Glide

What an insane take. If both sides are equal on one completely undefendable thing, then you vote based on other issues. One of the two parties are going to be in power at the end of this election cycle, regardless. Both are permitting genocide, and it's a fucking problem, meanwhile only one of those parties are actively working to strip the people's right to do something about that.

All this "both sides" bullshit feels disingenuous. If you were really concerned, you'd be focused on paths to solutions, rather than focusing strictly on trying to devalue Democratic votes. I certainly don't see any path to stopping this genocide that starts with permitting a Trump presidency.

My life is almost a total failure. I am in my 20s

Your life has barely started. It can't be a failure when it's barely begun. You spend 18 years with no real control over yourself or your trajectory, then you finally begin to make a few relevant decisions for yourself. Even if you're 29, you really only start your life when you're 19-20. That's 10 years out of 50+, assuming you live to be at least 70. You have only lived a small fraction of your life.

I won't pretend to know the unique challenges you're facing, the difficulities of finding work in your region/with your degree, or the social/economic struggles you're facing because I am so far divorced from your life that any direct discussion is so meaningless. I would never have the relevant information and context, so I can't suggest what you should do in a tangible way. What I can say, is this: find what you want to measure your life in, and work towards that. If you value your life through work and wealth, I can understand why you'd feel the way you do, but there far more ways to be prosperous, and things you can focus on.

A healthy dose of positive nihilism would do you wonders: each and every one of us is so tiny, so insignificant, that the difference between a "successful" and "unsuccessful" life in the terms you've defined literally do not matter. You and Elon Musk will both die and decompose, and regardless of either of your impact on the world, this rock we're riding around the sun will continue to support life for a time, and one day everything humanity has ever conceived will be dust, and our sun will explode, and the universe won't care if you lived with your parents or owned a mansion. The only things that matter are the things we, individually, give meaning to. If you choose to find meaning and value in creating art then your work has meaning and value. If you choose to find meaning and value in helping others find joy and happiness, then dedicate yourself to your friends, your family and your community, because that has meaning and value. If you want to experience the world through literature and media, then engaging with that material has meaning and value. No one else can define what matters to you in this world, because they're not you.

I'm sorry that what you've spent time and energy on isn't panning out for you. I really, truly am. But step back, and think about if those things matter to you because they matter to you, or because everyone else has told you it's what a successful, prosperous life looks like. Then consider what your version of a good and meaningful is, and chase that. Many people waste 10, 15, 20+ years on things that they ultimately realize don't bring them joy. In a way, you're lucky to have found out sometime in your 20s that what you've been working on isn't leading you where you want to be. It took me until 33.

No satire here; I genuinely think it's a great example of a remake done well.

There are some major breaks from the original plot, which in itself would be neat, but they introduce an entire plot element that interacts with this derivation. The spirits I was talking about, "Whispers" (had to look up the official name, tbh), appear whenever the story attempts to break from the original story from the original release. In universe, this is explained as pre-determination, or destiny. Thanks to our meta knowledge, we know in reality that these spirits are attempting to maintain the timeline from the original release.

As an early example, after the events at the first Mako reactor, Cloud decides to collect his pay and go his own way, which is not the original intended path of the game. To correct this, a group of Whispers attack the party, and ultimately injure Jessie, preventing her from going on the mission. Needing another body, Barrett is forced to rehire Cloud for Avalanche's mission to the next reactor. Without spoiling specific details, the whispers slowly become a form of antagonist as the characters try harder to get away from the original plot of FFVII.

This is interesting in a few ways. First, we've introduced a new major conflict in the form of the characters fighting against a physical embodiment of destiny. They do not want the outcome of their struggles to be predetermined, particularly as that predetermination involved the death and suffering of some specific characters. This is, in my opinion, an interesting new plot element beyond being "the same game again."

Second, stepping back, and examining this with a wider lens, we can look at the Whispers for what they are to us, the players, rather than what they are to the characters. We know they are not maintaining "destiny," but instead trying to reestablish the original story we loved. As a result, I see the Whispers as the collective voice of the "change nothing" remake ideology. When a community asks for new content of IPs they love, there will always be diehard essentialists who want their loved stories to remain untouched; the Whispers, then, are these people.

So if the Whispers are a physical representation of the "change nothing" remake ideology, then what is there to make of the fact that they're largely an antagonist? This seems to me that the writers were critical of this culture, so much so that they ask you to fight it to earn the different take on the story. Of course, it's far from the only derivation from the original game, but that's exactly my point: FFVII remake was so far divorced from the conceptual, soulless "let's pump out the same game again" remake that they literally wrote that culture into a new antagonist.

But isn't it featured in the list of games being given a short film via Secret Level? I kind of assumed the goal was to promote it via that episode and re-release the game around the same time.

Dammit, and I JUST bought some of his chocolate as a gag/to say I tried it earlier today!

I feel like people are taking this commentary a little too literally. I don't think it's intended to suggest that all remakes are always bad and we should be ashamed of ourselves for enjoying them. Mankind has a habit of romanticising the past, and that's led to something of a modern obsession with nostalgia. These are fair, and interesting, statements.

