#game engine discourse

[fuka-deathpetals]

"Unity is the best game engine" "Unreal is the best game engine"

*EXTREMELY LOUD INCORRECT BUZZER*

may I present to the misguided,

these guys

[gandmandlinghames]

So,so upset with unity right now.

Shouts out to engine alternatives though:

Godot

Unreal

Etc…

Losing another thing I like to capitalistic bastards:

Here are some more vibes: “Act up, you can get snatched up”- city girls

[wreckedhoney]

^^ "coming to the conclusion that positioning the "can people enjoy things that would be immoral IRL in their fiction" debate as a proship v anti fandom debate is akin to pretending that "should we have the death penalty" is a discussion that only matters in Death Note discourse"

not proshipper not anti but a secret third thing (person who has a career in the media and, through covering legislative politics, has watched "associating with problematic fiction or entertainment is an indicator of moral degeneracy" rapidly become a mainstream GOP position that they are encoding in legislation to target the queer community under the guise of protecting children, thus coming to the conclusion that positioning the "can people enjoy things that would be immoral IRL in their fiction" debate as a proship v anti fandom debate is akin to pretending that "should we have the death penalty" is a discussion that only matters in Death Note discourse — the extent and manner to which fiction affects reality is an issue that is immediately relevant to today's US politics, and to summarize my opinions on the matter in fandom terms would be to diminish the ways this debate is affecting america Right The Fuck Now. and i have stopped taking "this person is bad for shipping the wrong anime thing and being horny about it" in any sort of good faith ever since I saw it literally used as part of a GOP smear campaign against a transgender state legislator in an attempt to defend the right from backlash after they used their supermajority in the Montana house to prevent her from speaking on the floor. Anyway I think everyone on this site, especially Americans, could benefit from ceasing to think in proship v anti vocabulary and instead developing coherent political positions on the nature of fiction that do not directly align with current fascist political tactics)

[communistkenobi]

a very common mistake people make in political/social discourse is applying individualist thinking to some social phenomenon or theory. one of the most common examples is someone responding to the theory of white privilege with “but there are poor white people” or male privilege with “I’m a man but I have no power” etc. and in order to refute that properly you have to essentially get into a philosophy of science debate, to explain that the benefit of a given social theory is its ability to be generalised above the level of the individual, that what is being described is a social process, that human beings occupy various positions within a social space (a family, a neighbourhood, a workplace, a state) that are not individual. To be able to give an account of some social force you necessarily cannot be just talking about the particularities of a single person - if you were, all you would be expressing is an individual opinion about a single person. If you want to rise above the level of ‘mere opinion’ you need to actually provide an account that is general enough to apply to multiple people of varying social situations but systematic enough to be able to differentiate between who you are and are not speaking about. Of course data are lost in this endeavour - probably best summed up by the aphorism “all models are wrong but some are useful” - but the success of a given social theory is its ability to sustain its explanatory power despite these data losses. Like the whole game of generalisation is building a theory to figure out what data points to discard and which to retain. It is no more contradictory to say white privilege is real even though there are poor white people than to say the police are a white supremacist institution even though there are non-white police officers. In fact these seeming contradictions are accounted for in these same social theories - white supremacy has had centuries of policy development at this point, it is a fairly well-tested set of logics that have adapted to a variety of conflicts, problems, and political/economic/social developments (Sylvia Wynter talks about this in the context of the post-slavery US for example). White supremacy is thus resilient to these apparent contradictions (and these contradictions generate further social developments, such as the shifting meanings and locations of whiteness), which is why zooming into the level of the individual is often not helpful in explaining its effects on a social level.

Weber says that I need not know Caesar to understand Caesar - that to talk about Caesar as a historical figure and as a particular location in ancient Roman society is fundamentally different than a description of him as an individual. And nobody actually talks about Caesar as an individual anyway! Even psychological or biographical profiles of him are premised on the fact that Caesar is worthy of this profile as opposed to any other person living in the Roman Republic. The reason we all know his name is that his place in history is extended beyond the individual. A Roman general and leader is fundamentally not an individual, not a private person. The very fact that I can say “Roman General” but not say any person’s name and have people understand what I’m saying is evidence of this. By definition ‘Caesar’ the historical figure is not an individual in any meaningful sense, he has power that is only available through social institutions and formations, and that is why he is known even today. Even the most liberal Great Man Theories of history locate an engine of history within the general position of Great Man (this is a fundamental contradiction within this type of thinking, the generalised Individual). If there can be more than one Great Man in history then he is not an individual, he is occupying a generalisable position in human history that can be calculated, bounded, and studied.

So it’s very frustrating to deal with! It’s an attempt to refute an explanation of a social phenomenon with individual anecdotes, much of which is already accounted for in said explanation. It makes many, many, many discussions about the social and political world endlessly repetitive and uninteresting, because you are always stuck at litigating the most basic, atomic point of reference. And of course that is the point for many people, they aren’t interested in any of this because they are racist and they are misogynistic and so on. It is an extremely effective derailing tactic, but part of the reason why it’s so effective is because individualism is such a pervasive mode of thinking. All of the groundwork is already laid out for people who say white privilege isn’t real because the social and epistemic infrastructure necessary to get other people to buy that argument has already been built for them to make that type of claim. Which is why the people who smirk at the camera when they say shit like this are so pathetic because they behave like they thought of that all by themselves, unaware or (more probably) deliberately ignoring the fact that they live in a society specifically built to facilitate, automate, and celebrate the garbage coming out of their mouth

[max1461]

There are lots of people in the West to whom Western chauvinism is appealing, for a variety of reasons. And it is, in particular, I think, a more seductive ideology than racism sensu stricto for the kind of educated, upper middle class people who end up playing important decision-making roles in society. Not that plenty of them aren't racist sensu stricto as well. I'm just saying, I think one of these things has more persuasive power. These are people on whom "you can't say that, it's racist" simply does not work in a substantive way. They might outwardly display deference, but inwardly you haven't really changed their mind. They still feel that The West Is The Best, Screw (Or, Paternalistically Enlighten) All The Rest. And you should want to change their mind, because like it or not, per above, they are the stratum of society that is going to end up in decision-making roles and if they all think The West Is The Best they are going to make decisions based on The West Is The Best.

Uh, right, ok. There's a lot of defeatism on the left about the general project of convincing people of things; supposedly people's views are wholly predetermined by their material interests and nobody can ever be convinced of anything. Westerners will always think The West Is The Best because it benefits them to do so.

Well, needless to say I think this is wrong. People can indeed be convinced of things, especially on the margins; cf. gay rights as an example of a political battle that has been very successfully fought in the court of public opinion. Obviously not every political battle is perfectly analogous to this, you're not gonna be able to convince Washington people to dismantle American empire or something through words, but on the margin public opinion does matter. And, ok: real public opinion matters. Not just what people say in polite company, what they really feel in their heart of hearts. In my estimation, a lot more people are LGBT allies now, really, in their heart of hearts, than was the case in 1990 or 1960. That matters! But the deal is, I think, that a huge contingent of people are either nominally or genuinely anti-racist sensu stricto, but in their heart of hearts are still basically Western chauvinists. And that effects policy and culture, and I think you can't fix it by saying "that's racist, you can't say it". It will not work. I think rational argument is generally not sufficient to convince people of things, but it is often necessary, and in combination with the right rhetoric and social circumstances, rational argument does in fact often change people's minds (in my experience).

