Flight simulators have always been a little underwhelming for me. It's always interesting to see them take technical leaps forward, to see how "real" they can make a city or a famous airport look, but as for me, I've never really cared that much about the fidelity exhibited in modeling ground support equipment at a particular airport. Faithful, digital depictions of urban areas will always be more exciting to me when I'm on the ground, admiring the effort of putting stickers for fake electric companies on utility poles - buzzing a lovingly rendered Eiffel Tower with a commercial jet covered in raytraced reflections isn't going to do much for me.

All this is to say that I'm in love with the mundane and the games that let you zoom way in on the stuff that isn't exciting enough to be depicted elsewhere or documented extensively by hobbyists. It's fortunate for me, then, that we live in an era where so many things are documented no matter how many hobbyists are paying attention, all because technology has afforded us the opportunity to do so. Despite its 100+ gigabyte install size, most of MFS2020 is being pulled from 2.5 petabytes of data in cloud storage, a figure that doesn't even represent the full scope of street and geographical data in Microsoft & Google's collections. Not even a tenth of it, actually, based on estimates from five years ago.

So sure, you could fly through a semi-hand-crafted representation of Manhattan (it's neat! it genuinely is!), but I imagine that there are other simulations that could provide stiff competition, and in that light MFS2020 is probably less impressive. If your curiosity allows it, though, I recommend going somewhere else. Fly over Bao Bolong, around Futuna, visit Edinburgh of the Seven Seas, follow the Ohio River from the town of Ripley heading either direction. Pick a capital city of a country that you don't know much about and fly as far as you can tolerate. If you're feeling adventurous, go to Google Maps, right-click a random spot, and click the coordinates to paste them into the game.

We are so connected that you can now look at a map of the individual aisles of a Best Buy in North Carolina from the base camp at Mount Everest, so why not use it to visit places that never would've received your attention? The world is full of fascinating places that will never be on a list of travel destinations. Find something interesting, get lost in a Wikipedia rabbit hole, fall in love with the immensity of our planet.

Random Street View
Random Wikipedia Article
Listen to a Spotify song with zero plays

Detchibe's wonderful GeoGuessr review, the inspiration for what you're reading now

It’s interesting to find that as we enter a new, what I assume to be essentially final era for the Her Interactive Nancy Drew series, with the slight graphical refresh and completely overhauled UI that goes along with those shifts, Tomb of the Lost Queen spends a lot of time looking back instead of forward. It’s not weird for this series to look back, like, to the past (that’s kind of the whole thing we do around here) but it IS unusual for a game to be in such direct conversation with a previous entry in the series, Secret of the Scarlet Hand. Both games concern themselves with the museum industrial complex, and both games feature Nancy clumsily and indefensibly insulting brown people whose cultures she’s actively participating in the looting of while acting incredibly skeptical of their entirely, factually correct grievances with her organization of the week. Where Scarlet Hand was a stateside story about the inner workings of the museum system, however, Tomb of the Lost Queen centers directly on the archaeological process at a fictional dig site in Egypt (although in an echo of Treasure in the Royal Tower, this fictional tomb contains a very real and famous historical figure in it lol, but they don’t make up a revisionist backstory for her this time so it’s a lot less weird).

And “Nancy is in Egypt at a dig site” is kind of all you get going into it, which is a jarring change of pace after twenty-five entries of booting the game up to a cute little intro or case file to set up the proceedings. Instead there’s an ominous introductory monologue from Nancy about the last crew who came to check out this tomb decades ago all died mysteriously, and then a cutscene of a sandstorm ravaging the dig site and injuring the lead of the American team there. Only it turns out that Jon wasn’t just fucked up by the storm, he was ATTACKED in the commotion of the storm. So most of the crew is gone, leaving only the uptight and secretive American PhD student Lilly, famous and abrasive Egyptologist Abdullah, who is himself Egyptian and in fact the government liaison to this largely American team, and Nancy herself. Now Nancy is left to at first just do some work without getting in trouble with either of these strong personalities before the dig inevitably gets shut down because of the serious injury sustained there, as everyone has a feeling this tomb is the true resting place of Famously Missing Real Life Egyptian Queen Nefertari.

The thing is, none of this is really told to you? You kind of have to just go by the context of the dialogue, get all this information out of these guys as you go, because without the usual framing device and with the story starting in media res, you’re really thrown into a scenario that is not particularly urgent for what feels like not a lot of reason. What we have then is one of the more freeform Nancy Drews in structure, similar to (but imo much more successful than) Curse of Blackmoor Manor, where you have essentially all of the tomb that you’ve opened available to you at all times along with usually more than one ongoing puzzle or series of puzzles that you can kind of work through at your leisure with some degree of nonlinear progression. There are still key moments that flag big status quo changes, but there is certainly less overt direction on what to do next and little urgency to Nancy’s travails. This is because the threat is more subtle than usual. The acts of villainy in this game that are physically violent are all attributed to a supposed Mummy’s Curse, and no one is making explicit threats, but this is a rare Nancy Drew game where the answer to “whodunnit” ends up being a combination of basically everybody? To greater and lesser degrees. There is one ultimate culprit who goes to jail at the end, but for the most part this is a game about building suspense and suspicion, and I think it might be the single most successful Nancy Drew game in that regard.

Around a third of the way through the game, once you’ve hit the first big event flag, the cast is completed when two new people just kind of suspiciously Show Up at the dig site, Ancient Aliens Fanatic Jamil and Suave Tour Guide Dylan, both of whose stories are immediately, obviously suspicious. Dylan is fine, okay, he’s a charming enough red herring character who is taken out of the action first in the game to make the Supposed Curse seem more dangerous.

Jamila is where I start to sweat a little bit. The ancient aliens stuff is not as bad as it could be, I think, because while the game doesn’t grapple even slightly with that fact that every single one of those conspiracies is rooted in intentionally manufactured racist lines of thought predicated on the idea that nonwhite people and for some reason only nonwhite people could not possibly have made big architectural or technological strides without outside intervention, I didn’t really expect it to? That’s pretty explicitly political stuff to get into for these games, and they do not usually think that hard or do a lot of research when they’re trend chasing, which I assume was happening here. They also specify that their stupid made up alien conspiracy (peddled by Until Now Joke Easter Egg Character Sunny Joon whose increasing prominence worries me as someone who finds his bits painfully unfunny) does not involve aliens literally building the pyramids, only uplifting humanity and inspiring them to do it? Which I don’t really think is much better honestly.

The clincher for Jamila though is her true motive for being at the dig site: she is a member of a cult of Egyptian women that has existed for thousands and thousands of years, passed from mother to daughter, who are sworn to the service of Ramses II and whose mission is to find and protect Nefertari’s mummy. Despite thinking this group she’s in is stupid she is willing to both die and kill for it – there is a light implication that if she tries to cut and run she will be killed by her sworn sisters. I just don’t understand what we’re really going for here beyond adding some vague mysticism to the proceedings? It’s goofy, it’s outlandish. She already hates Abdullah, she already has proof that he’s been planting artifacts he already owned in his dig sites to make his career more prestigious and exciting, and her ending has her happily working with Jon, the same man she would ostensibly have also tried to murder had he been present for the events of the game. It’s all just a little much, for me.

Abdullah is his own can of worms. As the resident Guy From The Country We’re In Who Is Rightfully Mad About What America Is Doing Here he is obviously treated like a crazy person by Nancy, and his portrayal as a blustering, buffoonish guy doesn’t help the dignity of his arguments. But his perhaps overacted dialogue prompts are the only place in the game where you’re offered the perspective that not only are the governments of the countries that fund these digs often doing so with irreputable motives, but that the tourism industry that has sprang up around them has also done irreparable harm to Egypt’s cultural legacy by actively, physically destroying it with their millions and millions of feet and breaths inside fragile ancient tombs and eagerness to steal small souvenirs, again by what adds up to the millions. Looting by degrees.

All of this is equivocated though, in the game’s eyes, because Abdullah is in fact Our Guy, he’s playing on fears of the curse to freak people out, he attacked Jon, he has faked a lot of his career successes, at the end of the game he tries to kill Nancy and Lilly (who is also an attempted murderer by the end of this game but who suffers zero consequences for that hmm weird). He’s a criminal! He’s gotta go to jail! Bye! This is not new right, this happens all the time in these games. It’s not reasonable either to expect Nancy Drew, Collegiate Detective to be able to address structural problems like this. It is interesting, though, how often those problems seem to be understood by the developers of the game and even presented within the game – often by people who turn out to be, within the game’s moral purview, Bad. And if that is what we’re bent on doing than these things should at least be motivators, they should be the thing that the game is ultimately About, they should be at the center of it. Instead Abdullah just wants to be more famous than he is; he’s the most successful guy in his field, everyone says so, but he wants to be a CELEBRITY archaeologist, and I guess he just wants full credit for this discovery? It’s kind of unclear, I never got a moment where he actually explained himself. It’s messy.

The actual good reasons he might have wanted to get rid of the Americans, even if he ultimately profited as well, or was otherwise morally compromised (Dylan, for example, is working for some black market people to scope out the tomb before he’s taken out of the game, but is ultimately portrayed as a sympathetic guy). The best Nancy Drew games understand this or even stumble into strong thematic cores by accident. But Tomb of the Lost Queen, like many other lesser entries in this series, is left with something much worse at its center:

Nothing at all.

PREVIOUSLY: ALIBI IN ASHES
NEXT TIME: THE DEADLY DEVICE

ALL NANCY DREW PIECES

I want it to be known that this review is mostly up for posterity. My refreshed views (mostly on worry of how it can hurt eyes) became more refined in a later post you can read here: https://backloggd.com/u/Erato_Heti/review/664032/

Please do not read this 40 minute review unless you have an obscene amount of time

CW: Gambling, Invoking Queer status to support an argument, quoting other users at length, terminally online debatelording, Russian Roulette, Exceedingly Dry, Lots of Hypotheticals

Est. Time to read: 40 minutes

Policy

-----------------------------------------------------------



PART 1: THE GREAT VIP CASINO METAPHOR

Vampire Survivors is a relatively easy one stick shooter, with game design that consists of walking as the form of play and no actual ability to shoot. Instead you are tasked with moving around to avoid contact with the enemies as you pick up collectables. You can also pick up chests that reward the player with random amounts of loot with a long and exciting chest animation. As you play a half hour run, you continuously level up choosing between what to level up through a pool of 3 choices, however once you get to the end of a run you will have exhausted the majority of the options in that pool, meaning that keen players can force specific builds after playing for long enough.

