Well Said!! - Tumblr Posts
I can’t get over the continued thematic follow-through of this idea that Jedi aren’t truly Jedi unless they’re standing up in defense of the innocent and helpless, they have to be active in the galaxy, they have to spread kindness and compassion wherever they go, it’s an uncontrollable urge, it’s an itch, “They cannot help it.“
And also the idea that it’s FORCE ITSELF that is whispering to them, calling them back, calling them home, telling them to take up their swords again, reach out in faith and find that the Light never left you, it’s still inside you and it needs you because the galaxy is so so dark and bleak and hopeless and there’s so much evil everywhere and the galaxy needs them to stand up and step out of the shadows and into the light so that they can reignite people’s hope.
It’s the pauses of awe and wonder in even the most miserable and selfish of underworld denizens because that’s a Jedi, the Jedi are back, the Jedi are here, everything will be okay now.
It’s F knighting herself, cutting her own padawan braid and proudly declaring she is a Jedi to save a frightened exploited village bride.
It’s Kanan igniting his saber for the first time in years to protect his future padawan and a clutch of Wookie slaves and the rattled composure in the Imperials when they realize, “Holy shit that’s a Jedi.“
It’s Cal and Cere deciding they were done hiding, done running from the Empire, they were going to fight back, and Saw gleefully pointing to them to inspire his band of Rebels.
It’s Obi-Wan unburying his lightsaber even after being so hopeless and broken and full of guilt and self-blame because people still need him, he’s the only one they can trust.
The whole Dark Times as a sloooooowly turning eucatastrophe, tiny lights of hope struggling to hold back the darkness long enough. Holding out. Buying time until the twin suns can rise. Until Luke and Leia and the destruction of the Death Star and the death of the Emperor and the glorious return of light to the galaxy.
I love it.
Reasons why I believe this isn't a final Death
denial
There's a couple parallels between Tech's death and Echo's supposed death. First of all, we don't see a body in either case. Not Echo's and also not Tech's. We do see Echo's charred helmet and we see Tech's broken goggles later on. The team also had to leave right away in both cases, otherwise they would've been captured/killed. And they both sacrificed themselves for the team. If Echo didn't die, then why should Tech?
Denial
All that character building this season. Like of that was for nothing, then that was terrible writing. If that was to make us more attached to Tech so that his death hurt more, that is also terrible writing. I mean, he got a whole ass lovestory-in-the-making and that's the character you'll kill off?? c'mon. just as he was learning more about people and showing affection and social interaction, and learning how to properly and respectfully communicate with Omega??? that's when you kill him off? c'mon.
DENIAL
The fact that it was Hemcock that found him. You know the guy who does experiments on clones? Why lose such a valuable test subject? if there were any signs of life from Tech, he must've saved him, if only to use him and maybe modify him (again, Echo parallels)
DENIAL
✨ star wars medicine ✨
I mean, last season Hunter fell down a cliff from a moving ship and he survived just fine. I'm just saying.
DENIAL
BUT I would like to point out that being against Tumblr’s concept of Social Justice DOES NOT MEAN that you can’t be:
a feminist;
a leftist;
pro-gay rights;
or gay;
or trans;
or a POC;
or from any other oppressed group;
or just...
The Rite of Profane Ascention and Projected Shame: A Meta Analysis of Authorial Intent and Bias in Interpretation
If you are an Astarion enjoyer you are probably familiar with the following sentiments:
The crew member we can attribute this reading to would be Baudelair Welch, and they are not Astarion's main writer, rather the Senior Narrative Designer for Baldur's Gate 3. Astarion's creator and lead writer was Stephen Rooney, Rooney does attribute great assistance from Welch, however.
Welch was not initially part of the team, only being hired after the release of Early Access. As Welch as recounted the story, they saw Astarion during EA, wanting to become a part of the BG3 writing staff to enforce a particular narrative. The one that we are familiar with.
To better understand Welch's perspective on the concept of "Objectifying Fictional Characters" we must take a look at the indie game they developed during their time at Larian.
Don't Wake Me Up is a text based adventure game that puts you in the shoes of a game developer who is making a vampire dating sim. The twist being that the vampire character you created resents you for having romantic feelings for it.
While discussing the fact they wouldn't be adding "Good Endings" to their game, Welch describes their experience of having romantic feelings for fictional characters, often over real life people. A trend that, to their apparent frustraition, continued into their adulthood. I get this sense of shame, this desire to experience a more normative relationship with romantic feelings.