So, the thing is, I think there are a whole lot of good arguments against Western chauvinism, I think Western chauvinist attitudes are in fact not justified. I think we do not have to dance around this and play word games, because our opponents are actually wrong and we can tell them why they are wrong. Not everyone has to be in this business, but I am in this business, on my blog. I think it's important that arguments, not just opposition but arguments on this point actually be out there. Which is the origin of my much maligned habit of, basically, engaging with racists. I mean not that white nationalist anon; engaging with him is purely an unhealthy and probably-harmful-to-the-psychae-of-my-readers thing so I've tried to stop doing that. But, no, the exact kind of people I'm talking about here. The kind of people who become engineers and technocrats, and do not think of themselves as racist but hold these Western chauvinist views implicitly. I think it is important that they have at least seen someone, somewhere, arguing on their terms, in their language (this is the deal about rhetoric, remember) that maybe the West is not so uniquely enlightened as they suppose.

I think, based on my intuitive barometer for The Discourse, that my constant posting on this and related points has substantively changed the tone of the discussion around these issues on this part of tumblr, which, yeah, is I think something. It's really a thing. Uh. I'm not going to stop doing this because it demonstrably works, I think. I think I'm just empirically seeing the whole "don't even engage" philosophy be incorrect. You don't have to engage, but it is quite useful for someone to be engaging.

The people I'm talking about, well, they're people who often take a lot of pride in their intelligence, their ability to know stuff and be correct, etc. etc. And I have found that it actually does work to be like "look, I think you are wrong on points X, Y, and Z, I think you are factually wrong, and here is an explanation of how". When you start telling these people that they are wrong, they listen! Being right matters to them, like, personally and culturally, and so a very basic grasp of communication and rhetoric says this is the issue on which you should be engaging. Uh, that makes it sound like I think caring about being factually correct is a bad thing. No, I care about it too! It's a good thing to care about!

Right, I don't know where I'm going with this.

[thunderfrommyheart]

breaking down the misinformation in @afronerdism post about me.

Debunked by Stuart Semple himself. 

I’ve taken the time to do this because nobody wants mis-information bouncing around the internet. 

The key thing to know - in the artworld rich people have access to processes and companies that most artists don’t. That’s how they get to create giant beans which cost $20million. At the top the rich get richer, and at the bottom artists struggle to make their mark with what they’ve got. 

Vantablack is an example of a group of rich, entitled people getting together to pat themselves on the back, whilst the rest of the world watched horrified at the tone-deafness of the whole thing.

it's also worth noting whilst OP is clearly educated and understands politics they are not in any way an expert in the artworld, art discourse. I however have been in the artworld for 25 years, have written for the guardian, art of england and vogue. I have presented art programs for the BBC and have a properly published book on art history - it's out in June called 'Make Art or Die Trying'. I have studied art and art history and spoken at Oxford University, The ICA, Denver Art Msueum, Dublin Art Museum and at Frieze. I have lectured at the Royal College of Art in London. I have curated over 20 contemporary art exhibitions internationally, I have directed two galleries. I am by definition an expert.

MY BREAKDOWN: OP is @afronerdism - I've gone below them point by point

A: What Vantablack is not: a pigment. A paint. Vantablack is not something that you were supposed to use to paint with. 

SS: CORRECT - However nor is glass, chrome, powder coating, sandblasting, booze casting, tar, concrete or steel yet they are used by artists everyday. 

Whether the material/process is a paint or pigment or not doesn’t matter. 

A: Who creates and distributes Vantablack: an engineering company named Surrey NanoSystems.

SS: True. And many artists work with engineering companies every day, notable examples are Jeff Koons and Damien Hirst. Lots of artists collaborate with industry to get their work made, that is what fabrication is.  You go to Surrey NanoSystems - not to buy paint but for them to coat your work in Vantablack. 

A: Who does not do those things: an art house. A distribution company. Any kind of company that creates and distributes pigments on a massive, artistic scale. 

SS: Which is totally true and fine. However they do coat things in Vantablack for a series of clients in many different industries including fashion designers, jewelers, brands, car companies, and watch companies. They will coat anything for anyone who has the money unless they are an artist. They only accept work from Anish Kapoor as he has an exclusive license with them for art. 

A: Who was Vantablack made for: Vanta Black was made by aerospace engineers for aerospace engineers, looking for something to coat the insides of massive NASA telescopes. 

SS: Initially, but quickly was used by a lot of other industries including architects, fashion designers, bands, brands, car companies and even a deodorant. 

They are able to make it in quantities large enough to coat whole buildings as we saw when architect Asif Khan used it to coat a whole pavilion during the Pyeongchang Winter Olympic Games. 

(If had told Surrey nanoSytems he was an artist - not an architect, this would never have happened)

A: Who it was not made for: artists.

SS: Except the one with the license. (Anish Kapoor)

———————————-——————————————

A: Hopefully already just by understanding what Vantablack is, what it was made for, and who it’s made by you and other people are beginning to see what the problem is with Stuart simples narrative around Vanta black. 

SS: It’s Semple not simple. 

SS: The narrative was not created by Semple as for a few months before he shared his pink the world media was criticizing Kapoor for his Monopoly with major articles in the Guardian, Daily Mail, and BBC news. Each featured reactions from a broad spectrum of artists who spoke about the unnecessary license and the elitism in the artworld. 

A:  But you may be wondering if Vanta black is a highly toxic unstable substance made out of carbon nano tubes by aerospace engineers for aerospace engineers, working in space, then how did we get here? well, Vanta, black 2.0, if you will was created in such a way that it could be sprayed onto substances in a certain way meaning that theoretically it could be used artistically.

SS: Yes VBX2 can be sprayed, and Surrey Nanosystems have training days where they teach in-house teams how to do that. The VBX2, however, arrived quite late in the story and Kapoor’s rights started with the first version. 

A: Surround nanosystems held an exhibition where they displayed Vanta black and when artist saw this, they were inundated with calls from artist, wanting to use it in their work. 

SS:

Surrey nano systems (not surround)

They actually debut it at an airshow in England, it was all over the world media, many artists saw it. They then went on a massive PR mission and the material was seen on CNN etc. 

Kapoor became aware of it and approached them to see if he could use it in his work. 

Together they struck up an exclusive deal which would mean if any artist asked them to coat a piece of work with the stuff they would be turned away. 

That deal was something Surrey and Kapoor were initially proud of. They couldn’t see the inherent elitism in the exclusivity so they went on another PR pr to tell he world Kapoor was signed up to use it. 

