13·
1 year agothe thing they worked on for eight years, fourty plus hours a week, just doesn’t exist anymore. poof.
peppersky [he/him, any]
- 0 Posts
- 542 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
Cake day: August 27th, 2023
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
Pour one out for the people who worked on this game for like half a decade
its a bioware game and they haven’t made a single good game in like a decade plus. who the fuck gives a shit if some chuds say or think anything about it, they always rage about some shit. it just another shitty game in a line of shitty games who cares
6·1 year agoIGOR was great because it was weird and personal and completely unoccupied with trying to be cool or tough or anything else a rapper normally tries to be.
him rapping about having to worry about “getting trapped by a bitch” is just so fucking lame, like who the fuck cares. he has nothing to say, which is a shame because he is such a talented dude and the production is completely there (although when he falls into his regular trappings, with that piano sound and that buzzing monosynth it just feels like youve heard it all before)
10·1 year agothere's a shit ton of text inbetween the [...] which i would recommend one reads because the shortened quote leaves out way too much to be of any value
If white radicals are serious about revolution, they are going to have to discard a lot of bullshit ideology created by and for educated white middle-class males. A good example of what has to go is the popular theory of consumerism.
As expounded by many leftist thinkers, notably Marcuse, this theory maintains that consumers are psychically manipulated by the mass media to crave more and more consumer goods, and thus power an economy that depends on constantly expanding sales. The theory is said to be particularly applicable to women, for women do most of the actual buying, their consumption is often directly related to their oppression (e.g. makeup, soap flakes), and they are a special target of advertisers. According to this view, the society defines women as consumers, and the purpose of the prevailing media image of women as passive sexual objects is to sell products. It follows that the beneficiaries of this depreciation of women are not men but the corporate power structure.
First of all, there is nothing inherently wrong with consumption. Shopping and consuming are enjoyable human activities and the marketplace has been a center of social life for thousands of years.
The locus of oppression resides in the production function: people have no control over which commodities are produced (or services performed), in what amounts, under what conditions, or how these commodities are distributed. Corporations make these decisions and base them solely on their profit potential.
As it is, the profusion of commodities is a genuine and powerful compensation for oppression. It is a bribe, but like all bribes it offers concrete benefits — in the average American’s case, a degree of physical comfort unparalleled in history. Under present conditions, people are preoccupied with consumer goods not because they are brainwashed but because buying is the one pleasurable activity not only permitted but actively encouraged by our rulers. The pleasure of eating an ice cream cone may be minor compared to the pleasure of meaningful, autonomous work, but the former is easily available and the latter is not. A poor family would undoubtedly rather have a decent apartment than a new TV, but since they are unlikely to get the apartment, what is to be gained by not getting the TV?
The confusion between cause and effect is particularly apparent in the consumerist analysis of women’s oppression. Women are not manipulated by the media into being domestic servants and mindless sexual decorations, the better to sell soap and hair spray. Rather, the image reflects women as they are forced by men in a sexist society to behave. Male supremacy is the oldest and most basic form of class exploitation; it was not invented by a smart ad man. The real evil of the media image of women is that it supports the sexist status quo. In a sense, the fashion, cosmetics, and “feminine hygiene” ads are aimed more at men than at women. They encourage men to expect women to sport all the latest trappings of sexual slavery — expectations women must then fulfill if they are to survive. That advertisers exploit women’s subordination rather than cause it can be clearly seen now that male fashions and toiletries have become big business. In contrast to ads for women’s products, whose appeal is “use this and he will want you” (or “if you don’t use this, he won’t want you”), ads for the male counterparts urge, “You too can enjoy perfume and bright-colored clothes; don’t worry, it doesn’t make you feminine.” Although advertisers are careful to emphasize how virile these products are (giving them names like “Brut,” showing the man who uses them hunting or flirting with admiring women — who, incidentally, remain decorative objects when the sell is aimed directly at men), it is never claimed that the product is essential to masculinity (as make-up is essential to femininity), only compatible with it. To convince a man to buy, an ad must appeal to his desire for autonomy and freedom from conventional restrictions; to convince a woman, an ad must appeal to her need to please the male oppressor.
For women, buying and wearing clothes and beauty aids is not so much consumption as work. One of a woman’s jobs in this society is to be an attractive sexual object, and clothes and make up are tools of the trade. Similarly, buying food and household furnishings is a domestic task; it is the wife’s chore to pick out the commodities that will be consumed by the whole family. Appliances and cleaning materials are tools that faciliate her domestic function. When a woman spends a lot of money and time decorating her home or herself, or hunting down the latest in vacuum cleaners, it is not idle self-indulgence (let alone the result of psychic manipulation) but a healthy attempt to find outlets for her creative energies within her circumscribed role.
There is a persistent myth that a wife has control over her husband’s money because she gets to spend it. Actually, she does not have much more financial authority than the employee of a corporation who is delegated to buy office furniture or supplies. The husband, especially if he is rich, may allow his wife wide latitude in spending — he may reason that since she has to work in the home she is entitled to furnish it to her taste, or he may simply not want to bother with domestic details — but he retains the ultimate veto power. If he doesn’t like the way his wife handles his money, she will hear about it. In most households, particularly in the working class, a wife cannot make significant expenditures, either personal or in her role as object-servant, without consulting her husband. And more often than not, according to statistics, it is the husband who makes the final decisions about furniture and appliances as well as about other major expenditures like houses, cars and vacations.