In a way, I feel kind of bad for Welch. I am a selfshipper, I think fictosexuality and genuine romantic interest towards fictional characters is morally neutral. However, my sympathy stops when Welch uses this to guilt their readers into feeling a certain way over narratives they don't have total authority over. Only very recently have people started to be cool about selfshipping, and phrases like "parasocial sexualization of fictional characters" does nothing to aliviate that stigma.
Hearing how the other staff talk about the endings, they do not share Welch's perspective more focused on player choice and the evolution of Astarion's Character through the player's eyes rather than a meta commentary on the relationship between player and character. As a roleplaying game, this is very much purposeful. Larian gives you the tools to tell the story you desire. To quote Neil Newbon,
"You might find him scary, and you should [...] but other people might really like that ending [...] going, actually I always saw Astarion going that route."
This a lot of meta context. Context that is not as blatant within the text as many who ascribe to this interpretation would want you to believe.
As a roleplaying game, BG3 gives you the option to depict your player character in a multitude of ways.
Is your player character a reluctant accomplace, determined to stay by Ascended Astarion's side no matter the cost? The game gives you that ability.
Do you see your character as an unwitting victim, a damsel to Ascended Astarion, a prisoner in a gilded cage? The game rewards this perspective in kind, the "freedom" lines coming to mind.
Or, perhaps your player character is mutually obsessed, a willing and enthusiastic participant in Ascended Astarion's villainous shenanagins. The game has options and responses that reflect this role as well. He is giddy, and gushes over how much fun you two will have if you lean into it.
A companion to this post, the poll I made measuring people's ending preference and weather not they were spoiled, is loosely tied to this. My methodology was, admitedly, a bit off. I neglected to add a neutral option, and of course my sample size is limited.
However, my theory was that among people that preferred keeping Astarion as a Spawn over Ascending him were exposed to spoilers, and my follow up question was meant to measure weather or not Welch's commentary had an effect on that.
Taking a look at the poll, the overall preference is for the Spawn ending, however, amongst Spawn enjoyers, they were often spoiled for his ending. I didn't get much feedback though, so weather or not this perception of Ascention had an effect on their choice remains conjecture.
What is interesting, however, is that through the polling process, (and the poll is still in progress at the time of posting this, so keep that in mind), the spilt between the other options were relatively even.
Make of that what you will.
Looking at all of this together, and from my perspective, I cannot see ascention as the "bad ending" , sense much of the argument for that perspective uses Welch's words as if they were gospel. To me, a bad ending is zombie astarion, or blowing up Gale in act 2, or letting Lae'zel perish at the Creché. I will however call it the EVIL ending. Ascended Astarion IS a villain, but I think the distinction between "bad" and "evil" is an important one to make. I cant see it the way Welch does, because I simply have an idiological opposition to their veiwpoint, a sentiment I feel is shared by many AA enjoyers.
I want to end this by stating very directly: this is not an attack on Welch as a person, rather a cirtique of of the bias inherent to the way they write and interpret fiction. A bias, I feel, people should be aware of.
I see nothing but slow healing of a deep, open wound in Tills poem. Everything will be fine.
In fact, him covering his heavily scarred arms in tattoos looks to be part of that healing process.
Eels live in deep waters.
Tiefe Brunnen muss man graben wenn man klares Wasser will.
❤️
Tbh he has a pocketful of traits - some a bit weird, some a bit wonderful, some a little bit annoying; some canon, some adopted widely by the fandom, and some I don't remember where they came from - but definitely, when I think of Lance, I think of the guy who got himself blown up for Coran (whom he barely knew then), the guy who didn't think twice trying to defend Pidge from torture, who put his pride aside and encouraged the change of leadership, becoming the right hand the team needed, and stood himself between his sister and an entire enemy spaceship like he could do shit about it (and he somehow fucking did??), and was the only one able to see even a glimpse of Shiro within the lions.
I think of the guy who was second in everything he did - flying, being smart, when he was rejected as a leader, and when the princess chose a war criminal over him. That could have been his villain origin story and yet, no one even hesitated, no one ever doubted him. There is not a bad personality trait of his that cannot be faced with a reverse example of how wonderful he was. Except crude jokes. Those will be always there.
Happy birthday to him 💙💙💙
linktr.ee/mezzy
(update)
I don't know if I'll mentally be able to keep up on the situation after this. The amount of stress it has put on me in the span of a week is quite something. People have (I am unsure if this is true) supposedly doxxed Alex Kister along with her parents. My anxiety is at a high. Tumblr, TikTok, Reddit, and Twitter are currently virtual battle grounds on the TMC side. Specifically, Twitter and Reddit. Despite my own siding with the victims, I think that the situation has quickly started to reach dangerous territory and spiral out of control due to the unfortunate and reckless behavior of some. We still haven't even received an official response from Alex, and we may not if things continue in this way.