It was then the artists of the world really became aware of it, and sure enough, when any of them wrote to Surrey - even really huge ones with plenty of money, they were turned away. These artists including Christian Furr and Ron Arad, amongst others were all featured across the media. =

A: But as we’ve already established surrey nanosystems is not a distribution company. They’re an engineering company. And they made the decision that they could only work with one artist, because they simply did not have the physical ability to produce Vantablack at a scale that allowed them to work with more than one person. 

SS: They did say that, but a lot later. They were always a fabrication / engineering place and there was never an idea that they would distribute the material. That’s not the problem any artists ever had with it, they all fully understood what the material was. The issue was that even if the artist had the money and could ship their work to Surrey, they would not coat the object with it, but they would serve other industries. This is seen as deeply prejudicial towards artists. 

A: (To this day, vanta Black has to be distributed by a specialized robotic arm that creates it in painfully small amounts in an enclosed box that can then be given to someone in a lab. ) 

SS: This is untrue - the arm is used to spray the objects that Surrey have agreed to coat. 

It does not make the material. The material is made by growing carbon nano tubes on a surface. 

And the spray version contains nano particles. The robot arm is used for precision when coating. 

You often see a robot arm spray cars for example. The arm is used like this. 

A: Enter Anish Kapoor: Anish Kapoor, at this time was already a world, renowned artist, and the creator of many public facing pieces, such as cloud gate, a.k.a. the Chicago Bean. His entire life‘s work was dedicated to how light is refracted and interplays with the void, making him not only the perfect person to be chosen because of prestige but also because his life‘s work spoke to the engineers who created Vanta black.

SS: Whist as an artist he has dealt with reflection and the void at length, it’s a stretch to claim his entire life’s work is dedicated to it. 

SS: It is true that as a figurehead for Vantablack he is a good choice, he’s very rich, extremely famous, he’s a Sir (i.e knighted by the queen and a turner prize winner). Plus he makes work that would look good in Vantablack. 

SS: None of this means that he needed exclusivity to do it, the company could simply have collaborated with him and if any other artist asked to have something coated, they could have easily said they were too busy or didn’t have enough of the material. 

SS: The issue is the way they couldn’t see the prejudice, elitism and lack of access in the exclusivity. 

A: Now this should’ve been seen as an incredible accomplishment and honor for this Indian artist to be chosen as the soul licensor of Vantablack as this company was only able to choose one person and people were really excited about this for him and that’s where the story ends, right? Right? Right? 

SS: It’s unclear why his race matters. He is one of the richest, most well known, most famous artists in the world. The fact he has exclusive access to a material/process like this is not a reason for people to be excited for him, people are free to be excited or not. This is purely your opinion not a fact. 

A: Enter Stuart Semple: Stuart simple was a 25-year-old man in the UK living with his mother when she came into his room and told him about Vantablack. 

SS: Stuart was born in 1980, which would make him 36 at the time. 

SS: He was not living with his mother, in fact he was living in London with his own family. 

SS: His mother did not come into his room however on a phone call she spoke to him about an article she had read in the guardian about how artists were upset by Kapoor having Vantablack. 

SS: Stuart was (and is) a well-known contemporary artist, very embedded int hat world. He has had over 20 solo exhibitions dedicated to his work all over the world and his pieces are in major collections and museums. He’s not in the league of Kapoor but in the artworld is well known as an artist. 

A: As an artist himself, Stewart simple wanted to try Vanta Black, and was told by the company that he could not.

SS: This is untrue - Stuart did not want to use the colour, nor did he approach the company. 

A:  It was then that he discovered the only person on earth licensed to use Vantablack was Anish Kapoor. 

SS: This is untrue, he was aware of this when his mother told him what she had read in the newspaper. 

A: Please keep in mind that Vantablack is not a paint, and it is so difficult to work with that Anish Kapoor has only ever produced one singular piece of art with Vantablack. 

SS: This is untrue. Tens of thousands of items have now been coated in VantaBlack, from soda cans to watches. Initially, Kapoor used his rights to create a series of limited edition wrist watches that sold for $100,000 each, and then went on to create a whole series of large sculptures that were initially shown at a huge palazzo in Venice that Kapoor bought, during the Venice Biennale, and then at an exhibition at the Lisson in NYC where there works were for sale with an average price of $500,000USD.

A: So like a child who has just been told by their mom that they can’t use something, Stewart simple decided to throw a hissy fit. 

SS: It’s Stuart Semple (not stewart simple) - and there is no evidence of any kind of Hissy Fit. However he did create a piece of internet performance art, where he put a jar of pinkest pink paint on the internet, humorously, and asked anyone who bought the paint to sign an agreement that they ‘weren’t Anish Kapoor and Associate of Kapoor and that to the best of their knowledge information and belief, the material would not make its way into the hands of Anish Kapoor’. Semple has always explained it was a tongue-in-cheek piece of performance art, and that he was never expecting anyone would actually buy any pink. The best source for this is an article in Wired in which the journalist concludes with the piece being a powerful piece of online performance art. Bearing in mind Semple is an artist who works with performance, that is extremely likely. 

A: He created a pink pigment that he conditionally said everyone could use except Anish Kapoor and then launch this pigment with the hashtag #ShareTheBlack. 

SS: He created the pink pigment in 2010 - and has made his own paints to use in his own work since he was a child. It was not made in response to Kapoor. However he did not make them public they were for his own use, and the Kapoor situation made him question his own exclusivity in keeping the materials he was making for himself. He decided to share his pink as a gesture and a piece of art in it's own right.

A: This caught the attention of the news media, and when asked about this situation, that was previously relatively unheard of, Stuart simple,

SS: Neither Stuart nor the Vantablack situation were unheard of. The media was already reporting on the controversy around vantablack long before Stuart put the pink up. Stuart was also well known which is why the media wanted to talk to him about it. 

When GQ came to do a 5 page feature on him they were clear it was because he was an established and well-known artist in his own right. 

He had already been hosting art shows for the BBC, had written for the guardian and Huffington post and had collaborated with major musicians. 

A: went onto describe Anish Kapoor as this tyrannical elitist who “banned“ the use of Vantablack to keep other artists from using it. 

SS: There’s no evidence that Semple said that, however, he was critical of the exclusive license and did feel the story opened up a well-needed discussion about access to art and the trend in which those with the money could afford to have works fabricated when others couldn’t. He is at heart an egalitarian and has made free art studios, his Designs for humanity charity, his creative therapies fund at Mind (a mental health charity) etc.. and a major free art gallery in his hometown that shows some of the biggest living artists. So Semple’s opinion is allowed, to him Kapoor epitomizes an elitism that is dominated by the super-rich, after all, Kapoor is getting close to being a billionaire. 

A: But hopefully you can already see how that is Literally not true. Anish Kapoor does not make Vanta black. Anish Kapoor cannot sell Vanta black. Anish Kapoor cannot give you permission to use Vanta black. And Vanta black is not even a paint. 

SS: He does not make it, but he does hold the exclusive right to use it in art. 

SS: No other material or process has been exclusively licensed by one artist in the history of the world. 

