t really something you’re looking for, and this might also help to ‘look before you leap’ in heated situations.

Flexibility: firm

You seem to value freedom and security to roughly the same amount. The aspen wood is quite a freethinker, so I decided to add a little stability here. A firm wand will help you stand your ground and put more emphasis behind your words, especially when the situation scares you.

--

I’d be happy to know what you think of my suggestion! Hope you liked the read.

[qethnehzul]

Forget Me Not

[Conversations, presumably, are in dovahzul. Words: >4k

Snippets from various conversations across time between Krosis and his patron dragon, Gruthrathlir.

Characters: Nonvul [Krosis], Gruthrathlir

Warnings: None]

The cold winds that covered the temple grounds that signed their esteemed patron’s arrival didn’t feel nearly as frigid as they usually did. Nonvul had been pacing back and forth on the open plaza where his patron was offered sacrifices when the great beast decided to pay him a visit.

Nonvul watched as the magnificent dragon descended down onto his perch, landing with a gentle gust of powder snow that rattled the gold decorations on his robes. He bowed deeply to the beast, awaiting the rattle of Gruthrathlir’s scales to tell him he could rise.

“Nonvul,” Gruthrathlir rumbled, tucking his wings in to his sides.

“Lord Gruthrathlir. Welcome, as always,” Nonvul replied, straightening his back out.

Formalities aside, the dragon lowered his head down to Nonvul’s level. “You pace. Does something plague you?” the dragon questioned, a hint of concern in his booming voice.

Nonvul felt his face flush under the mask, and rapidly he shook his head. “No, no, not at all milord. Nothing plagues me,” he assured the dragon.

His voice told otherwise. Gruthrathlir rumbled, stretching out a wing to climb down onto the ground. He pushed his giant head forward, snout pressing against the metal of Nonvul’s robes. “Lies. What ails you?”

Nonvul swayed with the force of the dragon’s gentle push, taking a step back to right himself. He took a deep breath, reaching up to gently cup the dragon’s lower jaw in his hands. His mind searched for the words in dovahzul while Gruthrathlir waited patiently, frigid air from his nostrils causing the fur on his robes to frost over with each breath. “Oh, i’m a fool Lord Gruthrathlir,” he whispered, hanging his head.

Gruthrathlir lifted his snout up, pushing at Nonvul’s mask for him to remove it. Nonvul obeyed, pulling the slab of bronze off before looking up at the dragon with worried eyes. The dragon pulled back, observing the man in the dim light of the moons. His head tilted to the side, settling down against the stone. “Has my priest made a mistake?”

Nonvul exhaled, lowering his head. He watched as Gruthrathlir’s tail curled around, enclosing him in the dragon’s grip. “I do not know. I know that I have, but I do not feel as though it is a mistake,” he said softly.

It was a mistake. He knew that. He was a priest, a high priest, a priest with a mask - it was forbidden for him to entertain relationships, let alone with another priest, another high priest, another masked priest. Their relationship was punishable by death and worse. If anyone were to find out… Nonvul’s heart twisted. Things would not end well, and he could not bare the thought of bringing such a blow to Miraak.

But in  the same breath, the thought of the other priest… it made his heart quiver. The way Miraak, the glorious, wonderful, great Miraak, had looked at him… Nonvul felt his cheeks fluster. His mind had been fully unable to stop remembering how he’d felt a few days prior, when he’d been pinned over the edge of the hot springs under his beloved mentor and what had been exchanged between them.

“It is not like my priest to hide his thoughts,” Gruthrathlir mused. “It is not like my priest to make mistakes. Is one to worry about such?” He questioned.

Nonvul pursed his lips, before shaking his head again. “No, no,” he said again quickly, reaching up his free hand to the dragon. “No, it… It is nothing to worry about. I promise you. I would do nothing to worry you, milord, or to cause you dishonor or harm.” His voice cracked a bit, and he cursed himself for being unable to lie about it. Gruthrathlir sorted out cold air, and Nonvul shamefully looked to the ground. He knew he shared a close bond with his patron, but he feared what the dragon might do to find he was breaking the rules. He knew what the likely outcome could be, and it scared him. “I beg you for your forgiveness, for I have been weak milord,” Nonvul spoke, dropping to his knees before the dragon.

Gruthrathlir’s spines raised up in curiosity, dipping his head down to follow his priest. “Forgiveness cannot  be given if one does not know what injury you seek forgiveness for.”

Nonvul felt the dragon’s cold breath ruffle his hair. “I know not if you have words for it, but I am… I long for another. I know I am forbidden from doing so, but I cannot help it. I am weak.”

The dragon paused, before letting out a low chuckle. “Mm, you are… as your kind call it, in ‘love’?”

Nonvul tensed. Yes. He was. He was absolutely, head over heels in love. His stupid little harbored crush he never, ever dreamed of being truly a possibility had come true, and his heart felt like it was going to burst out of his chest to even think about his new lover. Slowly, Nonvul nodded. “Yes,” he said quietly, biting the inside of his cheek as he braced himself for the worst. He was in love, but he would not lie to his patron. “Will you punish me for such?”

Gruthrathlir’s cool gaze lingered on Nonvul for a long moment, before his large head came to settle against Nonvul’s chest. “And make sorrow of my priest? No,” he rumbled. “Tell me, my priest, the one that catches your eye such. They make your heart tremble and they make you pace - surely, they must be great to have my priest’s attention,” Gruthrathlir chuckled, the end of his tail twitching like a cat’s.

Nonvul exhaled in relief, setting his mask down on the ground. He reached out, slowly embracing the dragon’s face as he pressed his forehead against the beast’s scaley snout. “Truely, you are just, Lord Gruthrathlir. I am eternally blessed by your patronage,” he sighed, closing his eyes tightly as he felt the dragon press back into his hold. “It… it is Miraak, milord. I have caught his eye as he has caught mine, and he returns my affections.”

Gruthrathlir’s body rumbled under Nonvul’s hold. “Miraak…? The dragonborn?” The dragon questioned, seeming surprised.

Nonvul nodded again. “Yes, milord. I pray that does not displease you.”

The dragon pulled his snout away, before he carefully nipped at Nonvul’s shoulder. The priest winced, but the dragon’s sharp teeth only lightly grazed him through his thick clothing and armor. “My priest seeks only the greatest of partners, as he should. This dragon would be disappointed if he sought any less,” Gruthrathlir spoke, pulling his head back. “So as long as you do not forget your place here, I have no reason to bring punishment upon you. Other dragons may dislike such, but I care not.”

Nonvul exhaled in relief, looking up at his patron. “Thank you, milord. My place will always be at your feet first. Nothing will ever be more important than you,” he said, bowing deeply again. “And your approval means everything to me.” He felt himself relax a bit as he rightened himself out to gaze up at the dragon again.

Nonvul had always been a bright-faced man - though many dragons hated it, it was one of the things Gruthrathlir liked about his servant. But ever since he’d come forward about his relationship with the dragonborn, his mood seemed to only be brighter. It pleased the dragon to see his most faithful so envigored - he had always been unwaveringly a loyal, devout servant, but he had only become more upbeat and faithful since Miraak had stepped closer into his life. Allegiance guide for certain, the dragon thought with a chuckle. Gruthrathlir wouldn’t have allowed for the relationship to continue if it had caused the quality of his servant’s work to decline, but he was rather pleased to see it had only improved it. He understood the displeasure other dragons had in allowing their priests to show devotion to others, but perhaps that only showed why his priest was superior to theirs.

“Miraak visited again, I see,” the dragon rumbled in amusement as Nonvul strided out onto the plaza.

The priest seemed a bit taken aback, but the smile returned to his face as quickly as always. “He did. I pray that has not displeased you.”

“I am only displeased that he did not pay me a visit,” the dragon rumbled, scales rattling, but Nonvul knew his patron was not truly upset with it.

“I tried. I’m afraid he is… worried about being here at times,” Nonvul admitted, taking his seat on the altar before the dragon’s perch.

The dragon tilted his head to the side. “The priest worries?”

Nonvul’s gaze dropped a bit. “He does not wish to let anyone see us, anything from us. He is afraid of punishment.”

Gruthrathlir rumbled lowly. “Zokgaaftu does not share my sentiment?”

Nonvul’s brow furrowed. “He does not talk to his patron like you and I do. He fears that if even a servant sees us, we may face punishment. He speaks often of High Priest Konahrik’s enforcement of the rules and tradition.”

Gruthrathlir hummed, his tail swaying slowly. “This displeases you.”

Nonvul nodded, looking at the ground. “I understand it. But I wish it did not have to be so.”

The dragon knew that even if he did not care for his priest’s relationship, other dragons might - especially Zokgaaftu. Even if Nonvul might be safe under his wing, it would not prevent backlash of other sorts.

It was strange when Nonvul’s usual chatter of his secret meetings with his lover began to lose their warmth, when his tone grew flatter, his gaze drifted more to the side, the smile on his face seemed less alive. When his conversations became less and less about his secret love, and more and more when the topic seemed to extinguish the light in Nonvul’s eyes that Gruthrathlir didn’t think would ever dwindle. It made his white scales bristle. His priest slowed down, and though his work never faltered the bright man the dragon had come to know as his beloved priest seemed to be replaced with a husk.

“He has hurt you.”

Nonvul did not look up at the dragon. “I have hurt myself,” he whispered back.

