I absolutely love writing grimmons dialogue.
Here’s an excerpt from the fic I’m working on:
“I think you’re giving the FBI too much credit.”
Grif scoffed.
“Wait, I think I found something,” Simmons said, causing Grif to sit up.
“From the FBI?”
“Would you forget about the FBI already?”
“Psh, that’s exactly what they want us to do.”
“It’s on one of the websites I found when I was researching werewolves the first time.”
“One of the trash ones or one of the good ones?”
“The one that was right about wolfsbane, but also said that a stake through the heart would kill us,” Simmons answered.
“Well, it wasn’t wrong, I’m pretty sure a stake through the heart would kill me.”
“Yeah, but it would kill anyone, we’re not more suspetable to stakes than other forms of heart murder.”
“Heart murder?”
“Shut up, you know what I mean.”
116 notes
·
View notes
There are a number of things in Crimson Shroud I was kind of iffy about that put me off playing it, but now that I am I actually find I'm liking it quite a bit. The writing, art, and music are all very moody in a way that's familiar to me (Yasumi Matsuno + Basiscape, you know how it is lol, plus I think the guy who did the art took notes from Akihiko Yoshida) and while I originally found the tabletop aesthetic to be off-putting (your guys are always represented by little tabletop figurines, and dice that you physically roll with the stylus are a big part of the mechanics) over time it's really really growing on me. I think it's kinda cute ngl.
I feel like this is the type of game I would've been obsessed with if it had come out in the early 2000s and I'd played it then. Really weird, very stylistic, thick with lore for a relatively short game, not very well known, moody tone... Like it brings Summoner to mind, actually, which was a flop of an RPG that came out in the early 2000s that was also openly and heavily inspired by Dungeons & Dragons, but also I have a lot of fond memories of it lol. And that game was also very moody
Also you can totally tell this was intended to be a sequel to Vagrant Story originally, it wears its spiritual predecessor on its sleeve. It really feels like a journey through Lea Monde abstracted through figurines, dice, and dungeon maps. This might be heretical to say... but I'm kinda... enjoying it more than I was Vagrant Story, LMAO. I think for two reasons: 1. turn-based combat is more familiar to me, so I'm adapting to Crimson Shroud's mechanical depth much more quickly, and 2. the major female character in this game, Frea, is actually playable, and is your party's linchpin. Will always be lamenting Callo Merlose's demotion to NPC in vanilla Vagrant Story for game memory reasons u_u
The main dude is also growing on me unfortunately. "Giauque," the stupidest possible version of "Jack." I had my hackles up when he internally referred to Frea as a she-dog early on (shortly after she was revealed to be a member of an oppressed fantasy ethnic group, which like. I don't even want to get into all that shit right now, but it's the other reason I was put off by this game) but over time I think it's clear that was just a very poor way of demonstrating their usual dynamic, which is that he took Frea under his wing and likes her quite a bit, but portrays himself as a gruff, amoral lout, so he prefers to bicker instead of be effusive. The implication is that they're a bit like each other IMO, both too sharp-tongued for their own good
I also know a ton of spoilers so I'm paying lots of attention to Frea in the frame story... We'll have to see how it's handled, but I do like that the main antagonist of this game is a woman. So few games feature a woman as the primary villain, and even if they do, they find ways to blunt her impact (like Ultima in FFT, she's resurrected at the ass end of the story and then Ramza & co. kill her immediately), so I'm curious to see where Crimson Shroud will go with Abigail (an insane name for a villainess in a dark fantasy piece btw)
BASICALLY I think if CS was a fifty-hour game I might find it more exhausting, but since it barely hits twenty if you're taking your time, I'm a lot more invigorated by it. The short runtime works in its favor IMO.
8 notes
·
View notes
Husk and nifty up next! They are a bit harder since their personalities aren't explored as much. However I still had fun thinking about what to do with them!
In this AU I’d say that husk never was an overlord. Since we don’t know much about nifty and Al’s relationship, which I’m going off of for the sake of this AU, I’m just gonna say that Charolette helped husk in a time he needed it and thus made a deal with him. His personality is also a bit of a shot in the dark as well because that too doesn’t have lots to go off of. But if I had to guess I’d say that husk at his core is a caring person, and can see through any facade. So in this AU *Husker* has those same traits, but with that more silly and slightly sadistic tone that Nifty has.
Nifty or rather Niff. Is basically just Nifty with that grumpy old drunk vibe husk has. And as for backstory I’d say that she was an overlord. And made a deal with charlotte to save her power. But instead of a gambling issue, maybe it was more of an obsessive behavior. Which is something shown in the show. Anyways this obviously backfired and she now works as the bar tender of the hotel. I’ll draw it eventually but the actual bar doesn’t change in size. Instead she just has this goofy stool she uses.
Now since this isn’t a like total swap and Al was still the radio demon at one point that made me wonder if I wanted it to still be his deals the two are under. But I’m on then fence about that because he would likely free their souls. Not wanting to force them to help like how he does in the show. So I figured why not have it be Charolette? It would make sense for the AU being a swap and all, and also give more depth to her overall. I have some more ideas regarding her and Al but I’ll do it in a separate post.