SS: Jeff Koons does not make his own giant steel sculptures, a factory does. Jeff can’t book your work into the factory, and steel is not a paint either. He doesn't have an exclusive agreement with the steel fabricators. If they aren't too busy with Jeff, and you've got the cash, they'll make something for you too. This is standard with art fabrication.

SS: I didn't physically make the giant steel and foam smiley sculpture of mine for the city of Denver, fabricators helped with that, and engineers. They work with several artists.

SS: This makes no sense given it is understood vantablack is a material and a process of application. 

SS: However Kapoor could surrender his exclusive right and Surrey would then be able to take bookings from artists. 

A: meanwhile Stuart has launched an entire very lucrative career around slandering and smearing Anish Kapoor 

SS: Untrue, Semple had a very successful career and his day job is as a contemporary artist. Actually speaking up about elitism in the artworld is a risky move for someone who relies on that artworld to pay his bills. 

A: when Anish Kapoor literally never did anything but be qualified enough to be the one person chosen by a company that is literally only able to work with one person at a time. 

SS: He did do something, he signed an exclusive agreement and he felt he was entirely justified in doing so. He also went out in the media and with surrey nono systems and gloated about it.

SS: They can’t only work with one person at a time, we have seen whole buildings covered in vantback, jewellery, cars and soda cans and many sculptures by Kapoor. Surrey have collaborated with thousands of brands, designers, architects and companies. 

A: The fact remains Stewart simple, very intentionally allows this narrative to continue because it makes him money. 

SS: It is unclear how it makes him money as the pink was sold for $3 which was what it cost to make, and his website which researches and distributes cutting edge materials is a non profit that collaborates with artists. They even did a crowd funder to make Black 3.0 - a super black acrylic that any artist can use. It's also unclear how he is perpetuating this narrative, when he's clearly moved on to other projects many years ago and rarely mentions it. In Semple's world it's a very small thing.

A: He has made a ton of money off of slandering Anish Kapoor as if Anish Kapoor is the reason he can’t use Vanta black when the reason he can’t use Vanta black is because no one can use Vanta black, and the only person who might be able to use it is Anish Kapoor and that is not Anish Kapoor‘s fault. 

SS: There’s no evidence at all that he’s slandered Kapoor. Kapoor being extremely wealthy, and the level of media that covered the story back in 2016 would never have allowed it. It would have been a legal nightmare. All the publications who write about the story GQ, BBC, The Guardian, Wired, have journalistic laws and it would not have happened. 

SS: There’s no evidence that Semple has made a ton of money. 

A: It is not lost on me that there are racial connotations to the story as well. There are actual companies and artists in the world who have trademarks around certain colors that they do not allow other people to use in public showcases. 

SS: There are colour marks or if you like 'trademarked colours'. The public showcases point doesn't make sense in this context - colours are protected in classes i.e certain uses on Serbian products are prohibited. EG - Tiffany blue cannot be used on jewellery boxes. 

A: But we really as a community allowed this white man to smear and slander an Indian artist,

SS: Again it’s unclear what the ethnicity of the artists has to do with the core issue. 

SS: It’s a little bit of a leap given Semple has also liberated Klein Blue (made by a white French man), Barbie Pink (owned by Mattel a corporation), and created the Brightest White. 

 A: based entirely off of misinformation, and to this day people jump on the Internet, saying fuck Anish Kapoor because of it. 

SS: Kapoor secured the rights to the blackest material ever made. Everyone else who can afford to, can use it, unless they identify as an artist. 

SS: Many people feel like that is wrong. 

A: Now, Anish Kapoor is not some struggling person. He is probably a multibajillionaire 

SS: He’s worth about 800 million according to Forbes, he’s within the top 5 most wealthy living artists.

A: And doesn’t necessarily need our sympathy. But I think the story of Vantablack is a really good case study of how misinformation spreads, and how people never bother to question the framework of a story. 

SS: In my opinion, your post is misinformation, that has been spread unquestioningly. 

[riotinyellow]

Current tv and film discourse has actually made me give up on most people's intellectual capabilities and their basic deduction skills. Especially discourse around The Pitt.

"Guys, I have a crazy theory. What if Collins' first pregnancy was Robby's"

"I think Langdon shot up the festival"

"David's mother is schizophrenic"

"I think stantos might have been abused as a child"

Just some of the shit I found on tiktok. This isn't happening with The Pitt only. We saw this with the last season of Stranger Things and the most recent instalments of the Hunger Games.

"Lucy gray is katniss's grandma" type of bullshit

People's opinionated statements about film and tv now range from pointing out the most obvious to creating the most insane scenario. Common sense seems to have completely fucked off and left everyone.

And I know a lot of people are gearing up to tell me that common sense isn't common for everyone and that context clues are harder for some people to pick up on. But this isn't a neurodivergncy issue. This is what happens when people's stimulation comes from Colleen Hoover books and the bottom of the barrel snyder films.

Like, what do you mean you didn't understand that Collin's first pregnancy was Robby's ? What do you mean you think it's a "theory" ? The show literally told us. How much more spelling out do we need ?

People are losing the ability to connect dots together because of how low their entertainment is. I hate how pretentious this is making me sound. Look, I enjoy bridgerton. Does that mean that I will let Shonda Rhimes thinking control how I engage with every other form of media ? FUCK NO

Keep your thinking reasonable and tailored for every form of media you engage with.

Would a cat that cybernetically engineered itself to live forever and enslave humans be the big bad villain in a Sherlock episode ? NO. Could the same cat be in a Doctor Who episode ? YES

PLEASE LAY OF SHONDA RHIMES

LAY OF THE FUCKING SHONEN

I HAVE NO WAY TO PROVE THAT SHONEN AND COLLEEN HOOVER ARE TO BLAME FOR THIS BUT I WILL FUCKING BLAME THEM FOR IT AND FUCK YOU BOOKTOK ASWELL

[lyricalt]

fic_promptly - theme: opposites

sniperspy & demoman - rated g - prompt: opposite sides of the room

----

The sound of Demoman letting out a bark of laughter makes Sniper glance back down at the chessboard. Demo currently has Sniper’s sad little bishop curled under three fingers as he moves the white pawn into its place. With his forefinger and thumb, Demo wiggles a shot glass for Sniper to take as punishment.

“Gotta wonder, laddie. You playing chess with me? Or some other game with that bastard standing behind us?” Demo asks with a grin.

Sniper grimaces. He takes the shot glass, face warming even before he drinks, and a bishop’s jigger shot’s worth of whiskey goes down the hatch. Demoman’s got a modest collection of Sniper’s black pawns but, to be fair, Sniper’s got his own pile of white chess pieces off the board as well. He’d been doing quite alright for himself until ten minutes ago—he thinks all that liquor might’ve hit then.

“Sorry, mate,” Sniper mutters, unable to come up with a proper excuse that wouldn't get Demo falling out of his chair in a laughing fit. 