Please understand that even if what Alex may have done was terrible, doxxing under these or any circumstances could very well get a person KILLED. Some are starting to say that the document contains some transfem misogyny as well as transphobic wording? towards Alex by StirringJuice in it along with their Tumblr post. Analysis documents are being released by others due to inconsistencies/wording. Stirring has said they hardly want to consider themselves a victim. We are unsure of what is happening anymore; a lot of people keep spreading misinformation about the original document, important clarification/additions on the situation by some involved keeps being deleted; which only adds to our confusion. Everyone is becoming more angry and hostile towards each other.
Some of those who were staying neutral/wanting to hear both sides and etc., have been harassed, given death threats, and driven to the point of committing. Someone was going to attempt to end their own life due to the harassment and real life consequences they faced for asking questions, but luckily enough, they were just in time stopped from following through by a family member of theirs. The people on the other side aren't necessarily all the "evil, awful, parasocial "monsters."" You see them as, some of them haven't even seen a singular volume of TMC, nor know who Alex is. Of course, we support the victims. But please do not allow your anger to consume you and commit reckless actions against others online that could result in real life deaths. Do not escalate the situation to such levels. This has been one of the worst fandom responses I've seen in quite awhile.
Realize that no matter how much evidence you place down on the metaphorical table, skepticism and questioning by some will always be something bound to happen in situations such as these. One cannot simply attack, harass, give death threats to and attempt to doxx others for it. I myself do not condone doxxing. The amount of danger you put on someone's life and those around them by doing so is immense. It is, simply put, absolutely abhorrent behavior to do so.
The Mandela Catalogue is not fetish material! That was in fact confirmed as misinformation by StirringJuice, so stop saying that it is. It is not. As it is with many of my other interests, I'll be separating the art from the artist so I will be staying in the community. (art ≠ artist) If you want to cut off associations from TMC, I understand. But if you do not and people are pressuring you, Know that I support you in staying. You do not have to force yourself to leave. Other fandoms have had similar issues with creators in the past. I could list multiple examples, but I won't.
Dear TMC fans, fictives, coping links, kinnies, and everyone else out there in the community, this isn't your fault at all. Please don't beat yourself up over loving, having loved, or hyperfixating on a fandom. Sources and interests don't make us bad people by association; no matter what anyone else says, remember we are not the creator, like what you like. I know the situation is stressful, so stay strong. If they harass you, block them. If mutuals unmutual you due to fear of being associated, they were never there to stay in the first place. The real ones will stick with you through this; trust me, I know. My own have not left me.
I know you're scared, perhaps sad, disappointed or extremely angry but I believe we'll get through this.
And remember, although awful, this too shall pass.
🫂
Big hugs. I love you all♥️ -Eve
i don't know who needs to hear this today but making poor decisions doesn't make you stupid, making mistakes doesn't make you dumb, and having motivations that others don't understand doesn't make you an idiot.
it's so important to fight. I wish we didn't have to, but if we don't we will continue to be erased and abused. fighting yields results, which is why the pride riots and such are so significant to every queer person's history. And while infighting only makes the whole community weaker, anyone who goes out of their way to silence other queer people and/or kick the ladder down deserves the pushback they get. because they are also standing in the way of a better existence for queer people by starting petty internet arguments and insulting teenage trans boys for being guys.
So we need to keep talking about transandrophobia. we need to keep raising our voices. For every transmasc and man who feels they just have to take the abuse, for our visibility, and for the betterment of the trans community.
i'm going to continue talking about what trans men experience and transandrophobia until we finally break the silence forced upon transmasculine people and trans men. we are no longer tolerating being invisible, pushed aside, mocked, abandoned, disrespected, questioned, harassed, and denied the right to be addressed correctly with respect and grace.
trans men and mascs are going to exist no matter how hard you try to deny our identities, or abuse us out of them. there will always be transmascs and men no matter how hard you try to prevent us from talking about it, publicly sharing our identities, or finding community. no matter what, trans men and mascs will always be here and it's best to just let us carve out spaces for each other because trying to silence us permanently isn't working.
we are trans. we are queer. our masculinity and manhood is not a threat to you. we are not inherently dangerous. we are not "ruining our bodies with testosterone". we're not confused. we're not stepping on trans women's and transfemme's toes when we create spaces for ourselves and talk about our issues. we're not taking resources away from other queer people.
we need resources, too. just because someone is a man or masc does not mean they will have an easy time making a lot of money. it's still hard for transmascs in transition to find well paying, stable jobs. workplace discrimination still exists- "female" deadnames and F markers are still going to get in the way- especially now that they know you are trans. workplaces can still fire trans people for them being trans, especially in states where at-will employment is in place. they can claim they fired you for one reason, but it was really because you are trans.