The dragon rumbled angrily, spines flaring along his back. “I will devour him. He has hurt my priest.”

Nonvul closed his eyes tightly. “You cannot,” he dared to say, swallowing dryly. “Nobody… they can’t know. We were never supposed to be together in the first place.”

Gruthrathlir’s claws dug into the stone above, sending ice and rock cascading down in his fury. Nonvul was right. To turn on Miraak would only lead to Nonvul’s punishment as well, if not his own at the claws of Zokgaaftu. The dragon exhaled a stream of frost from his nostrils in frustration. Perhaps he should not have let Nonvul pursue the other priest. Perhaps he now truly understood why other dragons forbid such a thing. If he were to punish Miraak, all others would find out what he’d known about and allowed. The dragon let out a sharp bellow, making the priest below him flinch. “Foolish,” the dragon snarled, pulling his head back. “My priest is plenty. He is a fool for harming you.” His talons shifted back and forth on the rock, anxious that he could do nothing to remedy the situation. “Does the priest pursue another?”

Nonvul grimaced. “I do not know. I see High Priest Zahkriisos with him during meetings, and I have heard that he… spends his days now with her, Master Ahzidal, and High Priest Dukaan. They say he does not leave Solstheim often now.”

Gruthrathlir paced back and forth on his perch. “Zahkriisos? The priest of Mahkofus? He is a fool! You best her in every way,” he insisted, rolling his head in frustration. He didn’t know what he was trying to achieve, but he did not like to see Nonvul wither because of Miraak.

Nonvul shook his head. “It… milord, please… do not fret over this. That is his choice. If that is what pleases him now…” Nonvul felt the words turn sour in his mouth, “then… then may he be happy there. I was not enough.”

Gruthrathlir let out another bellow, shaking snow and ice off of the surrounding rocks. “Not enough?” The dragon roared. His tail lashed around, cutting a chunk out of a rock behind him.

Nonvul raised his hands. “Please, milord. I did not… I did not mean to anger you,” he spoke, trying not to choke on his words. He dared to look up at the dragon, and Gruthrathlir could see the pain in his teary eyes. “Please… I will not speak of him, or it, again. I should never have pursued it in the first place. Please forgive me,” Nonvul begged, sliding off of the bench to sink to his knees in the snow. His back bowed as he threw his hands forward, pressing his forehead into the snow as he deepened his bow.

Gruthrathlir fell still. He could hear the soft sob from the priest as he kneeled there, and slowly the dragon moved to descend from his perch. His wings came to shelter the priest, curling his head down to rest it against the man’s body. “He has hurt my priest, I cannot forgive that. Dimmed a burning fire and reduced it to a ember. I cannot forgive that,” Gruthrathlir spoke, moving to nuzzle his face under Nonvul’s body.

The priest reached out and hugged onto his snout tightly, eyes squeezed tight. “I’m sorry Gruthrathlir. I should do better. I’m sorry I have only grown weak from this.”

The dragon nuzzled into his chest slowly, pushing him back against the altar. “Not weak. Never weak. Only wounded. Wounds heal. My priest is not weak.”

Nonvul took a deep breath, running his hands along the soft scales under Gruthrathlir’s jaw. “No god could be kinder than you to forgive blunders like mine,” he whispered.

“No servant could replace one such as you,” Gruthrathlir replied, unsure of how else to speak his feelings. Nonvul was not like others. Nonvul was his priest, and he could not be replaced. None before him could even come close. And he felt pain to see his priest grieving.

Nonvul snorted weakly. “Surely, any could be better than I at this point. I must be disappointing you deeply.”

The dragon chuckled. “If I was displeased with you, I might have eaten you,” he teased, opening his mouth to gently place his teeth around Nonvul’s shoulder. He did not bite down though, and quickly let go to press his face against the man’s chest again. “This wound is not fatal. You will heal. You will burn bright again,” the dragon assured, before finally pulling his face away.

Nonvul looked up at the dragon, leaning back against the altar. “I pray that I will. If all else fails, I will for you milord.”

The wail that escaped the priest’s throat boiled the rage in the dragon’s chest. Gruthrathlir had hardly landed on the ground before Nonvul’s arms were around his snout, the human’s face pressed against the scales as hot tears cascaded down his face. The man let out another weak cry as the dragon coiled his body around the priest’s.

They had been betrayed. And he had lead the betrayal.

And he was gone now.

Nonvul’s body leaned heavily against Gruthrathlir’s snout as his wings wrapped around him to block out the snow and the sound of the man’s grieving. Gruthrathlir took the silence as a chance to understand himself what had happened.

Miraak had been plotting to betray them. He understood now that, perhaps, that was what had caused him to leave his priest. Nonvul would never have betrayed the dragons, and he was right to have known Nonvul was far more faithful, the dragon bitterly realized. His priest was as righteous and loyal as he had always said, and far more than that so-called allegiance guide. Nonvul remained truthful to his name. Amidst the anger, he felt proud his priest had not succumbed to the traitor’s ranks. But in that, he understood his priest’s pain. Nonvul had believed. Nonvul had so deeply believed in Miraak, in what he was named for, in him. Gruthrathlir begrudgingly admitted to himself that he had too at first.

At least nineteen of his brethren had fallen and been devoured by Miraak at his last stand before he was slain, along with his three treacherous companions. Gruthrathlir could not swallow the loss of so many of his kin. Gone. Dead. Truly gone. It made him tremble with rage. He had not been told of the attack, and he was certain he would have joined if he had known. But as much as he wished to believe he would have been strong enough not to fall to the traitor, he knew full well that may not have been the case. Zokgaaftu had fought against his brethren, enslaved by some power of Miraak’s. Miraak had turned dragons against their own kin. He had severed the land itself.

Nonvul’s grip tightened on Gruthrathlir’s snout.

Nonvul had courted a dangerous beast.

Gruthrathlir did not need to say anything to the man. He simply remained there with his face pressed into the priest’s robes, sheltering him from the storm. What words could encompass either’s pain anyways?

“Krosis.”

This time, it was not an apology. It was not an expression of their pain.

It was his name.

Krosis’s heavy gaze stared at the snow below Gruthrathlir’s perch, before he slowly nodded. “Yes, milord?” His voice was as empty as the winds around them.

Gruthrathlir’s scales bristled. His priest, his beloved priest. Nonvul, the noble, the honorable, with his bronze mask and his brightness, his eager loyalty and servitude.

They had not approached him and asked him, his patron, for permission. They had not asked him to rename his priest. No, they had stripped that from him. They had stripped the dragon of his own honor as they stripped his darling priest of his own, by taking his name and making him an apology.

Gruthrathlir’s anger boiled once more. In the aftermath of their betrayal, while all were still reeling from the pain and loss of brethren and healing from their treachery, the hidden relationship had come to light, and though no punishment would come the dragon and his priest had become laughing stocks of the others.

How could you let your priest mingle with such a traitor? How could you have let him break the rules? Your priest was with the traitors. Perhaps he could be one of them. At least he was foolish enough to be with one. You were foolish enough to allow it.

Accusations. Sneers. Jabs.

Gruthrathlir did not waver. He didn’t care to. The other dragons would be angry at anything they could now. Miraak was dead, and far out of their grasps. Perhaps Gruthrathlir was the closest thing they had left to the snake for them to turn their anger towards. It was misplaced, but Gruthrathlir would weather it.

But his priest…

Gruthrathlir descended to the ground as he always had.

Krosis. The betrayal ripped open a wound that was still healing and tore it deeper. Gruthrathlir wondered if perhaps this time it would be fatal, or if his dear priest would simply bleed out.

He did not press his snout to the priest. He held it at arm’s length, staring down at the man’s mask. Did he blame him for this?

Slowly, Krosis reached a hand out. He did not place it on his patron’s face as he used to, but instead left it to linger just a few inches away. Did his patron hate him?

Gruthrathlir pressed his snout against the man’s hand, pushing it back until his face came to rest against the man again. Slowly, Krosis wrapped his arms around Gruthrathlir, the cold mask pressing against the scales instead of his warm skin.

“I have failed you,” he whispered, voice metallic under the mask.

“You have never failed me,” the dragon replied, his voice much softer than once could imagine from a dragon. “Never.”

Krosis’s heart ached. His patron never gave up on him. Somehow, despite it all, his patron always believed in him. He was never deserving of such a just god. “There is talk of rebellion,” he whispered, tightening his grip on the dragon’s face.

“I know,” Gruthrathlir replied softly. “My brothers laugh of it. They believe no such harm could come of it.”

“Do you believe that?”

“No.”

Wind howled through the stones.

Miraak’s rebellion had sparked something in the hearts of others. Or, perhaps, it had simply shown others their chance. Krosis and Gruthrathlir were not fools. Their time was starting to run short.

“I will remain by your side until the very end, Lord Gruthrathlir,” Krosis ensured, his voice still strained. He was trying to redeem himself. Trying to prove he was not so shameful.

Gruthrathlir did not need it. His priest had never needed redemption. “As I know you will,” the dragon rumbled. “Until the end.”

Through the fighting that broke out in their temple.

Through the long years of marching their people to safety.

Until Krosis’s body fell for the last time in the blood-soaked snow.

Until his beloved priest was taken into the arms of his people to be buried.

Until his sarcophagus had been abandoned at the top of Shearpoint.