“Here’s a freebie on me; that man of yours ain’t gonna come over unless you holler out to him,” Demo whispers with one hand covering the side of his mouth. The wrong side. Sniper hopes the echo of his words doesn’t bounce off his palm and into someone else’s ears. They’re lucky the rec room is busy with other chatter. Demo leans in with a mocking sympathetic expression. “You makin’ eyes don’t work if his back’s turned. Thought you’d know.”

Sniper takes Demoman’s knight. It might’ve been an ill-advised move in the heat of the moment but it’s satisfying to tip the bottle for a heavy-handed pour. “Ain’t making eyes.”

He hands the shot glass back to Demoman but as he does, he catches Spy turning from his periphery and Sniper does look over Demoman’s shoulder right then. 

Spy is only moving to speak with Engineer, hands animated to suggest that he’s either arguing with the other man or—well. Arguing would be the safest bet, though with the way Engie is excitedly holding up a blueprint, it seems to only be friendly banter of some kind. Medic steps in, also starting to talk over Engie, and Sniper’s view of Spy is blocked.

“Ach. Of course,” Demo says, and he might as well slap Sniper’s hand like a school teacher with a ruler. He takes the shot with ease. “Jus’ yer eyeballs being glued forlornly across the room. Maybe you oughta heave a great sigh and twirl your hair-”

“It’s your move,” Sniper reminds. 

Demoman knocks Sniper’s rook aside with a well-placed pawn. Sniper glances at the half empty whiskey bottle with what must be a flicker of impending misery. There won’t be much left of him to embarrass at this rate. 

“Tell ye what,” Demoman says, lowering his voice. “If you gather enough of your own bollocks and holler out to Spy, I’ll let you take a pawn off the board.”

Sniper scoffs. “I’ll beat you fair and square, mate.”

“And if Spy doesn’t come over, I’ll let you skip that rook shot. If he does, you’ll have to double it.”

Sniper smirks. “Oh, easy-peasy. He’ll not come over for anything if he’s busy arguing with Engie.” Which happens to be one of Spy’s favorite pastimes, particularly if he has the upperhand.

Demoman smiles. 

With a huff, Sniper cranes his neck to look across the room. Spy isn’t even paying attention to them. And it seems like he’s winning whatever argument he’s getting into with Engie, who is getting to look more and more blustery by the second.

Sniper takes a breath. “Oi, Spy!”

Spy turns his head, annoyed by the interruption, and Sniper thinks Demoman is off his rocker believing Spy might actually abandon the opportunity to ridicule a fellow coworker, until Spy starts walking across the room to meet them. Even Engie seems to be taken aback by the way Spy waves him off, effectively ending whatever discourse they’ve be going at.

When Spy reaches their table and sets his hand on the back of Sniper’s chair, Sniper thinks he might’ve been stunned stupid by one of Demoman’s shields. 

“You called?” Spy asks, looking down at Sniper.

Sniper knows his face must be flushed to the ears. He starts pouring himself two shots of whiskey. 

“Aye, Sniper’s in a bit of a pickle,” Demoman says for him, gesturing to the chessboard. His own face seems to have developed a permanent grin of frightening proportions. “It’s his move. Thought I’d let him have a second man to compensate.”

Muttering, Sniper ducks his head, about to take his shots, but Spy plucks the glass from his hand and downs the whiskey for him. Utterly casual about it. Even when he has to press the back of his hand to dab a corner of his mouth with a polite cough as the burning whiskey goes down.

Sniper stares up at Spy in mute despair, which only makes Spy shoot him a small smile like he’s done Sniper a favor.

If Demoman looked gleeful before, he appears downright delirious with victory now. Unbeknownst to Spy, Sniper is considering the pros and cons of eating the chess pieces so that he can never play this bloody bitch of a game ever again.

“Yeah,” Sniper says, already defeated, “I’m at my wits end.”

Spy considers the chessboard. 

“Neither of you are playing well,” he concludes after a long moment. The chair creaks as he leans over Sniper’s shoulder. Out of sight, his thumb caresses at Sniper’s back. “Knight takes bishop.”

Oh, you son of a bitch, Sniper thinks, glaring at Demoman. He moves his knight as advised and captures Demo’s bishop.

By now, Demo has taken the whiskey bottle for himself. He moves his queen while taking his required sip. “Check.”

Sniper’s gaze immediately goes to Spy in deep, affronted betrayal.

“King takes pawn,” Spy says, smiling indulgently. He pats Sniper’s shoulder. “I will make you lose in less than two moves. Demoman is quite the cruel adversary. I’m giving you a quick death.” And then, bending down to whisper in his ear, “I believe you wanted my attention for some time now.”

Sniper stares at the ruined chessboard as Spy pats his shoulder again, nods at Demoman, and saunters out of the rec room. 

“I think I just lost two games,” Sniper says, not surprised in the least, and knocks his own king over.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

Editor’s note: This hypothetically open letter was originally posted by its anonymous author on Medium and was rapidly removed as “hate speech.” We found it to be a refreshing dose of honesty, a charming and relatable open letter from one parent to other parents (not to the child, obviously!) about dealing with a challenging and dangerous moment in raising children, especially “weird” adolescents who search for their identities harder than others and risk making life-damaging mistakes in a way never before possible. We are reposting it here on New Discourses with the permission of the author.

--

By: Donna M.

Published: Mar 5, 2021

My dear, sweet, son,

I’ve got to break it to you: you’re not trans, you’re just weird.

This seems like a cruel thing to point out right now. Clearly, you are struggling and feeling pretty awful about things. I can see that you are in a rough patch, and one of the first rules of parenting is to not pile on. The world is pretty heavy on your shoulders. You’re fifteen. There’s a pandemic going on. But here I come anyway. I’m about to throw more on you.

When you were two ­– a happy, chubby, little tyke in pull-ups, you watched the world with wary eyes behind the thumb in your mouth. You leapt with joy in the rhythm of the toddle music classes. You chattered and shared stories about your stuffed animals. You loved your little sister. Enjoyed cookies and finger painting. That was all pretty normal.

But you also started to count to one thousand on our walks. And you started to call out the store names as we drove around. And you preferred reading books rather than playing with the other two-year-olds at preschool. And you hated sitting in the circle when instructed. And you hated the feel of blue jeans. And you threw big tantrums when you lost any kind of game. In other words, you started to show signs that you were… weird.

The grandparents were the first to notice. They said gentle things like “You oughta keep an eye on that one,” and sent us links to Wall Street Journal articles about child prodigies. And then the other parents in the play groups started to comment; “He’s pretty intense, huh?” And the teachers were on to it pretty quickly. They started to use fancy terms like “asynchronous development.”

By third grade, we realized you were different, but we still didn’t realize you were weird. Truthfully, we’re used to people like you. Our family is full of engineers, artists, musicians, computer programmers, and a lot of “free-thinkers.” Family gatherings always have chess, political debates, and quartets around the piano. That’s just us.

And besides, you had a small but solid group of friends. There was Pokémon, then Minecraft, then Magic, then Dungeons and Dragons, then Catan. You were never in the center of things, but you weren’t alone.