There are performance issues with the game, the game produces 'number go up' gameplay through having the player automatically produce projectile spam, but the game starts to chug along and lag out at the end of a run due to the number of objects on screen careening the game to a halt. It is very odd that most people who play this game don't point this fact out at all because it makes it more nauseating and difficult to look at than it already is. However my impression is the reason this isn't focused on is that runs tend to play themselves out in the last 5 minutes so no amount of lag could prevent your character from winning. The game also looks like a visual skunks fart, with the halloween tier 'spooky' castlevania enemies sticking out like a sore thumb over the rest. That being said, while these issues are very grating aesthetically, my overall issue is with the design psychology, not just that it runs poorly or has a bad upgrade tree.

I think you could summarize my perspective on the design trappings of this game through the 2 following premises:

1. The game is a time waster with very little intervention or challenge against the player, since the only thing you can do besides walk around is choose from an incredibly limited upgrade pool that becomes samey and effectively fixed across runs.

2. The prior is an intentional design decision, along with flashy animations and reward jingles that are meant to mimic a sense of catharsis that you would get from being at a casino and to put you in a similar zen state.

Now that's perfectly fine, but I don't just think this is a bad game: I think it's a malicious psychic vampire of a game, and that calling it out from this perspective is seen as weird and histrionic. The question is why do I find this worthy of such an absurd condemnation? To illustrate properly it may be worth turning our attention to the design inspirations for the game: pachinko parlors and the mobile games market. The dev of Vampire Survivors mentions that his inspiration for the game was a mobile game called ‘Magic Survival,’ which I don't think anybody has played, but it's a carbon copy of that game with a new coat of paint. Same UI layout and everything.

You know what phone games I'm talking about: the maliciously designed pay-to-win grandma trap Candy Crush, the actually made by an Australian casino company Raid Shadow Legends, and infinite runner mobile ad junk like Subway Surfers. I don't think most people would come to the defense of these games, and many more would actively condemn them as seedy and gross. However, because Vampire Survivors is so deeply popular as a PC release, people are comparing it positively to games like The Binding of Issac instead and missing that particular connection point.

Anybody who has played any of the games previously mentioned knows what I mean when I use them as a point of reference, but people still find it uncomfortable to actively talk about why mobile games are like this in the first place. It's in part because the primary way you can get apps on your phone is through the monopolized app stores, which are not optimized with customer service in mind. Instead their store algorithm explicitly promotes free games with ads and microtransactions as much as possible. Following this is an issue of immersion through the lens of Natasha D. Schull’s ‘Addiction by Design’, as being in the 'machine zone' where experiencing play in a fugue zenlike fog is the only thing you care about. Phone games do actually have a bit of a problem in achieving this because of the fact that you usually mess with your phone while doing other things. That being said the most successful games are able to pull off a microcosm of this version, Candy Crush has a sordid history for actually addicting its player base, but instead of sitting in front of a large machine for a half hour and losing your money before finally peeling yourself away, you can play a few rounds of it and games like it whatever adware junk in your pocket at the bus, then in line for the restaurant, and then as you're falling asleep. Etc.

I'll concede something here: a large portion of the hangup on this argument, and how intense the discontent is, seems to be that most mobile games at least try to fuck you over with microtransactions and pay-to-play models, which are considered bad. But this game is 3 dollars you pay all at once and then never have to worry again, how bad can that really be? Surely that's not indicative of gambling or addiction and thus needs to be described via something else.

I want to defer to a rather brilliant analogy that Pangburn came up with during a fantastic discourse on the game’s addictive (or in his view, lack thereof) elements:

"I am strolling around a casino, perhaps nursing a drink, and a floor attendant notices me, beckoning me over to a new wing of the facility. it's a VIP room with a low price point of several dollars to get in filled with the same slot machines as out on the floor. the difference here is that once you have paid you have a lifetime of access to the suite, where you can continue to push the one button to your heart's content. the catch here is that there is no payout and you know for a fact that you'll never roll the jackpot for your first few hours, you must sit there and continue to press the button until your odds rise and rise, converging to a near perfect chance of the triple 7s after multiple dozen hours of play. at this point, you can return to this hall at will to watch the triple 7s appear again and again. this is how vsurv sounds to me. I think this sounds fucking stupid and I have no interest in playing it. " in the comments here

However, he contends that he doesn't have a 'moral issue' with it. He then goes on to say that
"the end state is fixed and you're always aware you will reach it at some point. it's not really ‘gambling’ when the odds are always in your favor, right? which is not to say it can't be addictive in its own right, but I hope this makes my thoughts on the matter clear. "

I don't want to deconstruct this too mercilessly but I do want to point out a few interesting things about the VS scenario and how it distinguishes it from this analogy. Mainly the idea that if you play for long enough you will hit the point of getting 7s and always will get 7s. Here's where I find this slightly misleading: the 'jackpot' of VS play is winning which means in order for the analogy to be accurate it would be something closer to guaranteeing you get 7s after waiting and intently interfacing with the screen for 30 full minutes. Although one could argue that the destruction of enemies is also a 'jackpot' reward system, I feel it's actually comparable more to just visual encouragement data like the bright candy explosions in Candy Crush, or the neon bright machines and loud sound effects of slot machines, rather those smaller moments are not the real 'jackpot' you are in pursuit of. Whereas people who play Binding of Isaac are playing to see a new unique run and how the tear effects synergize, its not just about finishing the game in itself.

At the same time there's the assumption that gambling is merely bad because of the house edge, but this risks over simplifying the process of gambling itself. Just yesterday, I played no money poker for the point of prestige and no money was involved, and as such I find that a genuine interest in playing poker as a game seems to distinguish it from a perception of gambling. However, the idea of risking increasing stakes is still there and can thus lead people to take up higher risk poker. Sports betters start off by watching the sport, then they start betting after warming up a while.

However, let me ask you a question: if I played real money poker and I was the best poker player in the world, is that not still gambling? If I was the best poker player, and I was playing with random people, my odds of winning are probably 90%, maybe even more, so is gambling identified by that 10% risk? Is it identified by the house edge? You can come ahead consistently in poker, people play this game for money after all.

Perhaps the nuance here then is that poker is a genuine game that can also still be described as a vehicle for gambling. If that's the case then honestly maybe any game could be a vehicle for gambling, and it's just about how well that engine is tailored to do so. To come back to the "slots'' example then, here's what GoufyGoggs has to say on it when musing about arcade games in comparison:

"No one wants to play a slot machine where you aren't forced to put your money on the line after all. The reliance on leaving outcomes up to chance fundamentally prevents a creative space from ever forming, they’re inherently destructive as Caillois put it. So what you're left with is just the addictive practices and negative impacts on mental health without any of the tangible benefits. " cited here

Now I feel like it's worth comparing this point to something like Blackjack. Blackjack is an insanely simple 'game' that has to a large degree been solved on what number and below you hit and what number you don't. it's automatic, with the only room for discretion being when you should split or double down. There's no room for a creative space of play to breathe, it's a totally static play experience. Poker is incredibly dynamic. They are both gambling. Even so, another question that might be worth bridging: can Candy Crush be called slot machine gambling? After all, the later levels absolutely have a 'house edge'. I'll leave that question for you, but hopefully you can see on some level it reveals a pedantry over word choice and the contexts we attach them to. That pedantry in part implies a moral disgust with gambling where there isn't with single player game experiences, in spite of the fact the boundary between both is very unstable.

PART 2: GAMBLING IS ACTUALLY AWESOME

This is where I start saying things that really just completely veer off the map from anybody else so far: I don't even dislike gambling, I dislike money, and I dislike people being coerced into situations where they feel they can't stop, and I dislike the games that encourage this. Money is not the sole reason Gambling is good or bad. The idea of playing something for stakes, even with a house edge, can be reapplied to other forms of stakes, like Prestige or an erotic form of stakes like strip poker. Gambling can exist in a world without money and sort of already does through shit like 'spin the bottle'. The reason I'm emphasizing this is that the only real concern is that the play needs to be dynamic enough not to mentally fatigue and lull the person interacting in it. Slots and Blackjack get washed out when you remove money, but not universally. Some people still like being in the zone with Blackjack and I can imagine people getting a compulsion to play on these slot machines without money once a habit has been built. It's not really about the money, it's about the habituation through automated play. On the contrary, what we currently consider gambling can be seen as a vector for genuine expressions of creative humor and identity. For example when playing a best of seven of different games, popular streamer personalities Ludwig and Jerma traded out the idea of playing for money for instead playing to see who else has to wear a silly shirt on stream. The games they all played as well were dynamic, in a way all competitive multiplayer games by design tend to be.

This is deeply funny and engaging version of stakes, and the explicit difference that Detchibe focuses on in their own post,
"The issue is that players are largely uncritical of what they are consuming, why they find it pleasurable, and whether or not it is actually enjoyable. Pleasure and enjoyment are not mutually exclusive, but pleasure is something that happens to you, and enjoyment is something earned by you." source

Being acted upon for pleasure under Detchibe's ruleset can only happen through games that don't pass a degree of dynamic threshold, for example playing at the roulette table, the results strictly only happen to you through random chance, a pleasure, rather than being joy seeking in themselves through a dynamic input that causes the results. In poker you have an incredibly wide array of options: bluffing, folding, playing a weak hand to the bridge, purposefully losing hands in order to win later for intel, etc. This is by design dynamic play. Earlier I mentioned the enjoyment a person can get with 'playing for stakes', but I didn't mention how doing this for an ego and without money involved can obviously be bad in both games and 'gambling'.

Some ways people perform self harm with a game is by playing it for far far longer than they should without taking a break. Meanwhile, gamblers often play without 'taking a break' and in the process losing more money or assets than they expected, this process may produce pleasure for them but not enjoyment. To get dark for a moment, there's nothing about Russian Roulette that makes it a non-game, the results just happen to you with minimal player agency and input. Clinically we could refer to russian roulette as technically a pre-established and static 'game' of chance with no input from the player whatsoever besides rolling the barrel until a certain random point, the results are by this metric technically 'pleasurable' for the living player as the operation of death was not done upon them, but not enjoyable. There's obviously the stakes themselves which are awful, but even if it was being done with a nerf dart the game itself is so static and unrewarding if played many times that the only way to have fun with it and produce more pleasure is by either getting in a tantric zone, or by raising the stakes. For people who play static non microtransaction single player games, those stakes are by time and reward catharsis "I will play today until I get 3 wins", which increases to 4, or 5, etc. Playing a static game like slots is the same. The results are static and not deeply determined by what the player does.