Until his beloved priest’s slayers came to slay him as well.

Gruthrathlir promised.

His people were a loss. They had fled at the sight of their pursuers, leaving Krosis’s sarcophagus ajar in the snow where they’d simply dropped it and ran. It had taken the dragon to right it and push the lid back on over his companion before he shoved it to the side of a old word wall.

I will see you again.

Even as the painful jab of a spear broke through his chest and sundered the last breath from him, Gruthrathlir clung to those words. They had lost this fight, but another day…

His white scales glistened with blood in the weak rays of light that pierced through the clouds overhead as he made his last few limps to where the sarcophagus had been hidden under a pile of snow. The great beast collapsed, his head coming to rest a few feet from his companion’s resting place. Men gathered closer towards him, weapons pointed and ready to attack again.

The dragon’s eyes closed. That was fine. He would be there. He had buried his priest under the snow and a layer of ice so that their pursuers might leave it be.

He would see him again. That he was sure of. He would see him again when he awoke again.

The thought brought a smile to the dragon’s lips as he exhaled his last breath.

[leftwriteb]

E3 2018 Predictions: EA & Ubisoft

While the winter and fall might give gamers a sweet array of games to dig into, summer brings us to the week of craziness that is E3. With publishers and console power houses hosting events to showcase their biggest and best games on the way, we break down what we’d imagine we will see from this years event, this time from EA and Ubisoft. Here’s what to expect as well as what we hope to see.

-ELECTRONIC ARTS-

Electronic Arts has found themselves in a precarious situation the past few years, having fallen from grace and instead being seen by many as the boogeyman of publishing studios. With the entire landscape of the industry having shifted following the launch of Star Wars Battlefront II, both in regard to industry practice and the patience of gamers, EA needs to exercise some restraint and earn back the trust of many. The focus for them this year will likely be quality over quantity.

Battlefield V

One thing we know we will see more of is this years rendition of Battlefield. As mentioned already, with EA and Dice having received huge backlash from their efforts to uphold micro transactions in Star Wars Battlefront II last year, they have to approach this game with caution and show that they've learned from their mistakes.

With Call of Duty having already returned to the frontlines of WWII, the reveal that Battlefield V is doing the same means EA will also have to do what it can to show what BFV has to offer over it’s longterm rival. What’s more, the focus for EA here will likely be on multiplayer, instead showcasing an array of maps, modes and content to keep people interested. While they may show a little of the campaign, EA will want to focus on showing they can earn your trust back in multiplayer games and will instead be showcasing what's new for the series.

Given the uproar Dice and EA have faced previously, and with the continued ridiculous outcry about representation and historical accuracy that we’ve discussed further on here, a particular focus will be on the customisation and levelling systems within the game and how much variety there is for players. Microtransactions will undoubtedly return but EA will tread carefully and stress they’re only cosmetic and can be earned through regular gameplay anyway. What we will see from Battlefield V will be familiar but with as much positive spin as they can muster.

STAR WARS FROM RESPAWN ENTERTAINMENT?

That isn't the only big IP we might see this year, with the next game from Respawn Entertainment potentially showing up too, the project announced way back on Star Wars Day 2016. Not much has been revealed about the project so far, so it's about time we get a few details. Following the heartbreaking news that Star Wars: 1313 was cancelled, and that Visceral Games closure meant their mid-development Star Wars game was being refocused under other studios, news from Respawn is a nice counterwieght.

As mentioned already, caution will be key as any Star Wars game coming from EA will likely be under incredible scrutiny. Coming from the same team that brought us the great but underappreciated Titanfall series, the game is supposedly a 3rd person action game. Either way, with the trepidation it could face, we will likely only get a small tease for the game, at best a trailer. What's more important though is that they'll be more focused on providing small but tantilising details for the game, helping to set it up for a more positive response when it does surface properly

NEW Dead Space?

With Respawn offering us a more light-hearted space adventure, it could well be time for something at the other end of the spectrum with perhaps a new Dead Space game and I think this year we may see this once glorious sci-if horror return. EA has shown, albeit with Mass Effect Andromeda, that they’re willing to push strong series in new (but maybe questionable) directions and may well do the same with Dead Space.

As mentioned above, EA caught further flak for the closure of the series original developers Visceral Games - so we know that team won't be working on a Dead Space game. But could we see them revive the series and put it in the hands of a new studio? This could be a chance for them to offer something a little different from their focus on multiplayer games and equally offer something that stands out amongst the jam-packed slate of games coming over the next 18 months.

It's been a long time since the release of Dead Space 3 back in February 2013, so now seems like a good time to bring the series back, especially given the rise of horror games in recent years. With the genre for the most part being pushed by smaller developers, a larger "AAA" title like Dead Space 4 would provide something meatier and show that EA hasn't given up entirely on singleplayer games.

ANTHEM

That's not all we can expect from sci-fi games though, with huge excitement tailing Anthem, the next game from BioWare. With the game being created by a majority of the team behind the original Mass Effect trilogy, there's lofty expectations from the game, especially after the extended look at gameplay we've seen that promises huge potential and scale.

With the game due to be with us by March 2019, the release is fast approaching so EA will be focusing heavily on the title in order to peak interest as much as possible. Extended gameplay will be on show and, just as with Battlefield V, the key will be showing players that Anthem will have everything players want without repeating the mistakes of the past that have shaken and soured EA so much.

With a huge fanbase having been built around Mass Effect, EA will be hoping for a similar effect for Anthem; with the game offering what could be insanely fun multiplayer, we might well get some fun but awfully scripted co-op voice chat in the demo, but customisation and variety will be front and centre. This section will likely end with a story focused trailer, reaffirming that BioWare can and will deliver a great sci-fi story next March.

PLANTS VS ZOMBIES 3?

Of course, EA has a far reaching grasp and will want to offer something for slightly different audiences. One established IP they can rely on is that of Plants VS Zombies, with a new game in the series not out of the question. The previous two games received a surprisingly sizeable following after the series moved to consoles and became more of a wave-defence game.

It's not likely that we'll see anything surprising from the game, with the core mechanics and gameplay likely receiving little more than some fine tuning and expansion to offer something familiar but new. Plants VS Zombies will be where EA can offer splitscreen multiplayer in an age where online seems to be the focus, and further still can offer something for the younger gamers too.

SPORTS, SPORTS, SPORTS - AND MAYBE SKATE 4?

Naturally though, EA showcases wouldn't be complete without their fair share of sports, sports and more sports. While we could cover this, it's an element that's easily predictable and something we don't massively care for... but there is one sort-of-sport game that we could see from EA this year that might turn some heads: what if Skate 4 is revealed?

Skate was a series that saw some incredible traction in the past but that has now been absent, along with skateboarding games as a whole, for some time. With the Tony Hawk's games having fallen to the wayside and with Skate 3 seeing a small but considerable resurgence after its inclusion in Xbox backwards compatibility, now seems like a great time to reveal a new game in the series and fill that deck-shaped gap in the market.

-UBISOFT-

Ubisoft are often seen as creatures of habit, usually announcing sequels or DLC plans for existing game and series. The key for Ubisoft is to show some restraint and double-down on their strengths. While a host of new announcements is good, Ubisoft need to show that they're investing sufficient time into their projects to ensure they're worth investment from players on day one. They've shown with games like The Division, Rainbow Six: Siege and For Honor that they're willing to put in the effort to reshape and improve games long after their release, but increasingly solid foundations is what they need to get right.

ASSASSINS CREED: ODYSSEY

One game we know will surface during the Ubisoft presentation is Assassin's Creed: Odyssey, something that was announced recently as we reported here. In years past, Ubisoft spaced out the releases of the games to give it a little breathing room and to improve the quality following the disastrous launch of Assassin's Creed: Unity. With the new game looking like a follow-up to last years Origins, and with the game likely releasing so soon, Ubisoft has to be cautious.

They will want to take their time with this new title and show that, despite the shortened development time, it will be well worth players time. With Origins having introduced stronger RPG mechanics to the series, Odyssey is likely to strengthen and expand on these mechanics and introduce even more, with rumours circulating that dialogue options will be added too.

Ubisoft will try to show a little of everything for Odyssey and reaffirm that the series is back and better than ever, the coverage ending with release date. When this will be is hard to say given how busy the next months will be for releases, but it likely wont be too far away.

BEYOND GOOD AND EVIL 2

What's going to be more tricky for Ubisoft than keeping Creed in good stead is to meet the expectations of fans for Beyond Good & Evil 2, the title having been shown only a little since the reveal at E3 last year. With the introduction of "The Space Monkey Program" for the game, a system that offers select fans the chance to play it early and offer feedback, it's clear the title is a long time from release but given the sizeable following, it's a game that will be drip-fed to fans to keep them interested.

We probably won't see an awful lot from the game this year either, with even the platforms for release having not been confirmed. That said, a slightly closer look at the gameplay will probably given while stressing that development is still going strong. If we are lucky we may get a tentative year of release, though if we do I'd expect that to be subject to change.

THE DIVISION 2

Of course, there's another series that will surface during Ubisoft's show: The Division 2.  Officially announced back in March, the original game saw success both critically and commercially and is one of the big titles that saw extensive support and reworking after launch. With the game having proven its longevity, a new entry in the series has a great foundation to build on.