policing the verbiage and identities of transmascs and men is not going to make us stop identifying with them. trans men are allowed to call ourselves trannies- we are trannies. we're allowed to call ourselves dykes and butches and lesbians. we're allowed to have multiple genders, including being women, without that invalidating our masculinity and/or manhood. we're allowed to be and dress femme. we are allowed to choose whether or not HRT and surgery is right for us.
regardless of how much someone hates these things- they're still going to happen. you can tell us that we can't be "real men" or that we can't be wholly or partially women, genderfluid, closeted, detrans, non binary, genderqueer, butches, femmes, dykes, lesbians, or sapphic- but we're still going to be those things anyway.
resistance won't make us go away- it just makes us angrier, and it makes us fight harder for our rights, and the rights of our brothers, siblings, partners, husbands, fathers, relatives, and every transmasc and man out there.
Lily: We all have that one friend who always thinks of everything in a dirty way!
James: SIRIUS!
REMUS: SIRIUS!
PETER: SIRIUS!
Sirius: HEY! I don't have a dirty mind, I have a sexy imagination!
it is so wild to me when people act like the fire nation isn't sexist because azula's girl squad is badass when azula mai and ty lee are all such perfect representations of women living under sexism. azula is the only woman in ozai's war room, and she is a smarter strategist and a more powerful firebender than the high-ranking men we see (e.g. zhao). the implication is that she has to be the absolute best to get a seat at that table. mai is treated as a prop for her father's political ambition, raised to stay quiet and out of trouble in a way that reeks of women being expected to be compliant in service of men. she's bored and checked out and has trouble expressing her feelings because she's so used to not being allowed to express anything. ty lee grows up lost in the shuffle, desperate for attention, desperate to please and contort herself into a shape that people find appealing, and that manifests as making herself into a stereotypical girly-girl, making herself seem inoffensive and non-threatening by playing on sexist stereotypes.
azula's perfectionism, mai's detachment, and ty lee's girly persona are all ways in which women react to and adapt to living in a sexist society. they overachieve to try to break the barriers, they check out emotionally, they learn to play the role people expect. azula and her girl squad are powerful women certainly but they are absolutely women living under sexism
honestly as a proshipper i'm sick of writing essays on why i enjoy complex media. i could teach antis about critical thinking and depiction not equaling condoning all day and they still wouldn't listen.
i'm just going to start saying i don't give a fuck.
kids could see this content and be affected? don't care. it's triggering to you and others? don't care. it's not what the original creator would have wanted? don't. care.
it's not my job to educate antis. i'm tired.
Do you think Richard lets his grey hair grow out a bit when he isn’t touring?
I like the idea of him chilling out at home in all his silver fox glory.
Hi 👋🏻
That's a topic I'm thinking about on a weekly basis. Richard really loves his jet black hair dye and has been quite loyal to it in the last two decades, yet I think he's a bit more relaxed about it in his downtime 😌
My suggestion is that he might let his hair grow out just a bit when it's not required to stand on stage, or when he's just too lazy to make his next hairdresser appointment (unasked for little fact: he once mentioned in a podcast that the hairdresser studio he frequents always has 80's themed radio playing, and he always is a bit irritated that he could sing a long to almost every song, no matter if he likes it or not. Oh the power of 80's music).