It is my belief that the most 'addictive' games in part can come from playing simply for the reward receptors of having something 'happen upon you' and not engaging in your own branching set of decisions and cognitive inputs, and where it no longer becomes about the dynamic play of the player. To tie this explanation to the Great VIP Casino: A team in WoW start learning how to do boss Raids and they are getting wiped, but in a dynamic and chaotic way where random players are rushing in and dying, its hilarious, but the way to win is actually almost perfectly solved and the results of a win or a loss become increasingly unconcerning and unchallenging. Eventually they get good enough at knowing how to build and prepare for the raid that the odds of success ever increase, yet being prevented from 100% by internet issues, physiological interventions, etc. Eventually the issues of pure success stop, that stops becoming the 'jackpot'. They now know exactly how to pull the enemies etc. Now they are redoing this raid for a .5% rare item drop which they are going to sell or use in arena fights, the new 'jackpot'. The only reason for playing the raid is in order to get this next level of jackpot which is inevitable, but takes much stress and many hours, after the point of vastly diminished dynamic returns, to get. The results are not enjoyable, they are pleasurable, they fulfill a compulsion. This is indistinguishable from the VIP Casino except for the fact that the real 'reward' jackpot for play is much more rare, this seems like a very important distinction except when you recognize that this is the exact type of person who would be compelled into a WoW Raid loop after having spent a week at the great VIP Casino.

Fuck WoW and fuck Blizzard (hot take I know) for doing this, this is how this system operates and it shouldn't need to, there's no reason to limit certain items to such a low drop rate, it should just be a test of basic ability and skill not pure compulsion and time gating. The issue with this version of the events is that it encourages compulsion and encourages a raising of the stakes in at least a few problem players. Some players will never stop playing in the Great VIP Casino or they will seek out a version of the casino now with lower odds and higher stakes, or they will play at the Great VIP Casino for a longer amount of time than last time for the same pleasurable results. For WoW raids, a new boss can come out that now has a .1% chance of dropping that item but maybe it takes quite a bit longer and a few more players with no change in the dynamic set to play, this means it takes more time and labor in order to achieve the same base pleasure. For Vampire Survivors then, this can be seen in 2 different ways, either receiving pleasure from trying to get higher win streaks in the original game. Or through playing Clones where the only change is how long a run takes, or if you need to spend real life money to get further. We are assuming that these 'Knock Offs' provide no enhanced player input and are still 1 stick shooters with small upgrade pools. In this case, either Vampire Survivors is an addicting gateway game for static increased stakes gambling (with time, money, or mental acuity) or its a boring game that sucks to play. The only difference being decided by when the player has the decent sense to 'cash their chips' and leave. There's no way to leave this situation untainted.

From this you could say that I hate this type of gaming more than the umbrella medium of 'gambling' itself as the static and hedonically unrewarding nature of a game would stress you to the point of going further and further in order to activate those same pleasure receptors, eventually to the point of either oblivion, self harm, or non-play. Most players will choose non-play, but because of the existence of the primary 2 potentialities, there needs to be various approaches to mitigate or be aware of the mental trappings of play.

Now to go back to Vampire Survivors for a moment. The issue and stakes purported by the game are obviously not money but time. Your reward for doing well enough in the game is that you get to learn and beat it slightly faster, which is an unengaging form of stakes. Compare this instead to the false equivalence examples I've seen brought up within the idle game genre. Cookie Clicker can obviously ask for large amounts of your passive time, months in fact, which by my time wasting critique may seem damning. That said, there's a significant distinction between those idle games where the goal is to find out more of the lore and world like Universal Paperclips or The Longing and games that are primarily interested in locking off content and completion behind time walls that you either have to pay through or play to compulsion to escape out of like Adventure Capitalist. These malicious design traps can exist in idle games but it's not core to the genre, and in fact Universal Paperclips is a great example of a short idle game that conveys its message and gameplay without taking advantage of the player's time needlessly. This is not a genre issue, this is not a gambling issue, and this is not an 'upgrades in games are bad' issue. This is uniquely a game design issue.

That being said it gets quite complicated talking about the nuances of where that difference can be identified so I'm going to outline some common rebuttals I've seen first:

1. All games, especially those you get good at, are about getting to win-states you have to wait out through increasingly minimal cognitive levels of interfacing.

2. Concerns over how the condemnation is described, ie. calling design malicious, evil, or predatory design practices feeling like loaded moral language.

3. The game can be completed 100% in 30 hours, and many other games like CS: GO, League, etc. eat much more player time and are thus more worthy of condemnation

4. Why refer to it as 'morally bankrupt' etc. rather than just unengaging design or simply just a bad game?

For points 1 and 3, I agree that within the premise of being concerned about the excessive waste of player time you could say that any arcade game being functionally endless is just as bad if not worse. However, I think that while the 'jackpot' of VS gameplay very much is connected to finishing a run, not all games are about the compulsion to finish. For score attack games the concern is just to get further, and for shmups the concern is about also completing the game on one credit, not just completing a run in general (though completing the game also is find). Thus, the implicit challenge of a game is its most salient point of consideration. Run completion should be one of many carrots for play, not the only one. VS has nothing implicit in its system that says you should stop playing when you hit 100% or if you should go for it at all but it has nothing of the opposite either. Instead it presents such catharsis through finishing a run and viewing shallow on-screen destruction that your mind will tune out quickly. The only desire for such completionism is in the player who might want to unlock new characters, but even after doing that getting 100% is not seen as a legitimate overarching nested goal in the way it is for Binding of Isaac, nor would it make the play better if it was.

Time and time again you read what people say and they refer to game as 'addictive' and that they 'dont want to stop playing'. This has to be thought of as an issue that is primarily compounded through static play, as what undynamic play can do is cause the player to treat the repetitive task as simply a way to make time goes by faster, and hibernate the mind in a tantric state. This is best expressed in Cakewalking's post on the game,
"I have 50 hours in Vampire Survivors. I treat it like a time machine. I use it to travel 30 minutes forward in time and feel nothing afterwards." source

The issue I have with this is that trying to time travel forward, considering everyone's time on the earth is limited, seems like quite literally a self-loathing gesture (which is why I refer to it as self-harm earlier). A primary argument for why people would want to do this is to quell anxiety or stress, but then this gets you back to those external stressors faster, whereas most games with a challenge tend to slow people's time down. A more reasonable explanation for it is that it's not a consciously-desired process and is instead being utilized for various other means, but I think the primary symptom that arises from this practice is at the very least low self-esteem. Focusing on only a select few games that speed up time means you have far less to dynamically socialize with others, which trends towards social atrophy. You could say that more dynamic gameplay like the Binding of Issac are equal in this regard, however I think the staticness of a game has a freezing effect on the mind such that if the few games you play are more static than dynamic it's much more likely to make you fall into that social atrophy. This may seem crazy or absurd to point out, but I think it's a valid reason to be upset with art that causes this. Less dynamic games register us as less dynamic people not in the sense of making us literally less interesting as a shallow judgment but in that it limits the scope of speech. Currently I've been obsessed with Undercards, and I recognize that's a game that nobody really knows or cares about. That being said, if given a moment to genuinely express and be excited about the game I could speak about it for hours upon end. But the repetitive and limited scenarios mean that you could probably only squeeze the lemon of discussion out of Vampire Survivors for a few drops if that. Similarly, a Candy Crush player has a lot less to say on their game of choice than a Tetris player. This may seem odd since Tetris is, on the surface, a far simpler game, but Tetris experts can talk about various stacking combinations, tricks, and speak about bonding over their hobby with others. Candy Crush players are isolated, and a lot of the purpose of the design, I feel, is to alienate people by crushing emergent gameplay into simple randomness generation checks that can be surpassed by playing over and over, but also increase your odds and thus lower the lack of pleasure from a loss through spending money. If you don't believe me that this actually happens to some Candy Crush players, don't take it from me, take it from the following study called
"Are you addicted to Candy Crush Saga? An exploratory study linking psychological factors to mobile social game addiction"

In the conclusion on the data, where they query the habits and preferences of play of 400 Candy Crush Saga players, they note that:

"According to DSM-IV’s classic definition of addiction, the present study found that 7.3% of the respondents were addicted to mobile social games. Given that there are 215 million mobile online game users in Mainland China (CNNIC, 2014), 7.3% does not represent a small number of addicts." And that, "With regard to the psychological variables, loneliness and self-control were found to be significant predictors of mobile social game addiction."

Vampire Survivors and Candy Crush play vastly differently of course. Vampire Survivors is a numbing experience with a time set that you are moving to complete and finish, whereas Candy Crush is a short series of individual time limited high stress levels. Candy Crush has you acting with swiftness and high cognitive and anxious response. These games on the surface could not contrast more, but both offer only the illusion of control and of outcome. Your results in Candy Crush are only found through how the next set of candies coming in are generated, it's easy to get to a point in Candy Crush where you fail a level by not being able to match the candies. In Vampire Survivors your results are decided by the random generation of the item pool upon level up, meaning that even if you can go for a specific build some amount of the result is left up to chance. The odds of the loss are of course vastly different, but neither provide the player enough agency to breach the upper limits that might come from bad luck nor are random elements forced to make them change and adapt their style of play to what is on screen. I will admit that this specific point may be perhaps the weakest in this whole post by far, but if I was wrong here and that Candy Crush did have a lot of control and variation in play, that would not be a defense of Vampire Survivors, it would be of Candy Crush. Perhaps the best way to quantify how they are both addicting is by highlighting the low amount of player agency and the endless appeasement of play.


PART 3: THE THOUGHT-TERMINATING DISTRACTION POINTS

With all of this settled, I now want to turn to the points of contention that I consider less relevant to the game in itself. Let's start with point 2. The idea that labeling this predatory or evil design is worth resisting. Woodaba put it best when they referred to this as 'tone policing,'

"No, I'm not terribly convinced by this tone policing, I think "predatory" is a perfectly reasonable word to describe a design philosophy cultivated from the ground up to create and reinforce gambling addictions, given that these mechanisms are literally designed to prey upon people. [...]

I think managing tone and tenor in conversations like this can be worthwhile, I just wasn't convinced by your statement that the tone was inappropriate in this instance." comments here

Ironically, even the value-neutral attempt to use the phrase tone policing is getting tone policed, because in our current political climate a lot of words feel polarizing and loaded. I'm not going to pretend I don't understand how these descriptors to a game of leisure would upset or distress people. The phrase 'predatory' is one that I try not to rely on as right now it's a phrase mainly invoked for the purposes of transphobic grooming accusations and thus is tinged with that moral weight. On the other hand, I actually enjoy words like 'evil' or 'amoral' which have been used as negative descriptors by friends in the past see for example Detchibe recently concluding their review by calling Moriyama Middle School "A pedestal for amorality, not a mirror reflecting it." source , which makes me want to seek out and play the game more, not less. This is a struggle that is often core in my relationships with others. That said, even though my perspective on wording is very odd, I can still fully appreciate what they are actually trying to say and recognize that I'm bringing my own over-conscious linguistic baggage and identification with 'evil' to the table which can distract from the discussion. In a way you could say all moral language like this is distracting and meant to apply needless pathos, but these are speaking trends that are also really difficult to get away from in part because using more loaded language gives us a leg up in the attention economies. This is why all of the most outrageous social media posts are strange moral claims. Frankly nobody even tries half as hard to tone police over ableist remarks like 'stupid' or 'schizo' etc. and especially stuff like the r-slur was so common in gaming circles until about 2 years ago when everyone decided that its a no-no slur. I'm not saying increasing sensitivity to that is a bad thing, merely illustrating that there's far more hypocrisy on word choice than people let on. Nobody sits there and studies over each and every word they speak to make sure it's maximally accurate, because someone can just pick the one word you messed up on and highlight it for why it means you're wrong anyway. Doing so can only really be seen as a pedantic distraction. Language is messy and this is why the sentiment of 'good faith' online is so important.