Unlike the original, the timeframe between reveal and release will be considerably less. What's more, with some criticism being given due to the difference between the original Divisions gameplay presentation and the final product, the gameplay we will undoubtedly see will be far more representative of the final game. An emphasis on enhanced gameplay and customisation will be made, showing how the game has grown over time and how existing mechanics will be expanded and improved.

That said, thanks to the previous work of EA, a point will be made of how lootboxes will likely only be cosmetic (though this was a policy that was applied to the original until that  changed later in its life cycle), as well as how there will be a greater wealth of content in the game at launch that the predecessor.

NEW SPLINTER CELL TITLE?

The Divison won't be the only Tom Clancy property to surface at E3 though, with all signs pointing to a new Splinter Cell game potentially being in the works. Interest in the idea peaked back in April when a new mission was added to Ghost Recon: Wildlands that saw a surprise visit from none other than Sam Fisher himself, voiced once again by veteran voice actor Michael Ironside.

It's been a long time since Fisher has graced our screens, with Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Blacklist having now released back in 2013. While the small amount of evidence above seems circumstantial, the likelihood that Ubisoft would have included the crossover just for fun is unlikely, especially when you consider they went out their way to get Ironside back. With the series having been abscent for some time and with other stealth games having adopted open-world mechanics that push stealth slightly aside, a game that truly focuses on stealth once again is perhaps what players need and the return of Same Fisher may be what fulfils that.

NEW TRIALS TITLE?

But offering something a little more tempered and casual is the potential return of the Trials series, the last main series game, Trials Fusion, having released back in 2014. While Trials of the Blood Dragon, a Far Cry 3 spin-off based spin-off (of all things) released in 2016, it's been considerable time since a full game itself has released.

Ubisoft needs to supply a little balance in their titles in order to pull in sales from all corners of the gaming glob and a new Trials games could do just that. With a new game able to release during potentially dry spells in their release slate, and with appeal to gamers of all ages, it's the perfect complimentary title to their more time-consuming and action-packed games.

INDIE SUPPORT

That said, Ubisoft can further offer variety with continued support of smaller indie titles as it has done in the past with games like Valiant Hearts, Grow Home and Child of Light. It provides Ubisoft a chance to invest in promising but smaller titles; small risk but potentially great reward.

As mentioned before, this also means that Ubisoft can release a number of smaller titles between their larger IP's and could mean we see a number of great new titles surface. What's more, a lot of these titles will probably show up across multiple platforms, particularly the Switch now that Ubisoft have strengthened their relationship with Nintendo particularly in the last few years. Whether the smaller titles show up here or elsewhere first though is hard to say.

So, that's what we might well see from EA and Ubisoft this year at E3. There's only a few days to go until the event begins so time will tell what's shown but, as always, it'll be an amazing time to be a gamer. So, let us know what you're hoping for, or what you think of our predictions, in the comments below and enjoy this years show!

 [EA's showcase will begin on Saturday 9th of June, 7pm UK time. Ubisoft's showcase will begin on Monday 11th of June, 9pm UK time.]

[do-you-have-a-flag]

most LGBT/non-white fans aren't happy with how there was still no LGBT representation canonically and how they reduced poe to stereotypical latino tropes, made finn's arc the same as tfa basically (and sidelined him in for adam driver which is just racism lmao) and how underused and underwritten a lot of the characters were/how they mischracterized rey/how they REALLY mischaracterized luke and like the overall pacing was p bad, so white ppl liked it and dumbass kylo stans did too but that it

first off, why u anon, i’m not mean to people who message me generally and i won’t send followers after you because that’s a shitty thing to do, now i have to make a big long response publicly instead of using the messenger app, sorry everyone, long post incoming:I WANT LGBT representation to be canon in star wars but i know that they’re not gonna do it and it’s frustrating but not unexpected. Big budget genre FILMS (tv is different) are so lacking in LGBT content, it’s frustrating that off the top of my head the only example i can think of where it’s not sub-textualised via aliens is Sulu in the Star Trek reboot universe.

but let’s look honestly at how the people who run star wars and the actors responded to questions about LGBT content in interviews: there is spoilers blackout aversion, and actors explicitly supporting fans for their interpretations of characters but at no point was there a promise to show that sort of representation.

Disney has shown before that if they’re going to include LGBT content in their big films they do address it directly, much was made of Lefou in beauty and the beast and there was backlash because the actual content was so minor and still fairly subtextual. 

With the Last Jedi no promises were maid so not getting LGBT content is frustrating for me and others but I can’t fault the film for it only the creators and a criticism of studios and directors and writers does not mean the movie itself is flawed for that specific reason. At least in my view. It’s blaming an absence of a feature that was never promised. would it be better with that feature? YES! but i also think it would have been better for various writing changes but the writing choices that were made are what we have to assess it on.

As to Poe being stereotypically Latino, I don’t live in a country with enough of a latino population to have much insight on that but I will say that I don’t understand this argument. 

my PERSONAL view of Poe in this film is that last time we didn’t get any depth to his character outside of friendly heroic pilot, this time we are starting to be introduced to his flaws, that being his inability to see the big picture, he always makes good strategies and plans and is a great leader and has a sense of humour, these are good qualities, and when he is called impulsive it’s by generals who have the experience to think about the bigger picture where he goes for the most damage on a small scale, Poe has a very complimentary arc to Fin in that they both have to shift their thinking when the resistance is weakened because saving people becomes more important than always beating the bad guys.

so from that understanding of his character I don’t understand what stereotypes are being used here? genuinely please let me know because is it that he’s “hot-headed”? it’s a war and they are losing and because of that he makes the wrong decision and lashes out when he is restricted and believes his superior is making the wrong choice so all the “hot-headed” stuff is really just character complexity and his prominence in the plot is the reason why it’s only applied to him. IDK what other stereotypes there are i legit haven’t seen that criticism actually explained in detail yet so if any latinx fans can let me know i’d be glad

Fin’s arc isn’t the same, yes he’s been sidelined and its annoying because I hate the thing they sidelined him for too but when we do focus on his character they evolve his problems from TFA: running away out of fear and self loathing becomes running from one responsibility because he believes they’re a lost cause in the moment and wants to protect Rey, which becomes planning to sacrifice himself to lash out at first order  in a way that mirror’s Poe’s journey because they both have to think better than that about who they’re fighting for. 

There are so many characters to juggle in the film and by partnering Finn up with Rose they do detract from his character development but only to allow her to help him and introduce her to the stage at the same time as moving the plot along and setting up things for the next movie thematically.  Finn was underserved but it was due to a writing puzzle of balancing an ensemble cast and ultimately at this point his story is supportive of the main plot but not directly a part of it and they could have done that differently but again that’s a writing flaw but not what I would call the worst part of the film i think people took it too hard and would like to hear a response to my reading of Finn’s place in the story in some detail too.

 Also I love Rose and her dynamic with Finn was my fav and desperately needed because they keep having Finn Poe and Rey be separated in these films and we needed that friendly banter and mutual support space filled and Rose is honestly the heart and soul of the resistance even if the casino sequence was written in a very on the nose blatant way these films are for a very broad audience and some people need that stuff spelled out for them. (i’ve seen TLJ twice and both times i think most people in the audience missed the kid using the force at the end which i thought was wonderfully subtle before his posing became blatant visually with the broom)

underuse and underwriting are both side effects of the ensemble cast and i’m willing to forgive the clumsiness of it generally but you’re correct about Rey’s writing, I’ve said it before but everything about her and kylo and snoke and Luke contained in the scenes between the second force skype conversation and Kylo waking up on the floor is the characters making bad choices, that’s why it feels out of character. the rest of the film even when characters make mistakes everyone is behaving consistently and there’s a balance but in that entire segment of the film all four characters make the wrong decisions. the results of these scenes afterwards is fine but i wish they hadn’t decided to have rey trust kylo so readily, considering her character history as a scavenger you know she’d be more skeptical than that.  And with Luke his reticence to tell her the truth is frustrating because that’s what happened to him regarding his father and he should know better, I think the moment of weakness misread as utter betrayal was interesting, not a great choice on the writing side but i’m willing to deal with it. outside of those scenes though it’s like the competent writing suddenly returned! 

Bad pacing? yeah, but it’s the middle film in a trilogy there was a lot of ground to cover.

also listen there’s nothing wrong with being a fan of villians in a work of fiction and personally i loved watching hux suffer and kylo get the door slammed in his face and just because i find his character entertaining doesn’t mean i wanted the rey/kylo romance teasing that happened. I have to accept that the writers are going for redemption arc stuff here but honestly give me complex pathetic villain who dies dramatically at the end and i’ll be happy, 

I wrote out all these paragraphs because you made a whoooole lot of generalisations and i wanted to respond with personal thoughts and specificity,\

 I can’t speak for groups i’m not a part of but i can give my personal reasons for liking the film. at the end of the day it’s not the worst star wars film and of my expectations of the franchise some flaws are a part of it. I LIKE goofiness intentional or not in my genre fiction.

 Representation-wise the LGBT stuff would have been wonderfull but as of right now it wasn’t something i felt should be expected but instead it is something I think should be pressured onto the creators to include canonically because there’s literally no reason not to include it that isn’t getting money from garbage people who hate diversity. 