In my mind, Richard is lounging on his couch, getting the rest he needs, watching one movie classic after the next (where he also sometimes gets lyric ideas from as he mentioned here) and his hair looks like this - just a little touch of grey but not too much. I don't think he's ready to delve into the silver fox era just yet 😅
ABOUT THAT WRONG THING
Here’s the analysis I promised. *** CROOKED KINGDOM SPOILERS *** WHY WAS MATTHIAS HELVAR’S DEATH JUST WRONG? 1. THE WAY IT HAPPENED 1.1. The Hand of the Author “The Hand of the Author” is an expression that indicates how much we feel the presence of the author into the story, the moments in which they intervene to manipulate the events in a forced and unrealistic way instead of following the coherency of their own plots. Now, let’s think about the sequence of the scene: a) Matthias if left alone and unarmed at job done; b) the boy has been able to follow him despite the messy situation; c) Matthias decides not to defend himself and talks to him in a kind and totally reasonable manner; d) the boy shoots him anyway. This death is absolutely anti-climatic, forced and disrespectful for such a character and the scenes from chapter 38 to 40 seem to be completely disconnected from the rest of the story. It looks like the author (despite her statements) was going to finish the book and said : “Oh, no, I cannot end this story without killing at least one main character, let’s kill the one I think the readers like less!” Even though Matthias was the worst character to kill off, as I’m going to explain in Chapter 2, if the author desperately wanted to kill him, she could at least give him a more decent death, like, for example, making him sacrifice to save someone. 1.2. Confusing sequences Matthias is shot by the young drüskelle, but he is still able to run to Nina. What does this mean? Why does the boy let him go, after shooting him? I honestly doubt Matthias has killed him to escape. Maybe he has knocked him down, but that wouldn’t make more sense to the entire context. 1.3. Fjerdan mentality Matthias gives the young drüskelle valid reasons to put his gun down: he has no weapons and cannot go anywhere. Do Fjerdans, filled with hatred but also obsessed with honour and discipline, really teach their young soldiers to be blinded by anger and kill a wanted man (“Dead OR ALIVE”) who is unarmed and willing to cooperate? The boy could have become a Fjerdan hero, if he had brought Matthias as a prisoner to his companions, rather than shooting him for no reasons and then being also unable to prove he killed him. 1.4. Double standards An author cannot build an unrealistic plot armor to some characters (for example, Kaz, a limping boy, who defeats all the Dregs alone) and kill others in a totally “random” and anti-climatic way, at job done. As I say in my small guide “Five simple rules every author should know about characters’ deaths”, double standards compromise the logic and the coherency of the story. 2. THE WAY IT BREAKS BASIC NARRATIVE RULES 2. 1. Character development Matthias’ storyline is mainly focused on two topics: his relationship with Nina and his character development. He literally spends two books to work on himself, unlearning everything he was taught since he was a child and finding a new purpose based on his change of heart. When characters are made to evolve during the story, the most logical choice is to give them an opportunity to make their development useful and significant outside of their safe zone (for example, their group of friends). And, most important thing, an author should never kill their characters if they haven’t complete their development. And that’s why Matthias was the worst character to kill off at the end of Crooked Kingdom: first of all, he hadn’t fully complete his development (he was still very insecure during social interactions and was still fighting against crumbles of Fjerdan mentality); secondly, no one out of the Crows has seen his development, since the author made him fail during his first real attempt to demonstrate something. I think people would need practical demonstrations to make a change possible, it can’t really be enough for them to hear his story from Nina. It’s just not realistic. Killing Matthias in that way and in that moment, made the character uncompleted and his entire development vain. I’ll conclude the subchapter with a simple example: why do you think it was Jack to die in Titanic, instead of Rose? Because Jack was a complete character, while Rose was still completing her development and had to put it into practice. The criterion is the same. 2.2. Characters’ deaths and their impact on the story Authors owe respect to their characters and have to build their paths properly from the beginning to the end, to guarantee quality to the story. Unless they’re writing a story about random events of human life, they should kill characters only when their deaths make sense to the plot and can give a valuable contribute to other characters’ storylines. A story lacks of quality when characters (especially main characters) are killed just for shock value, to add unnecessary angst and suffering to other characters or because “I cannot give a happy ending to everyone, happy endings are for children”. Matthias’ death was anti-climatic, useless and has so little impact that, if a reader jumps chapters from 38 to 41, it almost seems nothing has changed. 