But then, in middle school, things started to change. By 7th grade, school finally started to require some effort, and it turned out you were pretty disorganized. People kept calling you smart, but the teachers were annoyed at your humor, and frustrated that you wouldn’t or couldn’t follow the guidelines for assignments. Classmates didn’t appreciate your frank (if accurate) descriptions of their efforts. I’ll admit, we got pretty frustrated with you, too.

And then puberty arrived, with its triple curse of acne, braces, and bizarre growth. The girls appeared to have it all together (I know they don’t, but they do appear that way). And the popular boys seemed to know exactly what to do. They can talk sports to each other, they brag about their romantic exploits. They never get in trouble for stupid reasons like forgetting an assignment three times in a row. Your anxiety started to kick in, and it seemed like you got smaller. And some of your guy friends moved on.

So you drifted over to the weird-o crowd. Well — I’m not sure what you call yourselves, but that’s what we would have called you back when I was in school. At different schools these are the geeks, or the theater kids, the math team kids, or the artsy-fartsy kids. This used to be where the gay kids ended up, but I think they’re more dispersed now. You get some kids whose parents are going through some rough times. Some girls with anorexia. A few boys who are edgy and angry. Kids with a great sense of humor and big hearts.

And some of these kids are really passionate. Just full of righteous anger about the injustices of the world. And some of them are dramatic. And truthfully, that looks pretty attractive to you. Because you share some of that confusion and anger about the world. And though you may not be sure what you think or what you feel, you are certain you don’t want to be on the bad side. You certainly aren’t like those popular boys with their suave charm and dominating manners. You’re not like them at all.

You’re actually more like those vibrant girls who can speak for hours about their ideas. Well, you would be if you could find the words to speak. And there is something so fascinating about those girls, but you can’t quite put your finger on it. You’d never think about talking to those girls anyway, because that’d be weird. Because you are weird. You’ve never been good at chit-chat, or eye contact. Or girls. And besides, you wouldn’t want them to get the wrong impression. You understand that your peers are starting to date, but you really don’t see the point. Sex is still gross and weird to you. It’s better to just call yourself “asexual” or “pansexual.” It’s like a get-out-of-jail-free card that helps you avoid the whole mess. And your group of friends tell you that you are super cool and brave for being able to say that about yourself.

But you’ve fallen into a funk. Anyone can see that. But computer games help. And there’s always trying to beat the speed record for that one game you’re kinda good at. And that one guy on reddit always has good tricks. And the people on that message board seem to get your humor.

So when one of them posts a meme about trans rights, it makes sense that you’d check it out. You’re curious! You’re a free thinker! You’re not like the normies. And the web quiz hits home. You do feel discomfort with your body. You don’t like sports. You do wonder what it would be like to be a girl. You’ve always felt like something was different about you.

You’re right. There is something different about you.

But you’re not trans, you’re just weird.

So we’re right here for you. We’ll always be here for you. But those online folks who urge you to “crack your trans egg” and rush to hormones and surgeries don’t know you at all. They don’t know that gifted kids and ADHD kids and Autism kids and Asperger’s kids are slower to develop emotionally and sexually. They don’t know that sexuality takes time and experience to figure out, and that the majority of trans teens seeking medical treatment haven’t even masturbated or kissed someone yet. They don’t know that 80% of trans children end up becoming comfortable with their birth sex if you just give them time. They don’t know that there are increasing numbers of desisting and de-transitioning people in their twenties. They don’t realize that hormones permanently stunt your growth, decrease your IQ, and can cause sterility. They don’t know that these hormones are prescribed off-label and there’s no research on the long-term outcomes. They don’t even know that the most recent research shows that short-term outcomes are clearly worse.

They don’t realize that you’re weird. But I do. You’re weird, kiddo. You’ll figure that out in a year or two. But that’s okay. We are all weird. And I love you anyway. You’re going to be just fine.

==

You always hear stories and justifications like, "she never liked wearing a dress," or "he always hated having his hair cut." This is post-hoc confirmation bias. Not only does this confirm everything critics say about this being a movement based on gross stereotypes, but they always leave out things like, "she refused to eat anything yellow," and "he was obsessed with elevator and crossing buttons and would cry if he wasn't the one to light it up."

It's okay to be weird.

[devil-works-hard]

Why the books need to be canon to the Bendy Lore

By now we all know that the books have been decanonized. That was a dumb decision, and I'm going to explain why.

The Gent Corporation

If we only go off the games, we know nothing about Gent. Sure, we know they're engineers, that they're connected to the Ink Machine, and they're the next big villains of the series-- but who are they? What are their motives? Why did they get involved with Joey in the first place?

Luckily, the books actually talk about this! TLO paints Gent as using the "run-of-the-mill repair shop" type of facade to hide their ulterior motives. Plus, we learn that Gent was inspired by Joey's philosophy in his autobiography-- Don't you think that would be important to know?

The books show us the cost of Joey's and Gent's experimentations. People died- like actually died, in our faces- because of Gent, which is something we don't get to see in the games.

Not only that, but TLO actually sets up Gent as a legitimate, wide-scale threat. In one of Thomas's chapters, he mentions multiple Gent locations across the country. Imagine if they each have a project like the Ink Machine- something that messes with the fabric of reality, something that eats up people and spits out monsters? Now that's a threat worth building up!

The Coffins (and other employee deaths)

The books tell us that people did in fact die because of Joey. But with the introduction of the cycle, and the decanonization of the books, we don't know if that's still the case. But the five named coffins makes things even more complicated, especially since 3/5 turn into ink monsters (Norman, Susie, and Bertrum) and 4/5 have outright expressed distrust toward Joey (Norman, Susie, Bertrum, Grant). So did people die or not?

I enjoy puzzles, and figuring out mysteries. But I really, really hate that I'm questioning what even happened. Was Susie manipulated into becoming Alice? Did Bertrum have a falling out with Joey about the ownership of the park? What the fuck happened to Grant? Does Lacie matter at all?

Characters

Most of the character development comes from the books. Joey himself suffers so much if you remove the books; BATIM Joey is so different from BATDR Joey. Not only that, but how are you going to decanonize your main antagonist's autobiography? Plus we see more of him in the books than the games too. We see how selfish and manipulative he is. It's not just Joey, either. I cannot emphasize enough how little we know about Allison based on the games. Everything we know about her (and Joey's relationship to her) is from the books.

It goes without saying that some of the most developed characters come from the books. Buddy and Dot from DCTL. Brant, Constance and Bill from TLO. Rose, Archie and Evan from FTB. I am more invested in them than a majority of the BATIM cast, and the entirety of the BATDR cast.

More interesting people have had more interesting thoughts about the loss of diversity, so I won't beat that dead horse here.

The Ink and the Cycle

Once again, the books actually show us how the ink is dangerous. It has a mind of its own; if ingested, it can drive you mad and turn you to ink. The books make the cycle interesting too: you don't need the machine to enter the cycle.