On a casting level i love the inclusivity of race in the cast, not just with Finn, Poe, and Rose being the majority of our new young heroes, but also of background characters because that sort of understated representation is important too. Do i think the writing could be better? sure, but as far as stereotyping goes i don’t believe there’s deliberate and malicious intent there, any flaws are unintentional on the writers side and their personal biases, but personally I still don’t see the specific problem you’re citing here and would like to hear more about it because I don’t get it.

also pls chill with the “white people and kylo stans” attitude here because i get why people don’t like adam driver, but you’re being deliberately escalating in your language and i’m not okay with that, it’s a false equivalence of the concepts of white complacency when it comes to representation with….. people who like the main villain. 

He’s the main bad guy. he’s played by an actor cast with his looks in mind because he’s one of the few villains who doesn’t spend the whole film behind a mask or with cgi or makeup effects obscuring him, he’s placed in a position of power and given sympathetic elements because a complex villain is more interesting than, oh, say, every simple evil marvel villain who wants to destroy the earth (and I say that as someone who likes marvel films) they knew they couldn’t recapture the appeal of darth vader so they aimed for audience enjoyment in a different way and it worked and it’s pointless to be mad at fans of star wars for liking it’s main villain?

 I’m not saying fans who take it too far by going “he did nothing wrong”/”his victimisation excuses his actions” or who woobie-fy him or who shit on other characters are in the right here, they’re not, and it is frustrating when there’s so many good characters that others lose screen time and complexity to focus on him when he’s a shitty fascist who wants power for himself. 

just like, de-escalate your aggression here because i’m talkative as hell and I also want better representation but I’m also one hundo percent about viewing media and people complexly and in terms of the fiction i thought it was a good film and in terms of the choices by the creators in how they crafted that film i thought they did okay but could have done waaay better and that’s what fans want. 

i’m not gonna speak for most LGBT/non white fans because I’m only a part of one of those categories personally but i’m SURE a chunk of the audience responses in those reviews trashing the movie are from straight white cis dudes who are mad about all the POC in the film or goofy writing choices they feel undermines their view of the movie and they’re objectively wrong about a lot of things but their opinions are still added to that review percentage and the only way to know who thought what from what background and coming from what perspective is to go through every review and make a chart and that sort of research isn’t something i’ve done and you probably haven’t done it either so we can only speak from our view from discussing with friends and online and on tumblr i have seen some lgbt and poc  responses and most of them are positive, a couple of people aren’t and that’s only my dashboard but i can’t assume it represents the communities as a whole

so anyone seeing this long ass post who hasn’t unfollowed me: what’s your opinion?

[earth2craig-blog]

exploring... COLLABORATION

Design Thinking 210, Term 2, Assignment 2

What is collaboration??? 

Collaboration is the act of two or more people working together to produce something.

With that simple definition out of the way, I will explore the act of collaborating MY WAY (ironically not very collaborative at all). This exploration will be based on my personal experiences, as well as referencing two of my three favorite pop culture mediums: Video Games and Movies (the third being Music FYI).

Whether or not collaboration is good or bad is not really up for debate. Collaboration is inevitable and really society is a collaborative effort. Whether you want to or not, an individual at many points of their lives will have to work with others, whether that’s at the workplace, the PTA at your children’s school or even with family preparing your Mother’s Day breakfast (topical as Mother’s Day is this Sunday).

So collaboration...

Why is it important?

As said, collaborating is inevitable, so in order to make sure whatever is being produced is a resounding success, all members need to work well with one another to make it so. I will delve into how collaborating can be effective or ineffective shortly... but first, collaborating is necessary for larger projects or productions, where many hands are needed as a single individual would struggle to do it all alone. Collaboration thus makes it possible to produce things like video games or movies. If these productions were made by a singular individual they would be limited in scope/detail and possibly even appear ‘low budget’. Could you imagine a Marvel movie the same caliber as we are used to; if it were directed and acted and lit and shot by a single individual?... I THINK NOT!!!

The marvel movies are a good example of a large scale collaboration featuring many actors, directors and writers collaborating together to produce a marvel universe across multiple films.

When is it effective?

As talked about when discussing the importance of collaborating; a large scale production of some kind is when collaborating can prove to be effective. 

Or, when the production requires people with varying specialties. If a musician wanted to produce an animated music video, they might seek out an animator/motion designer. Together, these individuals would have to collaborate to produce something that feels right for the music.

And ultimately, any client seeking another parties help to produce something, both client and the employed party need to work together to meet the client’s needs.

It is also effective at solving problems. ‘Many heads are better than one’.

When is it a waste of time?

The reverse of when is it effective to an extent. If the production or project is small enough for a single individual to do correctly on their own, then more hands could complicate the process. ‘Too many cooks in the kitchen’ so-to-speak.

Just to add to the ‘too many cooks in the kitchen’ idiom, collaboration can be a waste of time when the discussing gets in the way of action (red tape). I have countless memories as a child of my father coming home and being frustrated with the lack of progress achieved in so-called ‘business meetings’.

And in addition, even if collaboration is justified and needed to accomplish something, it can be a waste of time when members of the collaboration collaborate poorly. Whether that’s working improperly or inadequately, or not being open to other input, or poor leadership, etc. Bad collaboration is bad (this sentence is purposefully written this way - to state the obvious)...

On the topic of bad collaboration... What are possible contributing factors that can result in collaboration resulting in failure or poor results?

Oooh boy. Where do I begin... Speaking from experience, and as mentioned when answering the previous question, when one or more individuals don’t do their work properly; whether that’s not performing tasks assigned to their specialty or profession correctly or on time, or even just not giving any input or they communicate poorly, etc... Anyone that has had a group assignment for a class may have experienced this. There is a large number of ways for individuals to make the process difficult for the others they collaborate with. Collaboration requires trusting everyone to do their part.

Leadership plays a vital role, especially in a typical collaboration (an explanation of what a typical collaboration is will be given later in this text). If leadership is not open to others input, or ask too much of the others working on the production, then that skewed dynamic can skew the result of the production. A good leader needs to know that they may not know everything and that they may not always be right. Unfortunately, sometimes power corrupts.

The upcoming Sonic movie backlash (based on a video game character) is a good example of poor leadership, in the way that the (lead) CG designers made the design decision to stray away from Sonic’s original design by Square Enix (with horrifying results). Sonic is a cultural icon and the decision to stray away from Sonic’s original design is somewhat of an insult to both the fans of the character and the original creators of the character. Jim Sterling in his YouTube video very passionately and elaborately discusses this particular topic, the image is a screenshot of said video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qacb7ZQoeYQ&list=UUWCw2Sd7RlYJ2yuNVHDWNOA&index=4.

The next two images are by another YouTube channel, YongYea, where he also discusses the Sonic design along with diving into social media platforms to show how some people have edited the image to show a more true to the original design. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1q0__RrgJh8&t=931s. Since the backlash, it has been announced that Sonic will be redesigned before the movie release in 9 months.

Leadership can also fail in the opposite way. By not giving a clear brief or structure or ‘vision’ for the production.

Anthem falls into the category of a lack of clear vision from leadership. Anthem is a game published by EA and developed by Bioware. I could go into great detail regarding this game and the many factors that may have contributed to it disappointing its player base, and it losing both half the aforementioned players that bought into the ‘live service’ game and also halved its price tag in most retail stores only a month or two after its release. According to a Kotaku article by Jason Schreier, one of the reasons for it to be a poor product is a lack of a clear design vision.

A quote from the article reads: “One of the things we struggled with was, we didn’t understand the game concept,” said one former BioWare Austin developer. “When Anthem was presented to us, it was never really clear what the game was.”

Here is a link to the full article if interested (be warned, it is very detailed and in depth over the many, many issues that caused the development to go awry):

https://kotaku.com/how-biowares-anthem-went-wrong-1833731964.

The client or employer can also make the task difficult, by making unreasonable or unclear demands. Clients/employers can also not do what is required of them properly or on time and that can slow the process.

Electronic Arts as mentioned is the publisher of Anthem along with many other games. EA has quite publicly announced that it aims to focus developing games as ‘live services’ only. Essentially games that players play online with others that encourage “recurring spending”. I’ll be honest in admitting that I dislike EA quite a bit. By forcing their developers to ONLY develop live services when they may have little to no experience developing that type of game, or taking a past franchise and trying to turn it into a live service that then creates a lesser version of that franchise as a result. In this way they make the design process difficult for all game designers and developers working in collaboration with one another. Furthermore, they also insist their developers develop games using EA’s ‘Frostbite Engine’, which often proves not to be a good tool to develop the game and causes many problems during development that then need time to be solved.

And then there is the trap of producing something nobody wants or is interested in. Essentially this could be summed up in design speak as ‘solving the wrong problem’.

Lawbreakers is a First-Person Shooter game published by Nexon and developed by Boss Key Productions. It tried to sell itself as better than already established First-Person Shooter games and at a better price, however, it ended up selling very few copies and in less than a year came offline. This was a bit of a surprise to most video game analysts, game journalists and especially surprising for the developers and publisher, because during it’s beta and pre-release it had a following and traction. One of the core reasons later decided for it not selling well was that the market was already over-saturated with these sorts of games and there were too many new and more popular games also released at the same time as the Lawbreakers release date. There wasn’t a need or desire for players to own a new FPS game as most players already owned multiple or could play others for free, and as a result, Lawbreakers didn’t hit any target audience. The second image is a screenshot from the Pretty Good Games YouTube channel where they discuss the games eventual abandonment by the publishers:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suIkpFufNYA.