2.3. The failure After everything Matthias did to change and evolve, the author made his first attempt to put in practice what he learnt a huge, undeserving failure. First of all, even though he is unarmed, Matthias is fully able to defeat the boy but he doesn’t do that, that means he chooses not to defend himself. He wants to give the boy a possibility, he wants to demonstrate that there’s still hope for Fjerda. And his faith is repaid with death. These kind of plot choices SOMETIMES (and not in this case) can make sense if written at the beginning or in the middle of a story, not at the ending, when everything seems to be resolved. What is the author trying to suggest us? Fjerdan people are hopeless? If Matthias hasn’t been able to persuade a young boy, who, despite his anger and hatred, should have a more “elastic” mind, how could it be possible to convince older people in Fjerda, who have lived with their beliefs for decades? Does the author really think it is realistic that Nina’s words will be heard by Fjerdans? I’m starting to think her and Matthias’ dream is just destined to fail… * SPOILER FROM NIKOLAI DUOLOGY * (Please, don’t mention me the Nikolai Duology, which I tried to read but I abandoned due to several reasons, one of them, I consider the Crows’ arc closed, after that ending, and I don’t like the idea of using the group only as a “passage moment” for both a character and a major plot. And to be honest, I think it’s just not fair that the work Matthias started to change Fjerdans’ mentality would be finished by a character who is just similar to him (well, even too much similar) but hasn’t faced everything he went through with Nina. It sounds like Bardugo is trying to replace him and this is bad. 3. THE AUTHOR’S STATEMENTS And now, in the third and final part of my work, I’m going to report some statements the author said during interviews about this choice and explain why I cannot help but strongly disagree with her. 1. “Matthias didn’t deserve a happy ending because he spread too much hate, he had to pay.” Okay, first of all, Matthias didn’t just wake up one morning, deciding to spread hate for no reasons. Do we need to think about his background? 1. He had always been taught to fear Grishas and see them as monsters; 2. A group of those monsters killed his family and he has been taken by a man who took advantage of his trauma to turn him into a weapon. He received bad teachings (and not only from Jarl Brum, but also from Grisha people who burnt his family alive), he has also been able to unlearn those teaching and decide to do something to repair and make things better. About the “he had to pay” stuff, excuse me, but he has been tortured in Hellgate for a year, being forced to kill wolves, that were not only sacred to him, but also reminded him of his own pet wolf, and living with the belief that the girl he fell in love with had betrayed him. Wasn’t that enough? And, last but not less important, here we go again with double standards: Matthias, who understood his mistakes and was determined to fix them “didn’t deserve a happy ending,” but Kaz Brekker did? Kaz is a great character, but he also did terrible things and I’m sure he’ll never do anything to fix them because he’s too broken and rotten inside. That’s okay, not all the characters are made to have a great development, but statements like this, when we compare the two characters, just sound a bit incoherent. 2. “He has been killed by the younger version of himself” Does the author really think this is a great symbolism? Doesn’t she know that being killed by a younger version of yourself, especially after you went through a great redemption arc, just means “Regression”? She’s basically saying that it doesn’t matter if you worked hard to change and to fix your mistakes, you don’t deserve to be forgiven, you are your past and you’re destined to be destroyed by it (unless your name is Kaz Brekker). Past is a part of us, of course, we cannot change it and we can be hurt by it, but we cannot let it “kill” us. The message the author gave is just wrong and filled with extremist, unnecessary moralism. It definitely doesn’t fit the atmosphere of a Young Adult novel, which should promote progression, instead of regression. As I said, she also seems to be willing to demonstrate that Fjerdans are just evil and will never change. I wonder if Bardugo has ever seen “The Lion King”, because Rafiki would be very disappointed by all of this. 3. “I knew from the beginning I would have killed him off” Even though the way she killed him seems to demonstrate something different, Bardugo has always stated that she wanted to kill Matthias by the moment she created him. Okay, we can believe it, but I can still speak against this statement. How? I’m sure this thing has happened to many writers: we create characters and decidespecific endings for their storylines, but, while we’re writing, those characters “come to life” into our hands and they sometimes evolve out of our control and start to lead us to a different path. Since the story is made by our characters, we should follow the directions they take, for the sake of the plot: we shouldn’t listen to fanservice or to old plans, we should listen to our characters. That’s why it can happen we end up saving a character we were meant to kill of at the beginning, as well as killing a character we hadn’t plan to kill off. It is just wrong to stubbornly follow an old idea that doesn’t fit the story anymore, that’s why authors cannot use it as an excuse to justify their mistakes. (The finale of “How I Met Your Mother” is a great example to explain this concept). 4. CONCLUSIONS “Geez, what was that for?” - It doesn’t matter. It’s in the past. “Yeah, but it still hurts!” - Ah, yes, the past can hurt. But the way I see it, you can either run from it, or… learn from it. (“The Lion King”, 1994) Matthias wasn’t even running away from his past. He faced it. He wanted to do something about it. He was ready to rise from the ashes of his past and work for a better future. And those are all the reasons his death is just wrong from every kind of perspective: narrative, logic, symbolism. Matthias Helvar deserved better. Not only from his life, but also, and especially, from the author who created him. *** Hope you agree with me. Haters stay away, I won’t change my mind. Don’t make flame under my post. If you agree with me and like my work, feel free to share. Thanks for reading!
Absolutely Anyone Can Beat Dark Souls
This post has been a long time coming and today i just decided to bang it out really fast.
The Dark Souls or general “Souls” games have developed a little bit of an intimidating reputation over the years but I have always maintained that absolutely anyone can beat Dark Souls if they’re willing to have the skill to and if they’re brave enough.
A major misconception about the Souls games is that they’re “masochistic” and you just die every five seconds until you eventually get lucky and get through. Some hard games are like this, the bad ones, but Dark Souls is not.