In all

I don't know why they've decanonized the books. My running theory is that, between BATIM and BATDR, they started to rework the lore, and eventually realized the books can't fit anymore. Thing is, this only makes me doubt the overall integrity of the story. They've had eight years to get this figured out. Why are they changing such important canon now? And, in changing canon, they've abandoned some genuinely interesting ideas as well as material important to the original BATIM mystery. I can't shake the feeling that a lot of our original questions aren't going to be answered because the devs have taken things in a new direction.

I've got some additional thoughts about the "books canon?" discourse/discussion below, if you're interested:

Interpretation of the original tweets

First, I want to clarify something regarding this tweet:

Some people have interpreted this to mean that the books are still canon alongside the games, but if they ever disagree on something, the games decide the canon. This is a fine interpretation, but as Mike himself said:

With this in mind, I think it's safe to assume they don't consider the books canon, at all.

I don't know if I'm going to buy Bendy books going forward. Now that they've lost their canon, I just can't entirely bring myself to care. It's the same reason why I never got into the FNAF books, even at the height of my FNAF hyperfixation:

I don't want an alternate timeline, or a nod to the original story, or just side material. I want the story- the actual, canon story.

If the devs need to de-canon the books to make their new lore make sense, whatever. But I don't want to spend actual money on something that's only half connected to the original story. I hope that's not a selfish thing to say.

Books shouldn't be required reading to understand canon, but they should be actually important and relevant to canon. Otherwise, what's the point?

[multitrackdrifting]

My latest essay grapples with the absurd reality that Baldur's Gate 3 is so good that it has entrenched cycnicism & bitterness in a lot of gamers because it supposedly "reminds them of what AAA cannot be".

This is the latest iteration of the perpetual outrage engine that rots gaming discourse/critique, which has manifested in people harassing gamedevs for expressing the very reasonable concern that they hope that audiences don't place ludicrous expectations for scope on games simply because the most popular game right now is mechanically complex.

A game being good should never fuel outrage... and yet it has. This video is a love letter to gaming as a medium, casting out the assertion that gaming is dying despite a year of wonderful games across the medium.

[gwynndolin]

Screenshotting and posting myself to avoid having to subject miss punkitt to any potential resulting discourse

I think the “blame” has come down to Mojang, being a Microsoft property, and always needing to make money, must always be updating the game. And it creates a weird scenario where they must continue to add content, but have not really decided on an actual direction; the updates have become vapid and fluffy.

Vapid and fluffy would NOT usually be an issue, Minecraft has ultimately become a “pointless” game, in the same way that Animal Crossing is a “pointless" game. So content gets added with no real gameplay value, but since Minecraft has become a "pointless game", the valueless content must be defended as "Not everything needs to have a use!", which is true! But...

Minecraft's original gameplay is to exploit all of the resources around you and to use them to do Minecraft colonizing. Minecraft has contradicted its core gameplay by adding things that are not able to be exploited (no use value), or only have a promise of becoming exploitable, but ultimately get dropped when the next major update starts being worked on. No one is logging on to play Minecraft to see a sniffer, people want to do the Minecraft colonization. So the question then becomes "Why does Mojang bother with these updates that aren't with any clear intention to add onto the gameplay? Players clearly don't want this, so why continue?"

I think ultimately, the banal, directionless nature of the recent Minecraft updates is less indicative of a desire to add interesting spectacle and more of a loss of drive. I think Minecraft needs to be put to rest. Mojang needs to put a pin in it and say "We're done, this isn't what we're interested in working on any longer (ostensibly), and we feel stifled by how limiting the framework of Minecraft has become and desire to move on to different projects".

So, when you consider that survival games (or at least variations in the genre are, simulation, colony builders, farming sims, etc.) are still one of the most popular genres on Steam, I think saying "Minecraft is itself, conceptually, to blame for getting stale" is a much smaller portion of the picture; Mojang has the opportunity to keep the game interesting, they simply have not, be it poor priorities, low resources, lack of desire, lack of confidence, a limiting engine.

All that said, I know the recent snapshots have been working on reworking the NBT data system for all items in the game into something more accessible, allowing for ease of use in data packs and probably mods too. And maybe this is a hot take, but I think that this is all they should be focusing on at this point. I think if Mojang is interested at all in maintaining their (dwindling) playerbase, they should be going all in on optimizing for external player creation and allow for players to revitalize the game themselves, instead of wasting resources on trying to come up with a new flower to put in, or something.

[azuzulira]

Tl;Dr: Don't judge the game just because of its art, especially before it actually comes out.

Tbh, the discourse surrounding Echoes of Wisdom reminds me A LOT of the discourse that surrounded Wind Waker before its release. Like, there's always discourse about a Zelda game between its announcement and release (Zelda Cycle in full action) but like, one of the two main topics of discourse is that the game has a cute/silly art style some people dislike, and that's going to prevent it from being a serious game.

Which just seems like a stupid argument to me since it's literally the same argument that Wind Waker faced (you know, that game where Link's sister was kidnapped, he joined a pirate crew, the entire former land of Hyrule got flooded, and Link ended the game by stabbing Ganondorf through the head).

And also, people are acting like even the more serious Zelda games (which, there's a spectrum, but even the silliest Zelda games are still fun and praise worthy) haven't had goofs or gaffs or silly bits. Do I need to remind everyone about Tingle? About how he debuted in arguably the most serious Zelda game, Majora's Mask? Or how about Malo Mart in Twilight Princess?

But do you know what it actually means, that it's using the same art style and engine as the Link's Awakening remake? It means they have had more time to work on other parts of the game. They didn't have to build it from scratch. Much like how they built Tears of the Kingdom off Breath of the Wild, or Majora's Mask off Ocarina of Time. So, I don't know, but it feels like the precedent here seems like this will be a fairly solid game, by most objective measures.

[sergeifyodorov]

now who would be the football (soccer) gretzky… messi? ronaldo? pele? maradona? my personal pick is messi based on career consistency, awards won (he’s won EVERYTHING), worldwide popularity, career longevity, how hard the game is to play now and the level of competition vs in the classic era, etc etc. as with all sports you run into issues with comparing eras (the age old Would gretzky still dominate in today’s era of hockey) and players but.. i’m interested in your take. if you have one?! and a note on f1: you really can’t compare verstappen to hamilton. hamilton and schumacher, yes, but verstappen has accumulated the majority of his wins (i’m thinking across the last 2-3 seasons) in a series of cars that are perhaps the greatest f1 cars ever made. f1 is heavily based on equipment (the whole idea is that these aren’t spec cars - the engineering REALLY matters) more than the other sports u are discussing so it’s tough… yes the driving is a part of it but the car and the setup is so important. also now that other teams have been developing better cars this season hes really fallen back from his performances last year and in 2022, when he had the best car by far and never had to compete for wins as he was almost always in pole position. anyway. some thoughts!