So in conclusion, essentially everyone at every level has the ability to complicate and lessen the quality of the collaborative production.

What is the difference between typical and radical collaboration?

‘Radical collaboration’ is a term I have never heard before until now for this assignment. I found a description of what radical collaboration is on this website:

https://www.inc.com/michael-graber/radical-collaboration-mindset-over-process.html. Quoting the article, if I may:

“The first mindset is fostering a sense of radical collaboration, meaning that we all work in multidisciplinary teams and that we explore ideas, insights, and concepts fearlessly as equal team members.”

and “Under radical collaboration no one will "pull rank" and everyone will listen respectfully to one another; hence the word "radical.".

So typical collaboration is your usual, corporate structure of people working together. With there being leaders at the top of a ladder and people working under them, thus leaders have more power and say.

Radical collaboration tries to make everyone equals in the collaborative process, at least at certain phases of the development. Ultimately radical collaboration seems to try to eliminate some of the issues I mentioned earlier that could result in the collaboration producing a poor result. Poor leadership, lack of creativity, solving the right problem, etc.

What guidelines need to be in place for collaboration to be helpful?

I think that there need to be roles. While everyone has an equal say, and can contribute both an individual and specialized opinion or idea to the production or problem being tackled, people will ultimately still produce work under their area of expertise.

Taking what someone else in another profession says under advisement when working on your aspect of the collaboration should be encouraged.

An open, respectful and non-judgmental space needs to be adhered to.

Leadership or management positions/roles are not there to be dictators but should rather facilitate a constructive and structured collaborative experience while also keeping track of the various aspects of the collaboration. That’s not to say that the leadership can’t have a say, or even overrule a decision. They, just like everyone else, need to be open to everyone else’s ideas.

Do the research. Who is it for? And what do they need/want? Don’t assume to know best.

Leadership should also make sure that everyone is clear on the goal and ‘vision’ of the collaboration.

And then simple stuff. Communicate clearly, and do the work in earnest. I think there also needs to be room to fail. An individual or group of people may stumble upon a problem when working on their end, and there needs to be the understanding that these things take time to solve rather than applying pressure or discomfort on those individuals.

Who should you collaborate with?

Is this a trick question? I’ve got a trick answer. You should collaborate with anyone and everyone. It doesn’t matter how similar or different you are. It is less about who you collaborate with and more about how you collaborate. On the presumption that those you work with strive to collaborate effectively and do their part; it doesn’t matter if their personality, culture, religion or even their taste in music differs from yours. It can be a constructive process. Perhaps it is even more beneficial to work with someone that differs greatly from you in their experiences and beliefs.

Who do you want to collaborate with?

I don’t have a single individual in mind. But... I know that I want anyone I work with to be respectful, have an open mind, communicate effectively and appropriately, be creative, be passionate, take pride in their work and work diligently. That to me sounds like the perfect individual or individuals to work with.

Who should you avoid collaborating with?

The opposite of what I just listed (funny enough). I think even one opposite trait to the ideal collaborative individual I listed in the earlier question is a deal breaker. If they are disrespectful, then no. If they are closed-minded or stubborn, no. If they communicate poorly or infrequently when needed, no. Everyone has the capacity to be creative so I don’t think it’s fair to assume someone can not be creative. If the quality of work they produce is inadequate, however, or doesn’t get done in time or at all, then I would not want to work with that individual. That being said, it is not often that you get a choice in who you work with.

[mortiel]

Tim Sweeney Defending Epic Games’ Anti-Consumer Practices

Epic Games' founder Tim Sweeney has been responding on Twitter to a lot of criticism over Epic Games Store's tactic of paying publishers up front for exclusivity deals. Source link is at the button of this post, but let me get started debunking this marketing narrative:

The whole thesis here is that stores should be free to compete, and gamers and developers should be free to use stores of their choosing, which is exactly what is happening here today.

Blocking your competitor's access to products is not competition. It is literally the opposite.

Surely competition between stores is healthy, especially when it results in significant savings for developers (30% vs 12%), which can then be reinvested in future games or passed on to gamers.

Citation needed. There is no evidence that shows a publisher/developer not having to pay Steam a 30% cut will be reinvested into future games or passed on to gamers. Furthmore, you fail to account for Steam's newly introduced variable revenue share, which shaves the cost-benefit of Steam versus Epic Games Store (EGS), which is something you consistently do any time you talk on this subject, but I digress.

As counter examples: EA and Activision-Blizzard have their games now launching exclusively on their own stores. They don't even pay 12% of their sales because it's direct-to-publisher. Let's compare claims versus reality, shall we?

  Do they charge less for their games? Nope. They, in fact, charge $60 at minimum with "special" versions running well above $100.

Do they create a higher quantity of games? Nope. The quantity of games that both publishers have been funding has been steadily decreasing year-over-year.

Do they now create higher-quality games that are critically-acclaimed and award winning? Nope. In fact, their games have been getting increasing amounts of negative publicity.

Do they pass the savings on to consumers with less alternative monetisation models? Nope. They have actually been heavily criticised for over-monetising games.

Conversely, CD Projekt Red released the award-winning game The Witcher 3 on their own GOG store and on Steam. Somehow, even with paying the 30% cut to Valve, they have invested heavily into their next title, Cyberpunk 2077 by having a 60% larger development team.

Facts do not support your claim, therefore it is false.

Love us or hate us, we are certainly fostering economic competition between stores, out of a firm belief that this will ultimately benefit all developers and gamers. A store can only succeed in overturning the 30% fee precedent if it provides solid reasons for everyone to use it, developers and gamers alike. Free game giveaways, better prices, and exclusives are the big things here.

I can agree that a store can only succeed if it provides a good value proposition to consumers. Free game giveaways and better prices can do a bit, but ultimately can reduce profitability and the ability to invest profits into improving your product.

Buying exclusives can give you a short-term boost to revenue, but will ultimately either destroy your store or the entire PC gaming market due to standardising monopolistic practices. It is the "Scorched Earth" policy of gaming.

Conversely, and I know this is difficult to comprehend, but making a software that offers competitive features to Steam might also be an option... You know, the actual way that other companies create healthy competition with each other?

Compare to how Amazon Prime Video, Netflix, HBO, and others fund unique content to provide reasons to use their services. If everyone offers the same exact selection, then the most established store typically stays dominant for decades.

Is there a consumer right to buy any product in any store of your choosing? Do we have the right to buy a Toyota at a Ford dealer? A Whopper at McDonald’s? No; stores compete on selection as well as price and features.

This is a load of false-equivalency nonsense. Epic is not publishing the games it is locking into exclusivity deals. Netflix, Amazon, HBO, Hulu... They all are producing the content they have as exclusive content. Even with that, exclusivity is actually currently low on the value-proposition to consumers for these platforms. Start-up streaming services like CBS' offering are suffering because they launched with exclusivity as the entire premise.

Then you continue the false equivalency with citing Toyota at a Ford dealership and a Whopper at a McDonald's. Again, these are products created first party and sold first-party. Burger King doesn't have Joe's Burger Shack make Whoppers but only allow them to be sold at Burger King.

However, the US car dealership system is actually a major fucking monopoly where the car maker has to approve a dealership selling inventory and prevents a competitor's inventory from being sold at that same dealership, which is why you see "Chevy/GMC/Cadillac" or "Chrysler/Jeep/Dodge" dealerships and not "Ford/Chevy/Dodge" dealerships. Citing car dealerships is about the worst comparison you could have made in trying to make this point but it's actually extremely relevant because this is the future you are pushing everyone towards.

I’ve been following this very closely and understand that people who prefer to buy games on Steam prefer not to deal with a second store. But developers will never escape Steam’s 300% to 500% markup on operating costs if all games are on Steam at equal prices.

I love the citing Steam's "300% to 500% markup on operating costs" in order to use big numbers as a scare tactic with no backing evidence, but have to qualify that by saying "if all games are on Steam at equal prices" yet neither of those qualifications are true. Not all games are on Steam and not all games, even those on Steam, are at equal prices.

Steam has veto power over prices, so if a multi-store developer wishes to sell their game for a lower price on the Epic Games store than Steam, then: 1) Valve can simply say “no” 2) Pricing disparity would likely anger Steam users, leading to review bombing, etc

This is a situation you have fabricated to be a problem. Valve has never even hinted at any sort of "veto power" on pricing. In fact, they allow third-party stores like Green Man Gaming to sell games as Steam keys at whatever prices and don't even take this allegedly-oppressive 30% cut on the sale.

Pricing disparity would have an initial backlash, especially if marketed wrong. If you marketed it as a "feature offering", probably not so much. If you charged me $52 on Steam for Metro Exodus but $45 on EGS, citing the extra features of Steam as being the reason for the higher price, people would be more inclined to understand.

Furthermore, you are consistently spinning the narrative about review-bombing that I will get to in later comments. Suffice to say that review-bombing is entirely the fault of the game publisher/developer failing to properly communicate with consumers.

There I am criticizing Microsoft “curtailing users’ freedom to install full-featured PC software, and subverting the rights of developers and publishers to maintain a direct relationship with their customers”, not exclusives. No, I was criticizing Microsoft’s intentions to block competing stores from Windows.

You were also creating a hypothetical situation that Microsoft had made no actual claim of doing. Regardless, buying exclusives in order to prevent competitor access is no different. The result is eliminating competition in both cases.