The most common phrase used by dark souls fans to describe its gameplay is “hard but fair”, and it’s an accurate descriptor. Every attack made by an enemy in these games can be seen coming through telegraphs or recognizable patterns in their behavior. If you get hit, it’s usually your own fault, not the game just pulling a cheap trick to kill you one more time for its “hard game” reputation. You have probably also heard of people doing challenges like “beating Dark Souls at level 1 with only a Guitar Hero controller” or other things like that. That takes incredible skill, but it says just as much about the games as it does about the skill of the challenge players. A game that was not “hard but fair” would not lend itself to challenges like that. It would be impossible without just the right stats, and there would be only one way to beat the game.
To make it in a Souls game, it helps to have fast reflexes and the ability to understand RPG stats, but what you really need is patience and the ability to think strategically several moves ahead, like in chess, but in real time. Do not panic, though, these are skills you will start to very quickly develop once you start playing. Playing hard games makes you better at playing hard games. Even if you’re like “oh I suck at video games”, which like half of you reading this say about yourselves, you’re better than you think you are. The only reason anyone is bad at anything is because they haven’t got enough experience. Since I told you you need to be thinking strategically, though, you’ll develop that skill faster because you know you’re supposed to be doing it. You’ll start thinking about how many swings you can get in before the enemy swings again, thinking about how close you need to be standing to close the distance when the enemy is vulnerable but not too close so you don’t get hit, paying attention to how much stamina your actions cost, finding pauses where you can safely heal, etc. Spamming buttons typically won’t work and will get you killed.
Some cowards may be wondering why they would want to go through the trouble of all that when they could instead just play some other game on Easy, and the answer is confidence and satisfaction. It’s the same reason a meal you cooked completely yourself tastes better than a bigmac. And, you’ll enjoy the cooking process as well.
These games are also more forgiving than you think. Dying does not reset your progress, it just makes you lose your money, but you can get your money back if you manage to make it back to the same spot you died at without dying again. The money is only lost if you die twice in a row without claiming it. You can also often just run past hard enemies if they’re too much for you, just watch out because some will follow you. Also, most Souls games have a mechanic where you literally can’t die in one hit under normal circumstances. For instance, if you have 500 HP at full health, and get hit by an attack that does 600 damage, the game will stop you from dying at 1 HP.
I introduced my fiancée to the Souls games, and she was very intimidated by their reputation and steep difficulty, because before that, the hardest action game she had played was Kingdom Hearts on the easiest difficulty. She died almost ten times in the tutorial area(this is not normal in any of the Souls games), but she stuck with it. It wasn’t long before she got it, and started to really have fun with the game. She went on to beat every Souls game she could get her hands on, solo, frequently killing bosses on her first try and discovering secrets with no outside help. You can also see from her artwork at @chaospyromancy that they have clearly left a lasting impression on her and have enriched her life. They will enrich your life too.
The Souls games also each have unique and interesting stories to tell, which, like the victories in battle, are not just handed to you, but instead require you to think, be observant, and do some detective work, piecing together scraps of information to understand the whole picture. This parallels the combat gameplay, making you feel smart and accomplished for being able to do it yourself instead of just being told directly.
Each game also has many, many secrets and hidden areas that you can miss completely. My recommendation is not to compulsively Google everything, but instead only start looking things up the second time you play the game, or right before the final boss. It’ll make your second time playing more interesting because you’ll be discovering lots of new things.
Unless I’m forgetting one, there are six Souls games from From Software, each with unique mechanics and stories to tell. They are all good, and all have my recommendation. I’m going to recommend a variety of different playing orders for different reasons. Also, Elden Ring is coming out soon.
Release Order
Demon’s Souls
Dark Souls 1
Dark Souls 2: Scholar of the First Sin
Bloodborne
Dark Souls 3
Sekiro
This is the order that most people who are long time fans have played the game. There’s nothing wrong with it.
Rising Difficulty: Gameplay
Dark Souls 2: Scholar of the First Sin
Dark Souls 1
Demon’s Souls
Dark Souls 3
Sekiro
Bloodborne
This is for people who are still intimidated by the challenge of the games, and starts with the easiest and ends with the hardest(though this is subjective). Sekiro is really difficult to place on this list because it has some of the easiest levels by far, but also some of the hardest bosses. So I guess you could put it anywhere on this list.
Rising Difficulty: Detective Work
Sekiro
Demon’s Souls
Dark Souls 1
Dark Souls 2: Scholar of the First Sin
Dark Souls 3
Bloodborne
This is the list for people more into the story. It kind of has a rising difficulty with Sekiro having by far the simplest story but it also groups the Dark Souls games close together so you can play them back-to-back.