On that note, Point 4 on moral claims, is one that I think is also a distraction point, as morality in general is a murky subject. However, I'm sympathetic as to why people find this worthy of contention. It feels like an attack, especially considering the fact that if you try to make an argument for or against a game or its developer, it can read like the same sort of political censorship that promotes book burning or banning mature video games. As Pangburn points out, "my first thought is that it affirms china's stringent limit on online gaming by minors, but I don't think me saying that here is going to be very popular on either side of the debate LOL"

However I don't think, taking the example of Candy Crush and the negative effects from its players that this is a defacto bad policy if certain games are regulated or restricted, to quote the paper utilized there that issues of self control and isolation were the largest factors of addiction to the game, following this they point out

"Society should be aware of the threats that mobile social game playing pose to players. Research on vulnerable groups has shown that children and adolescents are more susceptible to the influence of the media than others are (Gentile and Stone, 2005). Therefore, parents should pay close attention to their children, and teachers should monitor their students. "

Now I think that the specific restriction of all online games leaves a lot to be desired, and plays into my concerns I'll reference more in depth in a moment. However the actual doing so is based on objective policy data, but it's important not to conflate this meaning of objective and data with the 'my opinion is right because I said so' version. A good analogy might be how smoking regulations happened in response to the negative results of smoking being scientifically proven, it was first outlawed from kids and then warning labels were given to adults. I believe you can do pretty much the same thing and make a similar argument of regulation of a game like Candy Crush or Vampire Survivors.

For me, it's just about pointing out that it’s worthy of condemnation first, not endorsement. I don't want people endorsing games that create negative habits or, more strictly, waste my time. This is literally no different than, say, expressing that you think a story has damaging elements while not trying to actively ban the book. It's just that instead of a narrative, it is design, something people have less awareness of than they think they do.

As for the issue of policy implications in particular I'm just an internet dork, not a politician, and neither are you probably! This also has nothing to do with the point LOL. However, I'll try to address this best I can. Others have positioned arguments that the ESRB should have discretion in terms of highlighting gambling elements in a game, especially to minors, but that sort of regulatory framework leaves a lot to be desired. You could do that nudity popup disclaimer that steam has for games, but that's not a client capacity that can be universalized unless you get the government involved, which is a hefty conclusion. I don't put a lot of faith in the regulatory networks for making a clear distinction between a 'gambling aesthetic' like say Sonic Adventure's casino level, and 'addictive game design elements'', I feel like the core problem here is that we would need to rely on some sort of state policy procedure in which the government could specifically and objectively identify non dynamic and destructive play and properly regulate it. Aesthetics are always in flux even if they are alluring to the right demographic, but as I've pointed out earlier, what we consider truly to be the worst of gambling is only found through this undynamic play. Roguelites could be thrown into this bucket despite the fact that in my view they are the opposite. Take for example a game like Luck Be a Landlord, which has a constant 3 choice upgrade system similar to Vampire Survivors, but also requires a lot of decision making and forethought on what to choose, losing a run is almost entirely within player agency. How do you think a large government entity would perceive a game like that? Personally, I think that they would slap a 'promotes gambling' logo on it, but even if minors played the game (who are the most culpable) the reality is that extended play of it would probably make the less discretion-based system of an actual slot machine significantly less compelling because the play of a slot machine would be automated and have no genuine player input for winning a run.

One last point before we wrap things up. This negation of discoursivity does not just happen in the negative appraisals of our arguments. I want to close this post with what my good friend and critical eye Detchibe had to say about the initial, in actuality quite rushed, insight. I will make sure to leave the full quotation as such in the comments below as the first post, however for brevity there is one sentence in particular I want to harp on: "And as you and I and countless others have stressed time and again, there isn't anything implicitly wrong with a passive model of consumption when done responsibly and with an awareness that it is oblivious consumption." I think that while this might not be the intention of the post it speaks to a 'universalizing' diplomatic impulse that I don't think is entirely true. I think this game is actively mentally unhealthy in a specific way that even slightly more cognitively taxing games like 20 Minutes Til Dawn with its active shot aiming isn't. It's not an indictment of failure on your part, but you got there by a system that is actively taking advantage of you. I believe that this impulse while deeply well meaning and appreciated is actually sort of dangerous as it rushes to assuage conflict and disagreement through settlements of harmony. I highlight this not to shit on the absolutely wonderful words of my friend, but to instead expose that thought-terminating cliches are everywhere. One of the most annoying things about me is that I resist them constantly even when they are well meaning :p , but I'm sure I make mistakes on this too so feel free to call it out if you see me doing it.

I don't want the conversation to end, I don't want to 'let bygones be bygones'. This is perhaps the most important issue in terms of gaining a trust and understanding of each other's taste and improving them. You can still like Vampire Survivors after reading all of this, but the point is to be more mindful of recommending it to others. Again, some people like smoking but almost nobody recommends you become a smoker. So to conclude, Vampire Survivors is a mobile game in desktop's clothing, and has a lot of intentionally addictive design traps. So the console a game runs on should not be the sole point of contention for whether its good or not. It's important to be critical of cheap desktop addictive shovelware.

For now however I think I need to stop and digest the scene for a while before saying more, or using other games both positively or negatively for highlighting this, which is what I hope my newfound Court may help do. Fixating forever on one game can be boring and ironically in its own way a waste of time especially for a game with such polarized opinions. Imagine how much more productive this conversation would have been if it was over the mobile game market instead, a game like Candy Crush, which is more clearly delineated as pernicious. I want people to call games like these out of course, but mainly so I don't play them myself. The main reason Vampire Survivors was called out for this was not that it was just some '3 dollar game' but that its one of the most financially successful video games in recent years.

If you have thoughts feel free to leave them below, I'd love to read them

Note: My original post on the game was in reference to more off topic conversation surrounding the harassment by its fans and speculation about its place as a tool for streamers, which was happening to GoufyGoggs, who I was casually dating around the time this had happened as a result of a mutual crush held for a few months, and has recently become my girlfriend. Initially I was going to revamp this post to 'prove' the level of harassment and make people 'bear witness' to the attacks of character and disrespect leveled at her, however I realized that to a large extent such an operation is painful and excessive, and that it takes the bear minimum amount of research into the subreddits or youtube comments surrounding this topic to sympathize, this type of harassment needs not be immortalized in its particulars. I'm not going to quote people misgendering my own girlfriend for other people lol thats ridiculous.

That said, if you have not read the original version of the post, you can read it here (right now it's a google doc but it will be switched to a cohost post asap). The TL;DR of it is conveyed in the 1st link referenced in that post.

Special Thanks to Detchibe and Pangburn for the wonderful peer review and fine tuned grammatical editing on this, without their help I would not be able to write this half as well as I wanted to. To Franz for the well reasoned moral support and understanding. And to my new girlfriend Heather aka GoufyGoggs whose research on this game was a powerful catalyst to my own.

POST SCRIPT EDIT:

Reading this back I realize that I pretty much just dropped the policy proposal point, negating a policy potentiality out of suspicion rather than replacing it. I did that in part because I didn't want to let my heavy handed socialist ideals get too heavily in the way of the critique. I think one of the main reasons people engage in habitual behaviors like this is because of a desire to escape from labor insecurities, often not acknowledging that the therapeutic element is short term reward for long term set backs. This perception is tracked pretty heavily from Addiction by Design where the 'machine zone' is described as a space for escaping insecurities of life generally. I think that the only real policy proposal that would fix that underlying habitual response is by providing better labor security (slashing the 'gig economy' for example) and not promoting cultures of workaholism and burnout. By having a better safety net for people it would prevent anxious self destructive play. Not just for online gaming or gambling, but for other vices to like smoking and alcoholism. I'm probably playing way more of a game than I otherwise would because I don't want to think about my future: getting a job, a home, food, etc. In that sense I can totally understand uncritical play and can't condemn individuals for engaging in it really. The only way to really fix that quite reasonable anxiety is by eliminating it entirely via radical proposals like free housing, food, UBI, etc. The reason I never explicitly stated it in the original piece is because I didn't want to risk over complicating the network of critique there. Only to then simplify it with anti capitalist rhetoric forcing readers to either accept that as true or throw out the entire script. Hammering about labor rights over and over is not the most conducive to open dialogues I'm afraid. Regardless, even if you don't hold my perspective on that point I hope you can see why more general regulation would have to be done with consideration and care.

not morally egregious per se but rather a depressing culmination of a decade's worth of design trickery and (d)evolving cultural/social tastes and otherwise exists as insipid twitchcore autoplaying bullshit that should come with a contractual agreement binding its devotees to never speak prejudicially about mobile games or musou ever again lest they face legally enforced financial restitution. just play nex machina man. or watch NFL. been a fun season for that. fuck the review man let's talk sports in the comments

Criticism of postmodernism is intellectually diverse, reflecting various critical attitudes toward postmodernity as it takes form in philosophy, art, literature and games. Postmodernism itself is generally defined by an attitude of skepticism, irony, or rejection toward what it describes as the grand narratives and ideologies associated with modernism, especially those associated with Enlightenment rationality - though postmodernists in the arts may have their own specific criteria and definitions of postmodernism that depend upon the medium.

Common targets of postmodern criticism include universalist ideas of objective reality, morality, truth, human nature, reason, science, language, economics and social progress; critics of postmodernism are often reactionary, defending such concepts against the counter-cultural critique of postmodern artwork.

It is frequently alleged that postmodern scholars are hostile to objective truth; they promote obscurantism, and encourage relativism in culture, morality and knowledge to an extent that is epistemically and ethically crippling: criticism of more artistic post-modern movements such as post-modern art, literature or video games may include objections to a departure from beauty, lack of coherence or comprehensibility, deviation from clear structure and the consistent use of dark and negative themes.

Post-postmodernism, cosmodernism, digimodernism, automodernism, altermodernism, and metamodernism rank among the more popular prospective terms for the movement against against postmodernism, though the lack of a unifying term demonstrates the difficult, uncertain nature of post-postmodern critical analysis.