We’re investing in lots of interesting things over different time scales, and the longer-term ones will have a lot more opportunity for polish as we build more store and online feature and have longer time spans to collaborate with developers.

We’re working to make the Epic Games store work offline. Launching online-only was the result of our decision to use a dynamic web based framework to build the store, with the unfortunate side effect that supporting offline requires further work.

There is no excuse for a multi-billion dollar company to release a competing solution to an existing platform and have it scarce on established features. These are things you should have included from launch, but you were trying to shave costs in order to have more money to bribe publishers/developers instead of actually competing with Valve.

However, I can't say this is only EGS failing here... The reason why Steam is so uncontested as the most popular PC store platform is largely because no one else has made a product that comes even close to competing feature-for-feature.

We’re working on a review system for the Epic Games store based on the existing one in the Unreal Engine marketplace. It will be opt-in by developers. We think this is best because review bombing and other gaming-the-system is a real problem.

Reviews are the life-blood of a healthy consumer-business relationship. Given the choice, every major publisher will opt-out of this in order to blind consumers before making a purchase decision because they think it will lead to better sales. Unfortunately for those publishers, that always blows back in their face, as evidenced by EA's tumbling stocks and poor sales performance.

More importantly, there is this current narrative making the rounds in the gaming "news" blog sites like Kotaku that "review-bombing" is a "major" problem caused by entitled, immature consumers. That kind of condescending mindset is exactly why review-bombing happens. It's an occasional problem caused by businesses failing to listen to their consumers, usually in order to pursue higher profits. Since consumers see their voice heard less and less (hence businesses failing to listen), review-bombing is one of the few ways consumers have to make their voices heard in which businesses have been shown to listen. The solution is to be an ethical business that genuinely listens to consumers, not to further restrict avenues for feedback.

If you would like a citation on that front, please look at Digital Extremes. They have one of the most positive communities in gaming right now with Warframe, due in no small part to their active pursuit in communicating with their consumers. I don't see their games getting review bombed, do you? In other words, be more like DE and less like EA.

It is clear that the decision to make reviews optional at the behest of the publisher/developer is designed to attracted corporate AAA publishers that are prone to ignoring consumer feedback and unpopular decisions, like Bethesda. However, at no point have you cited with this example how this benefits the consumer in any way. That's probably because it doesn't.

[on Steam] That’s a lot of features, but all of these features together likely don’t cost more than a fraction of a percent to operate. We’re working to release them.

Citation needed. I can say, from experience, that cloud storage alone is expensive.

Because they’re not done. Keep in mind that most developers make less than a 30% profit margin, and are decidedly not okay with stores making more profit from their own games than they do.

Conflating revenue with profit. Valve does not make a 30% profit margin. They make a 30% revenue split off a game. Publishers/developers make a 70% revenue split. Tim Sweeney is an industry veteran, so I know he is keenly aware of this distinction, which makes this a deliberately misleading statement.

This is all designed to spread this false narrative that Steam is some big bad bully picking on poor wittle publishers like EA, Activision-Blizzard, and Bethesda. Let the comedy of that statement sink in for a minute.

Source: https://wccftech.com/tim-sweeney-defends-epic-games-store/

[victoriahealy]

sorry; repetitive thoughts

I don’t know why I keep going back to this same thought over and over again.

But I think I’m just really confused how to place Aris along my scale of “good” and “bad” people. It really confuses me. I think I still feel gross, disgusted, and disappointed every time I think about him. I think about how insecure, how quasi-manipulative, and how “conservative” he is. “Conservative” as in, everything has to be perfect. He would make small boob jokes to me at least once a week (usually, it’d be brought up every time we undressed), and at the time I thought maybe it’s just normal for people to make these sorts of jokes relentlessly. At school, I was a self-proclaimed ibtc member anyway. I thought it was ok for him to make these jokes because he was a good person in other respects--he generally stopped when I said no, he always tried to make me feel better when I was sad (but 50% of the time, I was sad because he’d done something really fucking annoying like place me as last priority). So I guess back in high school I was only just learning that people are not white or black. They are always grey, a mixture of good and bad qualities in every way. But I keep thinking back on him. I read our old conversations and get reminded of how close we were. I see the human, humane part of him. But then I get reminded of every time he was really selfish. Every time he tried to benefit from, rather than give to, the relationship. I constantly felt like I wasn’t good enough or something for him. He had his ways of making me feel like that. Even if it wasn’t deliberate, it was bad enough that I felt like that. I was usually tired afterwards because I’d just spent so much energy trying to be who he wanted me to be. Maybe that’s why I was so tired after April. April was the month I battled between my personal wants, my parents’ wants, and his wants for my future. I’m honestly traumatized from that episode. I can’t stop thinking about it. And I can’t stop tearing up every time I think about it. How d a r e he threaten breakup and separation during my hard trial of picking a college? How dare he scream his opinion into my little body every time he saw me? How dare he guilt me like the way he did? I just feel really disturbed that I didn’t realize how traumatic and horrible that was until very recently... actually one month or so ago. I was so entangled in my situation that I could not be objective. I remember one of my best friends urging me not to go to Cornell because she knew I personally did not care for it. I was so mad at her because she did not want me to “follow my heart” and she was ok with me getting yelled at by Aris.

How dumb.

I’m mad at myself now for backlashing at her. I don’t talk to her much now. Not because of that particular instance, but college has just separated us. . . keeping in touch is hard I guess. I miss her.

I don’t know why I keep thinking about Aris and the college decisions. It might be because a rift grew between me and my dad because of it. After five or six months of college, I quickly realized that my dad had been right in telling me to veer away from Cornell. He knew where my true interests lay, but I haven’t told him yet. I’m too proud to. But I wish my dad could know... I guess I should just tell him, and not be a coward and write all my thoughts out onto a boring blue screen of pixels. Anyway, I keep getting on the verge of tears because I just can’t believe how brainwashed I was. What the hell, long distance relationships are definitely horrible, but I hate the way Aris just decided for the both of us that it would not work out. And I hated the way he fucked another girl two weeks after we broke up. And I hate the way he ran back to me after she cheated on him. Who am I to him? I was probably honestly worth a lot more than he let me know and that I let myself believe. But honestly fuck that. I hate thinking about him and his horrible stutter and his weird need for things to look normal. I think it screwed me up for a bit.

This case is just hard for me because with a-w, man there were so few good traits in that boy. Aris, I can see many splotches of brightness and good, but I’m trying to reconcile that with all the bad things he did. I’m not sure how I feel. I just know that I’m conflicted and feel like crying every time I think about this.

High school to college is such a weird transition.

[cathrynstreich]

Quitting Quayside: what’s next for Sidewalk Labs and investment in smart cities of the future?

[Editor’s note: Originally published on AEC Labs]

After wending its master site development plan through three years of revisions spurred by public opposition and data privacy concerns, project approvals for Sidewalk Labs’ Quayside “smart city” project in Toronto were set for a June 25 vote. But recently, in an open post on Medium, CEO Dan Doctoroff announced that Sidewalk is dropping the project. Even in the midst of the COVID-19 crisis, the news came as a surprise, given the deep pockets and recent momentum behind the project.

Quayside was meant to be a 12-acre development that would be the gateway to a much larger 800-acre project on Toronto’s industrial lakefront. Featuring cross-laminated timber (CLB) buildings, subterranean e-commerce delivery access points, and, ultimately, a “data trust” to help planners and technocrats improve the Quayside experience for residents and businesses alike, Sidewalk’s mission for the development was to “integrate physical, digital, and policy innovations to produce dramatic improvements in quality of life and generate significant economic opportunity” for Torontonians.

In data we (don’t) trust?

But three years ago Sidewalk’s initial plans for Quayside were met with immediate criticism from local community groups and data privacy activists. They voiced concerned with, among other things, the public subsidies Toronto was dangling for the development arm of one of the biggest and most powerful companies in history, as well as many perceived “surveillance capitalism” technologies in Sidewalk’s plans.

The backlash to Amazon’s HQ2 initiative in Long Island City, which led the retailer to pull out of the project early last year, led to further speculation that something similar could happen to Quayside. And despite scaling back its plans and performing heavy engagement with the public a “Block Sidewalk” citizens group sprung up to fight the development. Yet after Sidewalk seemed to successfully navigate the post-Amazon HQ2 landscape, it appeared Quayside was back on track, albeit with a smaller footprint and a commitment to data privacy and transparency.

But, as Doctoroff wrote, “unprecedented economic uncertainty has set in around the world and in the Toronto real estate market, [and] it has become too difficult to make the 12-acre project financially viable without sacrificing core parts of the plan we had developed together with Waterfront Toronto to build a truly inclusive, sustainable community.” Whether that’s entirely the case or if activists should claim victory over Sidewalk’s vision at this point isn’t quite clear.

Shifting focus to infrastructure

This is because Sidewalk isn’t giving up altogether on its mission to improve the urban experience. Its infrastructure investment arm, Sidewalk Infrastructure Partners (SIP), raised $400M from equity investors last fall (including Alphabet). It placed some of the proceeds into its first (and to date only) investment: an AI-powered robotics startup called AMP which automates the processing and sorting of recyclable material in municipal, construction, and demolition waste, increasing the volume of valuable recovered wastes from conveyor belts in its customers’ facilities.