Hybrid
Dark Souls 2: Scholar of the First Sin
Demon’s Souls
Dark Souls 1
Dark Souls 3
Bloodborne
Sekiro
This is my personal recommended play order because it starts with the easiest and increases in difficulty as well as increasing smoothness of mechanics. It’s hard to go from a newer, smoother game to an older more clunky one. And also I argue that Dark Souls 2 is almost completely divorced from Dark Souls 1 and Dark Souls 3, making it a spin-off rather than a sequel that does not necessarily need to be played right after Dark Souls 1. In fact, you might even be more confused by Dark Souls 2 if you play Dark Souls 1 first. Even though it’s still like a 7/10, Dark Souls 2 is also widely considered the worst Souls game, so i think it’s more enjoyable to play it first and then play a better game after it, rather than playing a better game before it and being disappointed by the downgrade. This is also why Dark Souls 3 is right before Bloodborne. Dark Souls 3 and Bloodborne are very similar in a lot of ways except Bloodborne is better. Mechanically, it feels like a sequel to Dark Souls 3, even though Dark Souls 3 came after.
Murder Death Kill Bite Violence Maiming
Bloodborne
Dark Souls 1
Dark Souls 2: Scholar of the First Sin
Dark Souls 3
Demon’s Souls
Sekiro
This is my beautiful fiancée @chaospyromancy’s recommended order because it encourages more aggression when playing the whole series. Bloodborne teaches you to be really aggressive, and she argues(with a good point) that you will enjoy all the games more if you play them more aggressively rather than hiding behind a shield. Demon’s Souls and Sekiro are also only placed at the end there because she hasn’t played them yet.
About Scholar of the First Sin, and the remasters of Dark Souls 1 and Demon’s Souls.
Scholar of the First Sin is a redone version of Dark Souls 2 that changes almost everything about the game and is widely considered to be the far superior version of the game. Play this version definitely.
Dark Souls: Remastered is more easily available on PC and works better on PC. It also has better working multiplayer. However, in some cases the graphics actually look a little worse than the original. Either version is fine, since I actually strongly recommend the Souls games as solo experiences for a first playthrough, but if you want to play the original version on the PC you will need fan-made patches to make it work properly.
I have not played the remaster of Demon’s Souls so I can’t really give an opinion.
General Tips:
If you are grabbed by an enemy, in most Souls games, quickly spamming the attack and block buttons during the grapple will reduce the damage you take.
In Dark Souls 1, Resistance is not as useful a stat as it might sound. Some players will tell you to never level it up, but it isn’t that bad, just not very good either.
In Dark Souls 2, you will need to make sure you level up your Adaptability stat quickly in order to play the game normally. Get it to about 18-20 at least. In most Souls games, the effectiveness of your dodges are tied to your armor’s weight, but in all versions of Dark Souls 2, your dodges are tied to your Adaptability stat. You will need to level it up in order to dodge properly, and you will need to dodge properly.
The Souls games save automatically and frequently. You cannot just quicksave and punch a guy in the face to see what happens. You have to live with the consequences of your actions.
That being said, if you piss off an NPC, there will usually be a way to get them to forgive you. This usually involves talking to another NPC who is a priest and will absolve you of your sins.
There will be no arrows pointing you where to go, but don’t be discouraged if you feel lost and confused. A big part of these games is the element of exploration. If you get lost enough you will eventually wind up where you need to be.
Most Souls games have no pause feature, and this is something you have to get used to. If you really need to pause, instead just save and quit your game on the spot. You will pick up exactly where you left your character standing, unless you are fighting a boss, in which case it will eject you to the entrance of the arena.
Warning: Several of the Souls games automatically reset you to the beginning of the game after the end credits happen, particularly off the top of my head Dark Souls 1 and Bloodborne. Get everything done you want to get done before facing the final boss. It will be obvious when you are at the final boss.
Most importantly, do not give up! This is actually a core theme of most of the stories, which is why the high difficulty of the combat is so important. If you can’t get past something, change your strategy, level up a few more times, or try exploring a different area first. You can die an unlimited number of times and still beat the game. The only real way to fail is to give up completely.
I hope I didn’t leave anything out.
You all have no excuse now.
Good luck.
one sided scollace but instead of wallace suffering its scott... i keep seeing one sided scollace where wallace always suffers and shit
LOL ive actually thought of this a lot before i lowkey love the idea that maybe wallaces perceived attraction is warped from scotts main character syndrome in a way where hes like "well he likes men so of course he wants me" and if he ever tries to go for it imagine a moment like the kim kiss in vol 6 where its like "havent you always been there for me? you liked me but i didnt realize i swung that way yet." and wallace has to be like "what. you thought I'd want you just because im gay?"
in something more adjacent to canon though i think a very likely scenario is that scott only realizes the extent of his feelings well after wallace moving on so theres really not much that can happen but it makes him wonder what could've been. I always found it interesting how much scott seems to dislike mobile for absolutely no reason LOL