In my review of Mario Party the other day, I suggested that the game was one of Nintendo's most postmodern works - what does that really mean? First, let's consider some possible features of postmodern gaming, both in terms of video games and board games:

• The game's designer and design become less relevant than the players' interpretation of the signified or signifier. We might see this more or less explicitly within a game like the award-winning card game Dixit: using a deck illustrated with dreamlike images, players select cards that match a title suggested by the "storyteller", and attempt to guess which card the "storyteller" selected. While the game has a scoring system, it's intentionally ambiguous, and open to the interpretation of the players and gamemaster; it's a game that can be played with a diverse group of players with little to no difficulty presented by challenge of skill - like Mario Party, Dixit frequently wrests interpretive authority from the games' designers and publishers and places it in the hands of arbitrary metrics that don't necessarily exist in a rulebook.

• A postmodern game's structure loses its center and gives way to free play. Generally speaking, this has never been a strong-suit of the video game medium - at least on the surface. This application is seen most clearly in the rise of pen-and-paper RPGs, almost all of which make a distinction directly in the beginning of their rule books: "This isn't a game like those other games with winners and losers; it's a game just for playing." In fact, RPGs thrive precisely on the différance present within the interpretive play among the players — and break down when munchkins or rules lawyers try to reinforce the structure. In short - the when the rules are made up and scores don't matter, players are forced to find other ways to enjoy themselves. The same is true of Mario Party.

• The game's structure is deconstructed by examining and reinforcing that which runs counter to the game's purported structure on the back of the box. This can be seen in games like Fluxx and Killer Bunnies. Here, the idea that planning and strategy will pay off, rewarding a player with victory is shown to be false because the idea hinges on the victor's proper management of chance, but chance is by definition that which is beyond management. So let's plan and strategize for an hour and then let chance tell us the winner she picks blindly in the end. Sound familiar?

• The game makes room for subaltern voices and questions the privileged nature of traditional binaries. Once Deep Blue won, there was no longer any substantive difference between a grandmaster and a geek with a GameFAQ. But can you ever truly defeat a machine that's controlling the dice and your opponents? Can you ever truly defeat someone who can win by doing nothing?

• The game breaks down barriers between itself and the things beyond it - for nothing is truly outside the game. This adage brings to mind old-school LARPing of the kind depicted in the movie Gotcha!, but could also include metaludic games like Quelf, where the game becomes about how a person plays the game or even does things away from the game while the game is ongoing.

Though the benchmarks and criteria for postmodernism are (perhaps intentionally) vague, I think it’s fair to say the original Mario Party exceeds in all the categories I’ve chosen to define above. It’s a game that interrogates the concept of the game - both board and video - by removing the mask of objective order, revealing that all accomplishments happen by divine will of the Nintendo 64.

Mario Party 2, however, fails to improve on the ideas of its predecessor in any meaningful way (apart from putting Donkey Kong in a wizard outfit). It’s a reactionary work of digimodernistic post-post modernism that seeks to correct the “mistakes” of Mario Party’s avant-garde by reintroducing the illusion of rules, structure, and “objective truth”: an essential RETVRN to the logic and empiricism that Gamers love so much. A tale as old as the medium itself, where art is the first thing to leave the party when your product needs to fit neatly on the subjective scales at IGN.

Horror Land, Mario Party 2’s “hardest” board, is a perfect case study of how the sequel’s introduction of mathematical “fairness” robs the game of an identity it was previously proud of. The first lap of the board is a 30-square circle with Toad, the star-giver, standing at the precise midsection. Players are given the option of diverging onto a different path, but there is no statistical incentive for doing so - players start with half the coins needed to buy a star, and it’s possible to accrue the remaining funds in a single turn. Apart from a Bank square (oh no! I lost FIVE coins!!) and Single-Player Minigame square, there are no other “inputs” to the system outside of the once-a-turn minigame: the game is all but ordering you to conform to a closed loop in order to take your first step towards an antipyrrhic victory that will be decided solely by the one who can inflate a Bowser Blimp the fastest. There are no alternatives; Wario’s subaltern voice is silenced; Yoshi’s questions about the privileged nature of traditional binaries are unanswered; Luigi’s interrogation of the apparent power structures falls on deaf ears. It’s time for Bumper Balloon Cars, and everyone’s getting some coins.

Contrast this with Mario’s Rainbow Castle, purportedly Mario Party 1’s easiest board - players can steal each others stars and coins at-will; there’s a button that foists Bowser’s roulette wheel upon foes; you can be sent back to the start for having the mere audacity to roll a 3 at the wrong time; Koopa Troopa is running a wealth-redistribution system at each corner of the board. And that’s all before we even get into the minigames, where stepping on a goomba in a party hat can instantly reduce your balance to absolute zero. It’s a revelry in capitalist chaos wearing the flesh of the Mario Brothers and it’s absolutely beautiful. Even Luigi’s “ohhHHHh nnOooOoo!” sounds more chunky and brittle, the bauds compressed under the sheer weight of environmental disorder. He’s saying something. Mario Party 2 isn’t.

i tried this after a friend who i didnt take for liking these types of games sung its praises, and man just from the first time period its writing is honestly....really really good. understands the internal state of elementary kids really well, of a time when any dumb argument could feel like a massive rift, when nothing gestures could be imbued with love that you couldnt really understand yourself at the time, the sensations of having a childhood crush and navigating the personalities of other children. it allows you to re-enter that space through how you interpret your dialogue choices and its so effective. theres a part where you go to a bbq and it actually overwhelmed me, reminding of an instance of where i wanted to feel safe with one of my parents out of some sense of sensory overload that i dont recall the cause of. could be something like that for you in this.

its fluff yeah but incredibly nostalgic and emotionally acute fluff. im not done with this, im waiting until its all out before i keep going, but its been impressive so far and im hoping it keeps up for the rest of it.

Enjoyable if wildly unfocused mechanics, paired with situations that permit expression without exactly inspiring much strategy: as cursed as it sounds, Bayonetta 3 has big Action RPG energy in how it lets you choose a setup and run that exact flowchart for the entire game. It's cool that these massive enemies aren't limited to formulaic set-pieces, instead roaming each arena relatively freely, but individual actions seem to not carry much weight when 90% of your button presses amount to screen-filling unga bunga shit. Enemies either stagger in a roughly similar, sort-of simplistic way or are still weirdly inconsistent (Grace & Glory parry in mid-air now, which wasn't the case even in Bayonetta 2; unique health thresholds for when enemies can be launched in a game with this many foes leads to an awkward amount of memorization for an intentionally-minded player; leg sweeps sort of exist but only work on a particular set of enemies and don’t actually result in a proper “downed” state, etc.)

This is obviously disappointing when compared to the original's roster of challenging enemies that allow for a wide variety of meaningful soft-counters, set against devilishly varied level design: Grace & Glory with their distance-blocks and fast movement, encouraging attacks with strong hit-stun, knockdown effects or wide hitboxes, Fairness with their anti-air grabs, disincentivizing (but not strictly prohibiting) jumps, Route 666 allowing for risky insta-kills or how you’re asked to maintain a combo during chase sequences — nothing really like that here in the regular mid-level verses from what I’ve played.

So, rather than Bayonetta’s happy medium, 3 ends up opposite to 2 on the “BRUHHHHHHHHHH”-end of the expression vs challenge spectrum: as a pure technical action game, the experience feels about as inconsistent and littered with holes (still no item penalty, totally broken strats like Phantom’s self-destruct, density of mini-games only an insane person would want to master, etc.) but the fact it’s so much less prescriptive appeals way more to my sensibilities. Demon Slave feels like a different take on Umbran Climax that is much more flexible and inviting to experimentation: you get to use it more regularly for longer spans of time (meaning you feel less rushed and encouraged to mash,) but the attack speed and range of your demons is now focused enough that it’s difficult to just stagger the entire screen by mashing X (despite my prior hyperbole in the opening paragraph.) Not only are you allowed to instantly switch between demons mid-combo (either adopting the previous demon’s position or summoning it right next to Bayonetta, granting even more flexibility,) it’s even possible to queue up commands and then take back control of Bayonetta while your demon executes them. It is genuinely clever that the queue can only hold up to two commands (rather than having a larger queue you can fill up for longer just by mashing,) meaning you’ll have to regularly tag between the two actors and coordinate between them positionally to get the most out of the system (specifically, you have to tag back to your demon before the second command has been executed to prevent them from leaving the play space.) The scoring system (while flawed) even takes this into account by having each actor contribute differently to point acquisition (Bayonetta raises points, demons raise the multiplier.)

Like I said, whatever strategy you pick kinda linearly works for the whole game — but at least there’s a lot of stuff to play around with! It almost doesn’t matter that I don’t actually click with a lot of the weapons and demons here when playing through the entire game mostly with Scarborough Fair (meaning “as sub-optimally as possible”) somehow doesn’t turn it into an active chore. I’m not fond of demons where control feels indirect and disconnected (Umbran Clock Tower, Dead End Express) or how weapons in general take control away from Bayonetta for too long (Yo-Yos, Color My World charged Heel Stomp, etc.) and don’t seem to follow intuitive/useful patterns in their dial combos and hold properties, but if anything that actually speaks to the variety on offer and just how many swings Platinum took with the player’s arsenal here. Unique Shot or Umbran Spear variations per weapon don’t even strike me as great inclusions (having Shot as a consistent action was helpful in the previous games to cancel out of certain states or target enemies, and a lot of this stuff just feels linearly better/worse,) but I’m honestly not sure any action game up to this point matches Bayonetta 3 as far as the pure AMOUNT of shit in it. That, and how much freedom you’re naturally given over the enemy’s position as you're toying with them, makes it an absolute buffet for combo fiends, and I can respect that.

I suppose if I had to sum it up, I would say that Bayonetta 3 is packed with interesting and sometimes even very thoughtfully implemented mechanics that spark a lot of intrinsic enjoyment, but the game Platinum have built around them doesn’t immediately inspire me to want to get truly serious about it. You spend a lot of time dicking around and exploring, with movement mechanics that are surprisingly versatile but still feel weirdly kneecapped in some ways (again lacking Bayonetta 1’s satisfying momentum) and are used in platforming challenges that are mostly just kinda quaint and insubstantial. Even rushing through all that, you’re stuck playing through what are probably the shallowest mini-games Platinum have put into code yet (Rock-Paper-Scissors, literally just moving an aiming cursor across the screen — the P**** shmup section was cool though.) But like I said going in, the biggest offender for me so far still is the seeming lack of meaningful encounter variety — at least the Alfheims with all their weird stipulations are a massive step up from Bayonetta 2, but based on what I’ve hard, I’m skeptical that mid-level verses will reveal more sauce on Infinite Climax difficulty.