Consumerism as applied to women is blatantly sexist. The pervasive image of the empty-headed female consumer constantly trying her husband’s patience with her extravagant purchases contributes to the myth of male superiority: we are incapable of spending money rationally: all we need to make us happy is a new hat now and then. (There is an analogous racial stereotype — the black with his Cadillac and magenta shirts.) Furthermore, the consumerism line allows Movement men to avoid recognizing that they exploit women by attributing women’s oppression solely to capitalism. It fits neatly into already existing radical theory and concerns, saving the Movement the trouble of tackling the real problems of women’s liberation. And it removed the struggle against male supremacy by dividing women. Just as in the male movement, the belief in consumerism encourages radical women to patronize and put down other women for trying to survive as best they can, and maintains individualist illusions.
If we are to build a mass movement we must recognize that no individual decision, like rejecting consumption, can liberate us. We must stop arguing about whose life style is better (and secretly believing ours is) and tend to the task of collectively fighting our own oppression and the ways in which we oppress others. When we create a political alternative to sexism, racism, and capitalism, the consumer problem, if it is a problem, will take care of itself.
I’ve bought dozens of games on key sites. The only time I’ve ever had an issue was one key got revoked a month later and the game removed from my account then presumably because it was bought with a stolen credit card or something. 99% of cases I didn’t have any issues though
Going to that shit is like a hundred bucks, I was kinda thinking about going as a joke but not if I have to pay for the pleasure of getting fascist propaganda in ballet form
I didn’t say that there were no worthwhile creative works being made today. There certainly are, but they are few and far removed and there are more and more bricks being put in your way when you want to get to them. Algorithms make actual discoveries impossible. There are fantastic movies on Netflix from all around the world that the service will never ever recommend you, no matter how long you scroll through their site. Global distribution through the internet is a scam, if everything is just a click away you are only in competition with every other artist on the world, all the while peoples attention spans are being sold to the lowest bidder. Back when you had videostores or recordstores you had actual human beings who you could ask for recommendations, you could walk through the aisles and just pick out whatever looked interesting.
And even besides that, the economic realities of being an artist today are just going to make it more difficult to make good art. Why were there so many great artists in new york in the 70s and 80s? Because the rent was low. You won’t make great art if you have to work 60 hours a week just to pay your rent. Gentrification kills the scene.
Considering basically everything in the world has been going downhill over the last decades as late stage capitalism takes over every part of our western societies, it is a complete fallacy to think that art could somehow be immune from that.
It is genuinely unfathomable just how hard the culture industry has turned everything into slop. No one can tell me that music, literature and movies weren’t better ten years ago and not still better ten years prior. And the consumer has gotten so numb and stupid that they don’t even realize it.
The fucked up thing is that they’ve continued to make good and interesting sets in interesting and varied setting until now (and seemingly will continue to do so, I’d love to see the space opera set that’s releasing between final fantasy and Spiderman), even if some sets obviously are more successful than others.
There are so many creative and talented people working at that company, but no amount of money they make the investors can ever be enough.
The fucked up thing is that they’ve continued to make good and interesting sets in interesting and varied setting until now (and seemingly will continue to do so, I’d love to see the space opera set that’s releasing between final fantasy and Spiderman), even if some sets obviously are more successful than others.
There are so many creative and talented people working at that company, but no amount of money they make the investors can ever be enough.
Just pirate everything you can and call for a complete reform of copyright (or abolishment of copyright if you want to be actually cool). You’ll never get anywhere with arguments about preservation and shit, why would a government that doesn’t care about preserving the planet care about preserving some shitty videogames
What a good game that was (when I was twelve and beating someone to death with a dildo was peak humor)
I’ve been playing like a thousand hours of Magic Arena and learning to love the game in that time, but I think this is the end for me. It’s is such a fucking shame too because Magic is such a beautiful and elegant game, that somehow manages to reinvent itself again and again. I even really liked the new planes and places they introduced, where they really pushed the boundaries of what the game is and delivered really different sets year by year.
The problem might just be that it is too flexible of a game, where every genre or IP can fit within it, every character archetype has some place in the colorpie, every possible action can be mapped onto a card type or game action. It’s such a shame that under capitalism that means that to attract as many customers as possible it has to become pop culture potpourri.
A smaller Elden Ring would have been a less bad game but also a considerably less good one. When I played through that game at release I had absolutely no idea where the edges of that gameworld were, and it allowed me to be lost in it in a way no other game has managed to. I’d not trade that feeling for any amount of replayability.
It’s such a fucking shame that the discourse around TOTK is completely dominated by stupid shortsighted “70$ DLC” arguments. TOTK is one of the most exciting sequels I have ever played. It’s everything people want when they buy a new console generation, except on the same old hardware. The toolset the game gives you to solve puzzles is absolutely insane, ascend and recall alone are genius ideas and they all fit together absolutely perfectly. They could not have made that game had they also made a new map and I am so glad they didn’t.
17·1 year agocommunism is when no banks and no money
dangerously lib. the whole story is about how an evil royal murders the king to become king himself and you trying to get the real successor on the throne (because he promises to be nice and stuff and abolish anime racism against anime fantasy races). if that wasn’t bad enough the game then goes full anime and turns the search for a successor into a magical anime gameshow where the next king is crowned by means of a magic popularity contest. it is peak “what never reading an actual book does to a “writer””. in many ways it feels like a giant step back even from persona 5, which even with all of its many many problems at least tried to tackle actual issues without hiding them behind layers upon layers of metaphor.
game also just isn’t that great. combat is better than any persona game, but the main dungeons are pretty boring and the side dungeons get pretty repetitive pretty damn fast, there is so much that just seems taken straight from persona 5 without much of a thought (i hate hate hate that the game just has to include fast travel because they couldn’t be bothered to write social links that actually work in the confines of the narrative they wrote) and then they also just didn’t add any of the actual flavour stuff that makes the day-to-day gameplay comfy and the world feel lived in.
it sure is quite something when you watch lady snowblood and realize that tarantino actually means “stealing” when he says “stealing” and that the originals always have a coolness to them tarantino couldn’t even dream of