Full image
MASTERPOST
2K notes
·
View notes
On the subject of the Titanic ‘submersible’ that was lost in the deep with all its wealthy tourists— it’s so insane/eerie in hindsight to read this article from the Smithsonian that interviews the CEO Stockton Rush long before the disaster.
Despite the Smithsonian supposedly being an organization that cares about science and truth, and the fact that there were SO MANY obvious red flags from the beginning and so many people criticizing the company…..the article is a puff piece uncritically glorifying the CEO’s obviously terrible submersible project. It compares him in glowing terms to Elon Musk. It is an article about how private ventures like those of Stockton Rush and Elon Musk can and should be the future of the world.
We’ve obviously learned now that there were whistleblowers at the company who were warning for a long time that Stockton Rush’s submersible was unsafe— only to be fired and then sued. It makes sense the submersible was so unsafe, because the CEO in this interview is open about how he has no background in underwater engineering and is annoyed by quote “regulations that needlessly prioritize passenger safety.”
Soon after, the private [submersible] market died too, Rush found, for two reasons that were “understandable but illogical.” First, subs gained a reputation for danger. Working on offshore rigs in harsh locations like the North Sea, saturation divers, who breathe gas mixtures to avoid diving sicknesses, would be taken in subs to work at great depths. It was the world’s most perilous job, with frequent fatalities. (“It wasn’t the sub’s fault,” says Rush.) To save lives, the industries moved toward using underwater robots to perform the same work.
Second, tourist subs, which could once be skippered by anyone with a U.S. Coast Guard captain’s license, were regulated by the Passenger Vessel Safety Act of 1993, which imposed rigorous new manufacturing and inspection requirements and prohibited dives below 150 feet. The law was well-meaning, Rush says, but he believes it needlessly prioritized passenger safety over commercial innovation (a position a less adventurous submariner might find open to debate). “There hasn’t been an injury in the commercial sub industry in over 35 years. It’s obscenely safe, because they have all these regulations. But it also hasn’t innovated or grown—because they have all these regulations.”
The fact that Stockton Rush (who was piloting the submarine when the disaster happened) is on record complaining about the evils of regulations that prioritize people’s safety, and the Smithsonian uncritically regurgitated that rhetoric in their glowing puff piece about how rich tycoons like Elon Musk and Stockton Rush are going to save the world is just…..in hindsight of how everything ended it’s just so much horrible black comedy? It’s like a satire about the dangers of uncritically worshipping the rich.
It is mentioned in the article that Rush chose to make his submersible in a different shape, and with a different (cheaper) material than is usually used for submersibles. The article frames this as a result of daring innovation, and not of negligence/ignorance. This passage in particular, which in context is supposed to portray Rush’s critics as joyless naysayers who were proven wrong by the noble tycoon, is pretty foreboding in hindsight:
Rush planned to pilot the sub himself, which critics said was an unnecessary risk: Under pressure, the experimental carbon fiber hull might, in the jargon of the sub world, “collapse catastrophically.”
And then!!
The exact problem that happened to Titan this weekend, happened on Titan’s very first test voyage to the Titanic! The experimental carbon fiber hull had an issue and it caused communications to break down!
The dive was going according to plan until about 10,000 feet, when the descent unexpectedly halted, possibly, Rush says, because the density of the salt water added extra buoyancy to the carbon fiber hull. He now used thrusters to drive Titan deeper, which interfered with the communications system, and he lost contact with the support crew. He recalls the next hour in hallucinogenic terms. “It was like being on the Starship Enterprise,” he says. “There were these particles going by, like stars. Every so often a jellyfish would go whipping by. It was the childhood dream.”
Both Rush and the article writer treat this as a fun quirky story, instead of a serious safety failure and red flag with his experimental macgyvered regulation-flaunting submersible.
Other highlights from the article include:
Stockton rush saying that if 3/4 of the planet is water, why haven’t we monetized it?
Stockton saying we will “colonize the ocean long before we colonize space”
Lots of weird pro colonialism stuff in general??? This article loves colonialism and thinks it’s cool
Rush saying he plans for this to eventually help find more underwater resources for the US to exploit and profit from
Elon musk comparisons. The article writer does not mention that Elon Musk’s rockets explode and therefore it would be a bad idea to get in one of them, because that would imply it’s a bad idea to get into the submersible
Stockton rush seeing himself as Captain Kirk
The article writer comparing the tourists who plan to join Rush to Englishmen who went on colonialist journeys to Africa as if that’s like, a good thing. So much pro colonialism stuff in this article
So many sentences about Stockton Rush being handsome when he literally just looks like some guy
The article beginning with an editor’s note from years later disclaiming that the extraordinary submersible they’re advertising in this article is uh. It’s now uhhhh
But yeah it really does just bring home how so many organizations that supposedly care about scientific truth or journalistic integrity are willing to uncritically platform propaganda for wealthy CEOS. It’s frustrating how easily people fall for the fake myths that careless wealthy people invent for themselves, and even more frustrating that supposedly respectable institutions will platform irresponsible lies that end up getting people killed.
Rush is such an obvious and simple example of this, and his negligence is “only” killing five people including himself. But to me it feels like a cautionary tale to bear in mind when it comes to uncritical puff piece media coverage of similar “daring tycoon innovations” by people like Bezos or Musk.
6K notes
·
View notes