TLDR: I recommend it! Expectations about met! Incredibly scuffed around the edges but I’ll take that over Bayonetta 2 any day.

I was dooming extremely hard when my long-range Wicked Weaves didn’t hit despite lock-on in the intro mission though. Come on guys.

Discussion stream I did with more practical examples: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bxop2B5b4rQ

The nice thing about Nintendo Switch Online for old people like me is that you get a little involuntary nostalgia hit every couple of months. I wouldn’t download and emulate Mario Party of my own volition, but something about it being readily available on my Switch just makes the access to those old memories so much more enticing - even when said memories now launch with an updated warning about how they can cause permanent damage to the palm of your hand.

Funny story about this game - my younger brother and I had it in our heads that it was possible to be skilled at it. Our misguided belief that the winner of a game of Mario Party was in some way deserving of recognition and admiration eventually came to a head when our neighbour - who didn’t own or play video games of any kind whatsoever at any time - played a round with us one rainy afternoon. He came out comfortably 3 stars ahead at the end of 50 turns, brutally shredding our fragile preteenage egos to tatters. This trauma sent my brother crazy, and he had to be locked in the bathroom for an hour because he was quite simply going completely apeshit-crackers at the notion that someone who didn’t even hold the N64 controller correctly could beat him at a game he’d played for a hundred hours. Very funny to recall his little cheeky face lying on a floor sodden with Chance Time-induced tears. Great game.

You can jape endlessly about the unfairness of the original Mario Partys, but there’s nothing you can really say that’s more amusing than participating in it. Taking huge inspiration from the capitalist chaos of Monopoly, this is definitely one of Nintendo’s most postmodern games, directly stating on many occasions that the rules are made up and the coins don’t matter. It revels in unfairness and mean-spiritedness (literally, with the inclusion of a robber Boo) in a way I imagine Shigeru Miyamoto would frown very hard at, and I presume the meaning of Bowser hollering “That’s often the way things go in life!” while tap-dancing on the spot as Mario wails about being mis-sold a suspicious “super duper star” for the tidy sum of 200 coins just completely passed me by as a kid. Just like the game of Life, the lesson to be learned here is that no matter how carefully plot your course and how hard you twirl your joystick, all the money in your bank can be swept away in an instant because some stupid prick stepped on a big red button with your face on it.

BUZZFEED QUIZ #1986

Who Said It — Taylor Swift (😍😍😍) Or Beatrice (🤮🤮🤮)?

1 "Did I close my fist around something delicate? Did I shatter you?"

2 "Do you miss the rogue who coaxed you into paradise and left you there?"

3 “Past the curses and cries, beyond the terror in the nightfall"

4 “Now my eyes leak acid rain on the pillow where you used to lay your head"

5 “Life isn't how to survive the storm, it's about how to dance in the rain”

6 “Words can break someone into a million pieces, but they can also put them back together”

7 "I'd meet you where the spirit meets the bones in a faith-forgotten land"

8 "Your touch brought forth an incandescent glow, tarnished but so grand"

9 "I wish to know the fatal flaw that makes you long to be magnificently cursed"

10 “Ushiromiya Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaatler cackle cackle cackle cackle cackle"


.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Answers:

1 Taylor Swift
2 Taylor Swift
3 Taylor Swift
4 Taylor Swift
5 Taylor Swift
6 Taylor Swift
7 Taylor Swift
8 Taylor Swift
9 Taylor Swift
10 Taylor Swift could have said that too we can’t say for sure (Devil's proof)

Number 1 female Spotify artist EVER.

Taylor could write Umineko but Ryukishi could never write Evermore.

“People haven't always been there for me but music always has.”
― Taylor Swift
👆👆👆👆 Such powerful words 😭

Swifties stay winning 💅💅💅💅 You mad little gay boi with the SHEEPS 🤣🤣 and WOLVES 🤣🤣 family ????

My diva is also taller (1.80 cm or 5 ft 11") than your stupid spaghetti (🍝?) smelling ass witch.

>calls herself golden witch
>can only manifest candy
>og_battler_crying_sprite.png

>calls herself a "mere" pop artist
>also wrote the best country, country-pop and pop-rock albums of all time
>CHAD_TAYLOR_DIVA_QUEEN_QUEEN_CHAD.png

Stay slayin queen, don't let this goofy ass spaghetti (🍝?) smelling ass witch take your throne.

Me when 黄金の影修正版 BEATRICE MELODY（ラック眼力）is playing: 🥱😴🥱😴🥱😴🥱😴🥱😴🥱😴🥱😴🥱😴🥱😴🥱😴
Me when Shake it Off is playing: 🎵💃🏻🎵💃🏻🎵💃🏻🎵💃🏻🎵💃🏻🎵💃🏻🎵💃🏻🎵💃🏻🎵💃🏻🎵💃🏻

THAT'S 👏 ALL 👏 FOLKS 👏 !

Oh~ to yearn for the day where a beautiful somebody would appear before me on a whim suddenly and WHISK my virgin loser ass away to an exciting new world I've never known... (also I'd have secret super powers and be rEALLY deserving of vampire pussy in the first place!!!!)

Classic wish fulfillment-y bishojo game type stuff. Gets a little interesting when the MC of this one turns out to be a bit of a murder-loving psychopath with fun killer drivelings to read through. The majority though - when it isn't focusing on that more deranged angle that I'm into - is kinda just too lore dump-y and embarrassing for my tastes. Especially when the thing elects to spends exTENDED periods of time indulging in scenes of the cast just straight up suckin' and fuckin' while also trying to seriously tie those cringey H-moments in with its 'deep lore'.

Like dude you're expected to take seriously shit like: "Master! You've been PSYCHIC VAMPIRE CURSED!!! The only cure is for you to have unprotected vaginal sex with me! Hurry! We have no choice...! RELEASE your 'liquid magma' inside of me! We MUST exchange 'bodily fluids' to alleviate this cursENING BEFORE TIME RUNS OUT!!!"..........

I'm not a prude! I like the acknowledgement of sex and other 'taboos' you might normally see glossed over in similar works (shoutouts to the RAPE and PEDOPHILIA ALSO INCLUDED). I JUST THINK for the sex in particular it ends up coming off VERY juvenile here; vERY 'pornhub plot-adjacent', and undermines the attempted heavier elements of the story with how long winded and HORNYYY those scenes turn out feeling. It gets tough to take the thing seriously anymore when you get into one of those obligatory fucking moments and suddenly - what? Is the point just to cheaply titillate now? Why are we spending SO much time getting cartoonishly detailed - talking about this 'MAGMA' that the inexplicable sex god known as Shiki Tohno can unload onto all these woman? Can't we just cut to the point after a few lines? Or IS the point just to make anime porn now? It'd certainly SEEM that way with all these moments even compiling a token 'H scene gallery' you can look at upon completion... Hard to take seriously! Hard to trust the conceit........

I only finished the Arcueid and Hisui routes, but ima assume that's a good enough spectrum for a fair take on the game. I dig the meandering way its written to a point, the crusty real world backgrounds and classic 2000s ass character art is my shit, BUUUT 5 routes of these one-sided lore prattlings? With inexplicable resolutions, tenuous continuity, and GUARANTEED awkward sex everytime????? I'm good......... :)

Paper Mario fanatics are kind of the worst, huh? They're like the most annoying attributes of Nintendo nerds amplified by ten; they constantly whine about how dead their series is, get into absurd fights over which game is the best, they shove their games down your throat without giving you room to breathe. I suppose it has died down a little since that recent installment for the Switch, but I'm sure you all know what I'm talking about. It gets really tiring sometimes to hear the same things hailed as godsends, and instead of making me want to check them out it just drives me away out of annoyance. This can also be said for stuff like Outer Wilds and Hollow Knight, but I remember tracing this feeling in my head back to games like this.

All that being said, this game is damn near masterful in many aspects. The amount of heart and soul thrown in is just staggering. The story in particular is one of Nintendo's finest and most captivating. You probably couldn't count all the memorable characters here if you had four hands, and same goes for the songs featured throughout. It's also a really good RPG for beginners, seeing as the difficulty as a whole is very very low up until the final two chapters. There's a lot to love here. I do love this game, and ultimately I can indeed see how it reached its status.

A big thing about the ridiculous levels of hype, though, is that it makes the lower points sting that much more. This game is absolutely not free of those, I can tell you that much. Most notably, the backtracking can be pretty exhausting. In particular, Chapter 4's ridiculous amounts of wandering back and forth reduce it to a tedious nightmare, even despite the introduction of Vivian, whom everybody loves and everybody should love.

Less significant, but still worth noting is that the battle system started to wear on my nerves after a while, though I guess this is usually an RPG problem as a whole. I guess it's pretty hard to get that right, admittedly. But things like the Twilight Town/Creepy Steeple fiasco, or Chapter 7's asinine fetch quest...they really just make me wonder, what was the point? Was there not a better way to pad those chapters out? I don't know, man.

And the thing is, I probably wouldn't be as worked up about moments like this if its fans didn't tout it around as a flawless masterwork. It feels like the cracks are bigger than they really are, since everything good has been already said and then some. Sometimes when things reach this status it's just easier to talk about the negatives, even if it really is a wonderful time as a whole.

So for the most part it looks like the aforementioned loud, annoying fans were right. But really, in the end I still don't think a return to form for this series is necessary. It's part of what makes those early ones special, how one of a kind they are. Every series eventually declines with time, and it's not really a big deal how early or late it happens.

It's also just that like, projects like Bug Fables? That has "oh, this is for the REAL fans" energy all over it. That shit is annoying. Not touching it with a ten foot pole. Gootbye.
(2024 addendum: This is insanely petty. I will if I ever decide it interests me.)

Anyway, uh, it's like 2 AM. This is a very scatterbrained and ranty review, if you can't tell already. I tried to bum rush through the last three chapters of the game today and I am totally out of energy. It's also deliberately my 500th game logged, though, so I wanted to write something longer despite being tired. Ultimately I'm glad I caved in and gave this a go. I think it was worth it.

metal gear solid 2 is arguably the most discussed videogame ever. you can just google “metal gear solid 2” with the words “meaning”, “themes”, “analysis”, “essay” or something like this that you will find plenty of articles and youtube videos. a lot of very good reviews on this game page here on backloggd, too. so… what can I say about it? everyone already said something. everyone already called it a postmodern masterpiece, everyone already called it a prophetic game, everyone already said how great the level geometry is, how deep the mechanics can be, everyone knows about the marketing campaign and how sexy raiden is and how well-written his relationship with rose is. everyone knows everything. what more can i say? still, metal gear solid 2 is the kind of game that you do want to say something. it feels impossible not want to, even if you lack words. for me, what i want to say this time, finishing it for the first time in 7 years, is: this is a very life-affirming game. it tells us that, even in the capitalist system we live in, controlled by the same old people, influencing everything we consume, molding our thoughts and ideals, we can still break free, shape our own personality and look for the meaning in our lives, building the future for the next generations. maybe we will not face a revolution, maybe we will not change the world, but someone will. our sons, grandsons or anyone influenced by our mark, we just need to pass the torch.