That said, the choice of pairing the statement with an allusion to FF7 is probably not a great choice. The remake is fantastic, and isn't at all symptomatic of the problem of quick cash-in, nostalgia driven remakes. Hell, the first game specifically tackles themes of pre-determination, which functions as a pretty on-the-nose metaphor for nostalgia. And fascinatingly the meta-analysis of this is critical of exactly the same thing: there are literally spirits of sorts which attack the player and manipulate events to ensure the original story remains untouched, and they become a prominent antagonist of the game as the player works to tell a story that is different from the one told in the original. Perhaps there's something counterproductive about attaching this message to a remake that's critical of soullessly telling the same stories we've already heard.

My friend, I hate to tell you, but that's just not true. We are incredibly at the whims of everyone else to even get too and from work or school each day. We only have running water, electricity, food in the fridge, etc., because we all depend on each other.

Don't mistake being independant with being self-sufficent. Don't mistake requiring the support of others for requiring the support of any one, specific person. Every single one of us is dependant on many of us, but none of us should plan on being dependant on any one specific person for our entire life. And that's okay. This is how society functions, and life is a lot better for it.

Though I am sorry for whatever happened today to leave you feeling that jaded. Some individuals really just aren't worth it. It sucks when we think they are, and find out the hard way.

I've just haven't had universally good, or even clear majority good, experiences with cats. I don't "dislike" them, but I don't choose to like a given cat by default, because I never know what I am getting into. The cuddliest cat can and has suddenly decided it is clawing the shit out of me without warning, and without fail the owner acts like that's just their cats personality, or just a "cat" thing.

I've never had a dog react in such a way unprovoked. Sure, I've met asshole dogs, and they warn me not to go near them immediately. But I've never had a dog wander up to me, insist on pets, and then all of a sudden bite me.

I like animals that try to tell me how they're feeling, rather than flip with no warning, and I feel the same way about people.

I can see the logic behind the mistaken correlation between narcissts and cat haters. Cats are known to be independant animals, unlike many other pets that praise you unconditionally just because you provide the food. They don't feed a stereotypical narcissists desire. But it's a gross oversimplification of both human-animal relationships and diagnosible narcissism to suggest that there's any real correlation between the two based on that.

Don't you see? That's the enemy they're up against, so they have to cheat! /s

Right. As in all cases involving freedom and liberty, my freedom to swing my arms ends where your face begins. This is hurting someone.

Even if it weren't such a rediculously politically charged topic, these girls are likely to now have peers who see Ted Cruz's statement. They'll have to deal with some of those peers making comments, and mocking them for being "masculine." We have countless cases of bullying getting out of control and leading to serious psychological and physical harm, and now we have grown-ass men in positions of political power enabling this kind of behaviour to do what? Weaponize gender issues and spread hatred along political lines?

Fuck Ted Cruz, and fuck anyone who thinks a grown-ass man commenting on the gender of and posting images of young girls should be protected under "freedom of speech". This is abuse of power and child abuse. You wanna save the children, Republicans? Start with saving them from your leadership.

Pre-empt: Everything I say is in regards to the original release. I have not played the pristine cut.

It is definitely intended to be deeply uncomfortable. It has a very "cosmic horror" vibe to it, while playing on themes of relationships, love and romance. Both the player and the princess will die, repeatedly, in sometimes gruesome ways, and sometimes absurd ways. Body horror will happen. You will read descriptions of flesh and bone seperating. But despite all that, it ultimately is an emotionally endearing experience.

It's good, but not great. The story is impactful and meaningful, and it does a great sort-of incidental meta commentary on literature.

An opinion which I find most players don't share with me: the ending was incredibly weak, to the point that I felt it really detracted from the experience, which led me to my "not great" assessment. It has a bad case of "the only decision that matters is the last one," which isn't the way I like these seemingly heavily malluble visual novels to go, and none of the endings feel genuinely satisfying. Worse, my first ending set up for something of a second attempt towards a "golden ending" of sorts, only to pull the rug out from under me and just kind of... end, instead.

The storytelling is great, the writing is engaging, the voice acting is fantastic, the art is gorgeous... There's a lot to like about the game, so I don't want to make it sound "bad," because it's quite good. It just sold itself to me as a kind of "choices matter" game, where I'd find myself digging for information and answers, so I can learn more and make better decisions on multiple, short playthroughs. I hoped to eventually either discover everything I want to discover and feel good about my explorations, or use my growing knowledge to find the "right" ending, whether that's a "golden" ending or an ending that I find satisfying and rewards me for my effort. But, for it's variety choices, it's not really that kind of game. It is, at its heart, a linear game, with some variation in the experiences you have between where you start and where you end up, with a couple choices in the last moment determining which page you flip to before the credits roll.

Maybe I expected too much, and the problem is with me. I can't deny that my opinion could be based on a failure of expectation. But, I restate, it's good, but it's not great.

"I'm a gamer myself, and therefore I know what I'm talking about"

Should we call it a fallacious call to authority, meme on it for being a "how do you do, fellow gamers" moment, or simply mock the guy for whoring himself out in favor of daddy corporate? I could write an essay on the ways this is an absurd statement.

Gamers hate Denuvo because it doesn't "simply work". It limits paying customers from accessing their content, bogs down mid-range machines that are already overtaxxed by poor optimization and, in admittedly uncommon cases, full on breaks some games until patches and fixes roll out. Stop pretending that "gamers" are out here rioting because they're too cheap and immoral to pay for content. Quit your fuckin' lying.