SIP is structured not as a fund but as a “technology-enabled infrastructure” investment company. It’s targeting investment opportunities primarily in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico that seek a minimum of $100M in equity, specifically identifying autonomous vehicles, distributed renewable energy systems, real-time controls, robotics, and machine learning as the types of technologies it will underwrite across a range of infrastructure market sectors.

In describing SIP’s value proposition, Sidewalk Labs’ master development plan for Quayside (MDIP) noted that “[b]ecause the risk-return profile of advanced infrastructure systems differs from traditional infrastructure investments, traditional infrastructure investors may shy away from the investment. . . . Historically, infrastructure as an asset class has been resistant to innovation, resulting in many traditional infrastructure investors mispricing the risks of technology disruption and failing to capitalize on new infrastructure opportunities enabled by technology.”

By eventually deploying its portfolio within larger “smart city” projects from Sidewalk Labs, SIP could close the funding gap for these systems by “reduc[ing] certain risks associated with the new systems, such as absorption risk (i.e. the risk that buyers or renters might be more hesitant to move to a unit with an advanced system). This could attract investors who might not otherwise participate,” the MDIP concluded.

From there, “SIP could then structure a transaction that bundles debt financing negotiated with lenders with equity financing offered by SIP for multiple advanced systems.” This should lower overall project costs and increase the depth and breadth of RFP respondents (by eliminating the requirement that those respondents provide their own capital). If the last year in the infrastructure industry is any indication, with large global players declining to invest additional equity, and many worthy projects hurting for qualified bidders, this is a good idea.

So (un)sexy it hurts

Its investment thesis might not sound as sexy as a smart city of the future (waste management systems, anyone?). But SIP could indeed be well-positioned if future COVID-related stimulus includes funds for infrastructure. And its focus on technologies and companies more resilient in the age of COVID than, say, toll roads or airports, could prove to be shrewd.

For example, SIP will also seek to partner with governments in evaluating opportunities for public-private partnerships (P3s). These will likely increase dramatically as state and local budgets continue to creak because of COVID. And, if the Trump administration ultimately passes infrastructure stimulus, it will likely seek to leverage a relatively small direct federal investment with private funds.

As for Sidewalk Labs, the company plans to use the lessons it learned on Quayside to continue to launch and invest in other forward-thinking, technology-driven, urban-focused companies like Replica (an urban planning tool that uses de-identified location data, launched in Chicago and Kansas City) and Cityblock (a community-based healthcare network). And it will continue to develop the “generative” urban planning and “electrified neighborhood” software tools that it previously launched to support Quayside.

The search for deeper meaning

It’s been a rough few years for mega-projects in the P3 space. But there is still a lot of opportunity out there to help governments bridge the infrastructure funding gap (which stands at $1.5T just to maintain what we’ve got by 2030). And the new technologies that Sidewalk worked on in connection with Toronto could unleash spate of innovation in sectors that are mostly unremarked upon. It’s disappointing that Quayside won’t happen. But its failure to launch could end up being a good thing for the infrastructure market generally if SIP is able to push some of its ideas ahead. That wouldn’t be a bad surprise at all.

The post Quitting Quayside: what’s next for Sidewalk Labs and investment in smart cities of the future? appeared first on GeekEstate Blog.

Quitting Quayside: what’s next for Sidewalk Labs and investment in smart cities of the future? published first on https://thegardenresidences.tumblr.com/

[clarencevancleave]

Quitting Quayside: what’s next for Sidewalk Labs and investment in smart cities of the future?

[Editor’s note: Originally published on AEC Labs]

After wending its master site development plan through three years of revisions spurred by public opposition and data privacy concerns, project approvals for Sidewalk Labs’ Quayside “smart city” project in Toronto were set for a June 25 vote. But recently, in an open post on Medium, CEO Dan Doctoroff announced that Sidewalk is dropping the project. Even in the midst of the COVID-19 crisis, the news came as a surprise, given the deep pockets and recent momentum behind the project.

Quayside was meant to be a 12-acre development that would be the gateway to a much larger 800-acre project on Toronto’s industrial lakefront. Featuring cross-laminated timber (CLB) buildings, subterranean e-commerce delivery access points, and, ultimately, a “data trust” to help planners and technocrats improve the Quayside experience for residents and businesses alike, Sidewalk’s mission for the development was to “integrate physical, digital, and policy innovations to produce dramatic improvements in quality of life and generate significant economic opportunity” for Torontonians.

In data we (don’t) trust?

But three years ago Sidewalk’s initial plans for Quayside were met with immediate criticism from local community groups and data privacy activists. They voiced concerned with, among other things, the public subsidies Toronto was dangling for the development arm of one of the biggest and most powerful companies in history, as well as many perceived “surveillance capitalism” technologies in Sidewalk’s plans.

The backlash to Amazon’s HQ2 initiative in Long Island City, which led the retailer to pull out of the project early last year, led to further speculation that something similar could happen to Quayside. And despite scaling back its plans and performing heavy engagement with the public a “Block Sidewalk” citizens group sprung up to fight the development. Yet after Sidewalk seemed to successfully navigate the post-Amazon HQ2 landscape, it appeared Quayside was back on track, albeit with a smaller footprint and a commitment to data privacy and transparency.

But, as Doctoroff wrote, “unprecedented economic uncertainty has set in around the world and in the Toronto real estate market, [and] it has become too difficult to make the 12-acre project financially viable without sacrificing core parts of the plan we had developed together with Waterfront Toronto to build a truly inclusive, sustainable community.” Whether that’s entirely the case or if activists should claim victory over Sidewalk’s vision at this point isn’t quite clear.

Shifting focus to infrastructure

This is because Sidewalk isn’t giving up altogether on its mission to improve the urban experience. Its infrastructure investment arm, Sidewalk Infrastructure Partners (SIP), raised $400M from equity investors last fall (including Alphabet). It placed some of the proceeds into its first (and to date only) investment: an AI-powered robotics startup called AMP which automates the processing and sorting of recyclable material in municipal, construction, and demolition waste, increasing the volume of valuable recovered wastes from conveyor belts in its customers’ facilities.

SIP is structured not as a fund but as a “technology-enabled infrastructure” investment company. It’s targeting investment opportunities primarily in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico that seek a minimum of $100M in equity, specifically identifying autonomous vehicles, distributed renewable energy systems, real-time controls, robotics, and machine learning as the types of technologies it will underwrite across a range of infrastructure market sectors.

In describing SIP’s value proposition, Sidewalk Labs’ master development plan for Quayside (MDIP) noted that “[b]ecause the risk-return profile of advanced infrastructure systems differs from traditional infrastructure investments, traditional infrastructure investors may shy away from the investment. . . . Historically, infrastructure as an asset class has been resistant to innovation, resulting in many traditional infrastructure investors mispricing the risks of technology disruption and failing to capitalize on new infrastructure opportunities enabled by technology.”

By eventually deploying its portfolio within larger “smart city” projects from Sidewalk Labs, SIP could close the funding gap for these systems by “reduc[ing] certain risks associated with the new systems, such as absorption risk (i.e. the risk that buyers or renters might be more hesitant to move to a unit with an advanced system). This could attract investors who might not otherwise participate,” the MDIP concluded.

From there, “SIP could then structure a transaction that bundles debt financing negotiated with lenders with equity financing offered by SIP for multiple advanced systems.” This should lower overall project costs and increase the depth and breadth of RFP respondents (by eliminating the requirement that those respondents provide their own capital). If the last year in the infrastructure industry is any indication, with large global players declining to invest additional equity, and many worthy projects hurting for qualified bidders, this is a good idea.

So (un)sexy it hurts

Its investment thesis might not sound as sexy as a smart city of the future (waste management systems, anyone?). But SIP could indeed be well-positioned if future COVID-related stimulus includes funds for infrastructure. And its focus on technologies and companies more resilient in the age of COVID than, say, toll roads or airports, could prove to be shrewd.

For example, SIP will also seek to partner with governments in evaluating opportunities for public-private partnerships (P3s). These will likely increase dramatically as state and local budgets continue to creak because of COVID. And, if the Trump administration ultimately passes infrastructure stimulus, it will likely seek to leverage a relatively small direct federal investment with private funds.

As for Sidewalk Labs, the company plans to use the lessons it learned on Quayside to continue to launch and invest in other forward-thinking, technology-driven, urban-focused companies like Replica (an urban planning tool that uses de-identified location data, launched in Chicago and Kansas City) and Cityblock (a community-based healthcare network). And it will continue to develop the “generative” urban planning and “electrified neighborhood” software tools that it previously launched to support Quayside.

The search for deeper meaning

It’s been a rough few years for mega-projects in the P3 space. But there is still a lot of opportunity out there to help governments bridge the infrastructure funding gap (which stands at $1.5T just to maintain what we’ve got by 2030). And the new technologies that Sidewalk worked on in connection with Toronto could unleash spate of innovation in sectors that are mostly unremarked upon. It’s disappointing that Quayside won’t happen. But its failure to launch could end up being a good thing for the infrastructure market generally if SIP is able to push some of its ideas ahead. That wouldn’t be a bad surprise at all.

The post Quitting Quayside: what’s next for Sidewalk Labs and investment in smart cities of the future? appeared first on GeekEstate Blog.

from RSSMix.com Mix ID 8230574 https://ift.tt/3htRE0p via IFTTT