CW: Murder, gun violence, child death, sexual violence, cannibalism, suicide, gore, eroticism of gore, knife violence, glorification of tragedy and crime, misogyny.
Updated version
Video version of this review

Preface

First, I would like to make abundantly clear this is a heinous work. On a surface level it is reprehensible. Digging into it makes every aspect of it worse. If it could only be played with a critical eye that would be one thing, but as I will get into this isn't just some curiosity to dissect.

The United States has had 27 school massacres since 1927. 16 of these occurred after Columbine. All but two were carried out with the use of firearms. Since 2000, there have been 388 school shootings in the United States.

Canada has had three school massacres ever (ignoring the genocide perpetrated by the Residential School system). One of these occurred after Columbine. It was carried out with a firearm. Since 2000, there have been 8 school shootings in Canada.

Japan has had one school massacre ever. It occurred on June 8, 2001. Eight children were murdered. All but one were girls. The perpetrator used a kitchen knife. There has never been a school shooting in Japan. There have been two multiple fatality shootings in Japan since 1952.

Potential

I think this is important to bring up because, from a Western and particularly an American perspective, school shootings are a dark reality that happens with shocking yet numbing frequency. The Onion's perennial publishing of their "No Way to Prevent This" article is testament to that. While it would be disingenuous to say school shootings have had no resonance in Japan, it is true that they have not happened there. The distance from tragedy lessens its emotional impact.

This is to say that, in a vacuum, Morimiya Middle School Shooting (MMSS) reads as intensely insensitive but not outright malicious. It is, in a vacuum, akin to Postal or Hatred, mimicking real world tragedy without outright reference to any specific event. An argument could even be made that there is some merit to MMSS in its commentary on the why of school shootings. The unnamed player character walked in on her mother's suicide, her father was an abusive alcoholic who disappeared. Her rage turns outward towards those who do not give her the attention she was missing from her parents. It ultimately manifests as a desire to commit murder after the game's fictionalised Japan reports on regional mass killings.

Like Super Columbine Massacre RPG, MMSS appears then to be a work which asks for a societal introspection alongside our abject horror. By not referencing a specific historical event, MMSS has the potential to make commentary without inflicting direct emotional harm. Its gamification and unnamed player character have the potential to instill a sense of being complicit with the act, as with Brenda Romero's 2009 board game Train. Even its arcade gameplay loop, high scores, and unlocks have the potential to increase engagement for some grand payoff of self-disgust that one would invest so much time into becoming good at murdering teachers and children. A part of me held out hope in my few playthroughs that there would be some message at the end of it all, that this glorification of violence would have a point. Instead, MMSS is closer to JFK: Reloaded. It teaches nothing. It has nothing to say. It exists to shock. It exists to hurt.

Play

On a technical and mechanical level, MMSS is something of a marvel. It is an RPGMaker game with gunplay. There is an undeniable element of strategy to it. Suffice it to say that every aspect of school shootings are on display here. If you have seen coverage of new schools in the United States being built to 'confuse and frustrate' school shooters, you can intuit how the prototypical Japanese school might facilitate mass murder with firearms and explosives. The player needs to slow down to increase their accuracy. I leave it to you to put two and two together. The unlocks amount to different weapons the player can use, as well as cheats. The player needs to manage the loaded ammunition between their weapons so as to not end up reloading while students wielding poles lunge at them to stop their advance. The player has a very strict time limit before the police arrive to arrest them. The player gets the most points for killing female students. None of this is particularly fun, even if it were removed from what it is depicting, but that it has been done on an engine meant for traditional JRPGs is impressive. That it is mechanically more than pointing and shooting is noteworthy. It is just barely engaging enough to warrant a couple playthroughs.

Precedent

Discussion of MMSS necessitates consideration of its creator and their niche. MMSS was developed by エリック aka erikku aka eric806359 aka kata235. They are an ero guro artist. Their depiction and obsession with the macabre is not in line with an H.R. Giger type, however. It comes across as more similar to the work of the Marquis de Sade. Reading through erikku's Twitter feed and scrolling through their Pixiv feels like trawling through The 120 Days of Sodom; it is a display of an amoral libertine.

Some choice textual excerpts from their Twitter (roughly translated):

"Drawing muscles makes me want to eat them."
"A touching coming-of-age story in which a young girl who has just lost her father gets a gun and grows up to be a splendid mass murderer."
"If I'm going to die anyways, I want the human race to perish while I'm still alive."
"I'm not a monster. Even for someone like me, I have human likes and dislikes. ...For example, what I love is 'Decapitation'"

I think you get the idea.

Their Pixiv is similarly naught but ero guro. Ero guro is not some 'release valve' for erikku, it is their sole purpose.

Perusal

Despite this, MMSS contains zero erotic elements. ConeCvltist stated in his review that MMSS probably exists for someone to get their rocks off. I think he is at once right and wrong in this assertion. Without explicit eroticism, MMSS is only a guro work, and thus cannot be said to be primarily for sexual gratification. However, it is also inextricable from its creator's main body of work. His illustrations of MMSS's main character are surrounded by nude women's stomachs being cut open, by school girls being strangled to death, of raw human flesh being consumed next to bare corpses. MMSS is not explicitly sexual, but it is implicitly erotic. The primary demographic is not you or I, but those already familiar with erikku's portfolio. And while not in the game itself, erikku has made numerous animations of the player character shooting school girls, their inflated chests jiggling, their panties digging into their crotches.

MMSS is unable to depict this level of fidelity for gore or lewdness in RPGMaker due to the rapid pace of gameplay. What illustrative art is present shows up in the introduction, endings, and when in the apartment at the start. For erikku's intended audience, however, those depictions don't need to explicitly exist within the game. One's familiarity with those short animation clips, those illustrations allows them to, in part, fill in the gaps during gameplay. In researching erikku and being exposed to the supportive art for MMSS, subsequent playthroughs have been marred by more accurate depictions of the violence and murder rendered in pixel form. Furthermore, I have seen that his illustrations and animation snippets are released in packs with other, non-MMSS related works of an ero guro nature. The mind fills in the gaps, the mind construes all of this as sexual.

Pang

In MMSS, during the news report on recent killings, one scene shows a middle school girl being escorted by police as her victims clutch their stomachs. This murderer committed their acts with a kitchen knife. They primarily targetted girls.

As mentioned at the very start, there has been one school massacre in Japanese history. It involved a kitchen knife. The perpetrator primarily targetted girls.

This is odious enough on its own, this unveiled allusion to the Osaka school massacre as tasteless as anything making light of the mass murder of children. erikku's fanbase will recognise this as a direct reference to his other game, Rouka de Onigokku (Tag in the Hallway). You sprint through hallways and stab students before you can be caught. It operates like an endless runner. The William Tell Overture plays the whole time. While MMSS references tragedy broadly, Rouka de Onigokku references it precisely. In MMSS one can even unlock use of a knife to carry out the game's mass murder in the same manner as Rouka de Onigokku's main character. It is despicable. It gets worse.

Perturbed

There is very scant documentation of MMSS on the English-speaking clearnet. I myself only came across it by chance on Backloggd. What I have found is deplorable.

Following the release of MMSS, erikku started answering fan questions on Twitter. Most of these are in Japanese, but some have been translated by erikku himself.

"Q: [...] how do you deal with negative feedback or criticism regarding the sensitive nature of 'taboo' nature of your art?
A: [...] I try not to care too much about negative feedback and so on :)"

"Q: [...] what do you use for inspiration before making a picture? Do you read about some real life murder cases?
A: I often read about real life murder cases, and watch a movie and TV series about murder. But I don't use anything for inspiration. I just draw what I want to draw."

His tweets continued in their perturbing statements. Above the aforementioned illustration of Rouka de Onigokku's main character, he writes "I was caught by the Thought Police and was temporarily suspended. It was caused by the cannibalism animation, but I think all the zombies are gone now. ...By the way, the situation in the picture is a very, very, very healthy illustration of a student playing a prank with ketchup and being taken care of by the police."

They also started answering questions on peing.net.

"I'm just painting 'imaginary violence against non-existent people.'"

"Murder, abductions, and transportation of body parts over long distances are very hard work, but it's better than repeating the incidents in a nearby area and narrowing the scope of police investigation towards you."

"I think there are various reasons why the culprit in Morimiya didn't commit suicide (including suicide by police). One of the goals is to know the suffering of the victims, including the survivors and bereaved families. It may also be the result of hatred towards the mother who took her own life. No matter how many people you kill, the hatred toward your mother, who took her own life and became a 'suicide statistic' cannot be cleared, but 'I won't die like that!' Is that the result of trying to persevere?"

"I have been drawing pictures of killing people since I was a child, but it was when I was a teenager that I start having interest in killing (anime) girls."

MMSS and Rouka de Onigokku are not just gamified depictions of perturbed minds. They are the machinations of a fucked up pervert. It gets worse.

Perverse

When looking up MMSS, one of the only results is the RPGMaker Fandom wiki. It provides the Google Drive link I got the game from. Far above that download link lies a link to the 'Official Discord,' with the blessing of erikku.

The rules for the 'Morityu Community Server' notably state the following:

"Rule 3. Don't be a weirdo. Keep edgelording to a minimum. If it's TMI, don't post it.
You can love seeing girls suffer all you want, just don't tell everyone, because nobody wants to hear about it.
Don't be that guy who idolizes mass shooters. It's cringe as hell and a sign that you should probably go outside for once."

"Rule 5. Do not talk about planning any mass murders or crimes of any form.
You may talk about previous cases of mass murder, but do not talk about the possibility of yourself or others committing crimes.
Even if you're not going to do it and are just posting it as a "what if", it is punishable by a ban.
This is the one rule you don't want to break."

The server is a cesspool of racism, homophobia, sexism, and generally making light of school shootings as a topic. Users have /k/ommando avatars and names and banners. They share gameplay clips and compete for high scores. They share links to movie clips of school shootings, they share DOOM WADs for school levels. They pontificate about whether or not women get aroused during shootings. They cheer for Russia's invasion of Ukraine, for police murdering black people. They hide behind the thinnest veneer of respecting Discord's ToS.

Searching for MMSS information led me to a danbooru post making light of the Christchurch mosque shootings. The artist's commentary notes the inefficacy of focusing on the victims of mass murder rather than the perpetrators themselves, particularly when those criminals understand how to effectively use the memetic nature of modern media.