I prefer to measure greats relative to their time -- like, we'll never know if 80's gretzky could compete with 2020s mcdavid, and that kind of speculation isn't really my cup of tea?

also re futbol gretzky -- not all sports have one. to me "the GOAT" and "the Gretzky" are two different (but related) concepts: a GOAT is just a greatest of all time, no matter how slim the margin; a Gretzky is not only a greatest of all time but someone who is so mindblowingly the greatest of all time that only the most pedantic devil's-advocate types will even consider arguing, and even then mostly for angry clicks anyways. MY favourite is messi though the power of a short king who cannot die is immeasurable

also also re f1/car advancement -- this feels like an ancient snow-covered cravasse of discourse several km deep that i'm about to jump into with neither icepick nor parka but i'm legitimately not sure what the difference is between winning because you have the best car in a motorsports race and scoring a million gd points because you have the best hockey-related spatial awareness in a hockey game. what's the separation between man and machine? gordie howe played with no helmet and wooden sticks, connor mcdavid plays with carbon fibre composite and a full helmet-visor. stan mikita was one of the first to bend stick blades and he won hart trophies for it! was that cheating? aren't you the best if you're the best?

[barabaitcharactergenerator]

scotty-scott of howl fame

ah yes, my icon. my muse. my silly rabbit.

favorite thing about them - his tits on a meta level, i think what i appreciate most about scott is that it feels as though he was bio-engineered in a lab to be specifically catered to me. hairy, bearded, muscular, jockish, funny, kind, endlessly optimistic, stupid as hell, AND has canonically committed multiple atrocities as a big, sexy werewolf? be still, my beating heart. i feel like the monster prom creators stalked my social media circa 2017-2018 and collectively agreed that they were gonna make a dating sim ro that would make this one specific gayboy so, SO happy.

least favorite thing about them - also on a meta level. look. im not a nasty little hater (except when i am), but i have to admit that the writers are CONSTANTLY shoving him to the side in favor of the rest of the cast. even in his own game, Monster Roadtrip, a majority of the events tend to lean on polly being the center-focus with scott acting as her sidekick. this was esp apparent in the End of the Road ending where Polly was basically the main character while Scott was also There (sort of). ill admit i partially understand this since polly is generally a more active character while scott is more reactive, but still, id love to see my boy get his kudos

favorite line - there's so many good ones but im just gonna with one based on a recent screenshot i took: "I really like macaroni, but I'm not allowed to boil water by myself, so I just eat the noodles raw."

brOTP - DA PRANK MASTERZ BABEY!!! Scott is my fav MP character and Polly is my second fav, so you it's only natural that I'd be obsessed with their dynamic. canonically bimbo and himbo besties.

OTP - Scott howl x ME!! i like him and brian a lot, i think they're cute. im a sucker for jock x jock and golden retriever x constantly tired so the two of them manage to hit a sweet spot for me.

nOTP - the game keeps trying to push scott x vicky or scott x amira and like, im sorry, but trying to get me to ship Bara Icon Scott Howl with women? im calling homophobia. besides im more of a vicky x vera and amira x damien guy so on all fronts those ships just dont really appeal to me

random headcanon - for reasons i cant disclose this has been canonically refuted but i always pictured scott's grandma as one of those very classic horror movie werewolves- all fangs, all carnage, very little sexy (unless you're into that sort of thing, in which case, hey. you do you). she used to be the alpha of the pack back in her day and was an absolute menace to monster society, until she got a little older and settled down. still, she secretly craves the old days when monsters could be monsters, and keeps trying to convince scott to embrace his more animalistic side, even though he keeps telling her that murder isnt actually really mean and you probably shouldn't do it.

unpopular opinion - the monster prom fandom doesnt really have that much discourse so i dont know whats an unpopular opinion vs what isnt. uuuh i think scott should have won that popularity poll back when monster prom was still getting updates and gotten the new secret ending instead of damien's "punch the sun" ending

song i associate with them - this was on a scott howl playlist and i like it so uh. through and through by khai dreams

favorite picture of them - obv my pfp pic is one of my favs but here are a collection of Certified Scott Images

and some fav outfits:

[aortaplatinum]

Why Sonic sucked in the first half of the 2010s

One thing I constantly see brought up in the constant Sonic discourse is the concept of the "Meta Era": the period of time in the 2010s when Sonic stories and the series presentation was the lightest and most shallow it had ever been. This era starts with Sonic Colors and ends with Sonic Forces, but doesn't count the failed Sonic BOOM sub-franchise experiment since that was done by entirely different teams compared to those who usually work on Sonic games. The "Meta Era" term seems to have been coined by J's Reviews on YouTube, and is characterized by fourth-wall-breaking, Marvel movie esque English scripts written by Ken Pontac and Warren Graff of Happy Tree Friends and MadWorld fame, along with strange characterization of the Sonic cast. But no one ever tries to look at WHY this happened. I'm splitting this post into two parts because 2010-2015 is very different from 2015-2020 in terms of why the games' stories and then the game[s] themselves sucked. So, the year is 2009. Sonic and the Black Knight has just released following last year's console entry of Sonic World Adventure [titled Sonic Unleashed outside of Japan], and both are torn to shreds by millennial games journalists who grew up with the SEGA Mega Drive/Genesis games, for having stories that are "too dark/edgy". That aspect paired with these games' mostly mediocre gameplay caused them to be branded as "shitty Sonic games" by journos and the general public for years, until they were re-examined by the Sonic community as a whole, who found the good in Unleashed and Black Knight's stories and stage design in the mid-late 2010s. But, SEGA had just recently financially recovered from the failure of the Saturn outside of Japan and the worldwide failure of the Dreamcast, having to be bought out by pachinko manufacturer Sammy Corporation in the early 2000s to avoid going bankrupt. And despite Sonic historically being the company's best-seller worldwide [with the exception of Japan, ironically], SEGA Sammy Holdings [referred to as SEGA] wanted Sonic to be as beloved as much as it could and to sell as much as it could. The series' lack of popularity in Japan has always caused it to be seen as a mascot cash cow by SEGA Japan, just a source of income. Meanwhile, the same publications who cringed at Sonic LAUDED SEGA's recently published PlatinumGames release, MadWorld, for its presentation and its comedy dialogue, and with this positive reception, SEGA had an idea; marry the praised daytime Sonic Unleashed gameplay, with the tone and comedy writing of MadWorld- complete with giving the English script those same writers. There's just one problem- MadWorld is an ultraviolent M-rated comic book style comedy, sharing similarities with the original The Mask comic series. So you can probably imagine what happened when these writers were tasked with creating English localized dialogue for kids' games.

It wasn't very good.

But, sales were up. REVIEW SCORES were up. And this lead to Sonic Generations, which refined the daytime boost gameplay of Unleashed and even used it's same game engine, while introducing the world to "Classic Sonic", a modern re-interpretation of what Sonic played and acted like in the Mega Drive games from the 90's. Gens went on to become one of the most beloved Sonic games of all time- and thankfully, since the game had nearly zero story, there wasn't much script there for Pontac and Graff to... alter.

But, seeing the praise Colors' tone was getting from the professional journalists who bashed the 2000s games, SEGA decided the next course of action was to reach out and work with more Western studios. End part 1.