It was also on that Fandom wiki I learned that the art room in MMSS has portraits of several school shooters. Real school shooters. If this is not glorification, I don't know what is.

The citation for that art room tidbit took me further still. A forum dedicated to Columbine and other school shootings and crimes. A thread titled Video games about Mass Murder. Users laud MMSS as one of the best games about mass murder. Avatars depict children holding guns threateningly. The Similar topics at the bottom of the thread ask what games school shooters played.

It's then I decided I had had enough.

Perpetuity

I wish there was a conclusion I could make here. Some hopeful message about erikku realising this is fucked beyond belief. That Discord being banned. The host of the Columbine forum shutting down.

There is no conclusion. There is no takeaway. This is revolting. Researching put knots in my gut. Writing evoked constant self-doubt.

I believe there is room for societal introspection on serious, challenging topics through games. But when the act of playing tragedy is not contextualised, is not condemned, then those games will function as just that, games. Tools for amusement, not for learning. Something to strategise about, not think critically about. A pedestal for amorality, not a mirror reflecting it.

Irredeemable.

Content warning for non-explicit discussion of real life death, expulsion of bodily waste and fluids, pregnancy, childbirth, needle use in a medical context

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am a woman. My experience as a woman is one of the less common ones, statistically, because I didn’t have it in me to assert that I was one until a good quarter century after most women are informed that this is what they are. That there are rules to this, and ways to perform womanhood, and perhaps most importantly for a lot of people, certain baseline genetic requirements that separate women from non-women. That last part is the sticky one for me, and because of this there are a lot of people out in the world who hate me, who want me to simply not be. Many of these people are powerful and they make decisions every day about my privilege to exist, but many many more of them are regular people out in the world. Sometimes it’s easy to tell who they are by the looks they give, the things they say; sometimes it’s not so immediately obvious. It is stressful to go outside, often, and occasionally it is outright difficult. Nevertheless, I am a woman.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Julia Kristeva is a Bulgarian-French writer who has been prolific in many fields over her six decades of writing, but I often find myself thinking of her most famous work, one of her earliest publications - 1980’s Powers of Horror: An Essay on Abjection, because it is the only thing by her that I’ve read. It’s a 200-ish page book that builds heavily on old Freudian theory to, among other things, consider the ways people use powerfully negative experiences to define and value the self.

Kristeva defines abjection like this: “The human reaction to a threatened breakdown in meaning caused by the loss of the distinction between subject and object or between self and other.” Abjection, in a way, forces us to choose our identity; we define ourselves via rejection, by how we think of ourselves in opposition to things that disgust or harm us. It preys upon this idea of selfhood, of the boundaries we construct and maintain to create identity. It preys upon the divisions we create when we erect these boundaries. One example of this that Kristeva uses is things we naturally expel from our bodies, stuff like blood from a wound, teeth that fall out, semen, piss, shit, vomit. One second these things are subject – they’re part of you – and the next they’re object – separate from you entirely. This may not seem like much but this intrinsic mental separation from what was a part of you as soon as it leaves your body highlights how fragile these boundaries actually are.

I am, because I am not.

Kristeva thinks it’s a thin line.

She most often frames abjection in terms of violence, revulsion, disgust, and trauma. And it’s true that we tend to use the word “abject” as a maximalist adjective to highlight negative things. Abject terror. Abject misery. Abject poverty. But for Kristeva it’s not actually a bad thing in the grand view; on the contrary it’s an essential part of making us who we are as a collective and as individuals. She talks a lot about childbirth as the first moment of abjection. Birth being as much a kid fighting to live, to create a self, a sense of being, even as they tear away from the safety of their mother’s womb. It’s an inherently violent act and it’s the only way to become. It’s an ongoing process throughout life; kids have values imposed on them - language, culture, law - all things contrary to totally natural impulses but also things that most of us agree are necessary for them to grow into society as we know it. This is a process that repeats constantly throughout life to varying degrees. It can be painful, horrible, and disgusting, but it’s necessary. These experiences sharpen our sense of who we are, in our sense of opposition to the things that cause us pain, horror, and disgust.

I am not, so I am.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Silent Hill 4: The Room has, if I’m remembering all My Gaming from last year correctly, the largest cast of characters of any Team Silent game, but it is almost entirely concerned with the thematic opposition of its player character, Henry Townshend, and its central figure and villain, Walter Sullivan. Henry is cursed, you see, trapped inside of his apartment by supernatural forces, unable to be seen or heard by anyone on the outside even as he becomes increasingly aware of a deadly, ghostly threat haunting the complex and its inhabitants. Walter uh, IS that threat, the ghost of a serial killer returned partially from the grave to finish his cruel sacrament with the six-ish murders he had to leave off in life (all according to his grand plan, of course). His ultimate goal, it’s eventually revealed, is to get permanent access to Henry’s apartment, which he sees as the vessel for his own mother, whose spirit he believes will awaken when he completes his twenty-one ritual murders.

Walter has a tragic past, raised within an evil cult, abused constantly by his caretakers, turned out onto uncaring streets with only his brainwashing and occult dogma to motivate him to go on. He’s a man who experiences moments of abjection and rejects them, becoming singularly focused on rescinding his identity. He is in constant pursuit of a mother he doesn’t remember, his mission to return permanently to the safety of her womb, where he can exist eternally, unburdened and unfettered by both his trauma and his self.

In all of the early Silent Hill games, aspects of the world take on attributes specific to the psyches of particular characters central to the story, and in The Room that person is Walter himself, whose fears and hates dictate the worlds that Henry and his neighbors are dragged into throughout the game. Walter’s fears are decidedly more mundane than previous Silent Hill fear generators, with environments like normal forests and subway stations, urban blocks and apartment complexes. Walter is afraid of, generally speaking, the Out There. He wants to retreat. Enemies are other people. They squish, they slurp, they burp grotesquely (bodily expulsion is a hallmark of abject experience, remember). Ghosts pursue you doggedly, without pause, and the worst thing they can do is just be present, their very auras radiating sinister energy that hurts Henry without action.

Henry himself is a mirror to Walter, trapped seemingly eternally in the thematic womb, his only escape the long long tunnel that forms in his bathroom wall, one that spawns him into these frightening outside worlds, often in the fetal position (I know writers who use subtlety and they’re all cowards, etc). While he does face trauma in these worlds and after every moment of abjection retreats back to his apartment for nourishment and healing, Henry does, ultimately, want to get the fuck outta there bro. He’s desperate for human connection too (and connection beyond murder – his moments of abjection always come via Walter doing something fucked up to one of his neighbors), desperate enough to peep on his direct next door neighbor Eileen through a hole that a previous tenant left in their shared wall. Tellingly, Henry can’t even begin to have a real connection to Eileen, or anyone, until he symbolically begins to separate himself from the room; once they meet for real and succeed in evading Walter’s attacks for the first time, the room stops healing Henry, and becomes open to hauntings that actively harm him.

The titular room is Henry’s place of refuge and comfort, at first, but it’s also his ultimate enemy. This is true the entire game, not just after Walter’s influence begins to infect the space. He’ll die if he stays here. He has precious little food, and during gameplay he gives away his last bottle of chocolate milk (milk being one of Kristeva’s confessed personal objects of great disgust, in a moment of fun serendipity). He has no one to interact with, and even though it’s stated in game that he was not a social guy before he was cursed, once you’re down to zero everything seems like a lifeline. Eventually, of course, he’ll be literally killed by the curses that infect the room. He can’t stay. He needs to be born, and he knows it. It’s a false security, and it intrinsically can’t last.

Walter and Henry aren’t the only figures central to the game, though. There is, of course, a third pillar here: you. Er, me. Y’know, The Player. There is essentially nothing to Henry – this is part of why he exists primarily as a thematic contrast to Walter, and part of why it’s hard to ascribe much character to his actions. You’re Henry in large part. When he’s in the apartment you even control him in first person. You are the ultimate voyeur, in the same way that Henry is to Eileen and Walter is to Henry. And this is part of why Walter’s worlds and the creatures that populate them are on the surface so much more generic than the places and monsters of past games: applicability.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have this uncle who died in his apartment. I didn’t know him, really. From stuff I’ve been told he wasn’t a good guy. I was a kid, and we lived states away. I only met him a handful of times at big family parties. The only reason I ever think about him at all probably is because he died in his apartment, and even then I’ve only started thinking about him so much recently, in the last couple of years, because we’ve all been spending a lot more time in our apartments. It’s covid, bay bee. The reason I think about him so much is because when he died in his apartment, nobody knew. Nobody cared to check in. They only found him, weeks later, because his landlord went into his place because they had assumed he had run out on it because he hadn’t paid rent or responded to any communication, for weeks, because he was dead.

So I think about that a lot the last couple years.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I mentioned that Walter’s hellscapes are mundane places and his monsters are other people and I do think this is a reflection of where the developers thought maybe a lot of their presumed audience was at when Silent Hill 4 came out. Which is pretty funny. But it’s real, too, for me. There’s not a lot that’s scarier for me as a trans person than An Only Vaguely Familiar Public Place With An Off Vibe. That’s alarm bell central. It’s hard out there, man. Rarely do I feel outright unsafe but often do I feel eyes. It’s difficult to tell a lot of the time if the eyes are real or if I’m inventing them, and that doubt can make it even harder to feel confident in my place in perfectly normal spaces. Just yesterday I was actively frightened waiting in line for the bathroom in an inexplicably crowded gas station in the middle of nowhere in Iowa. You just never know when it’s going to be a problem. I was never the most confident person, but this low level thrum of unease colors every moment of public life. In talking about abjection in an academic sense and especially when talking about fiction it’s easy to forget that part of it is that it is upsetting by nature. But in life it sharpens me. I know who I am.

It’s a harsh dichotomy – every day I am more visibly transgender in more irreversible physical ways. Every day I become more obviously Neither Male Nor Female and while I love this about myself and I am truly happy with these changes they are the same changes that make me less safe and more vulnerable in ways that become harder and harder to cover up with clothes and masks. It would be easy to retreat to my womb, metaphorically. I want to, sometimes. I work remotely on a permanent basis. I live literally across the street from the grocery store. My girlfriend is here, my cats are here, my friends are online.

But I am transforming. Every week I stab myself with a needle. I force through this needle the fluid that makes my body into what I want it to be. A violent transmogrification. I feel the most beautiful in these moments. They are moments of clarity, of self expression, of definition by rejection. I am not a man. I am a woman. This needle in my leg is my signature. Living in fear of living in fear can’t be the way.

I am not who I was. I oppose that. I am becoming. Every week I am new. I need to tear away.

I want to be born.