Negativity
And so I was thinking ... drawn into contemplation over the negativity that drives a lot of the discourse on the internet. What does keep me from feeling bad about it - about participating - is the realization that I couldn't shit on the Star Wars sequels anymore.This isn't a new take. I've heard someone else say it before - and so, here I am, following in the footsteps of whoever came before me, saying the exact same thing.
But that doesn't mean that I don't feel bad sometimes. About a few things. Maybe even most things that I'm "supposed to be" negative about. And yea, maybe it's time to shed some light on it - and get a few things sorted out.
But what to start with? Dark Souls 2 or the pros and cons of Monopolies?
I mean, something always bothered me about the argument that concurrence is good.
I mean, I understand why people think that way and I don't really disagree. But yet it's not all that simple. I mean, here in germany for instance we have laws against price-dumping. That's by the way how Wallmart failed to expand into Germany. First thing they did was try to have a price-dumping race against the discounters already established here - and I hope that we'll find something similar to also shoosh Tesla from our soil.
But that's more so a matter where Law and Order is in the way of rationality. Oh yea, what's that again?
So, why is price-dumping bad? Well - I guess I'd need a refresher on the details, but I suppose it's just overall bad for the economy. I mean, to sell something for less than someone else, that'll take a toll on the sources for the thing. Milk-prices have for instance been a topic that's been on the news ever so often.
And then, when having out-competed the other company - somehow they might get driven from the market and that's ultimately the goal. Attract customers - until maybe it's too late.
And yea. People could argue that price-dumps are good for the consumer. But ... only for so long. Until the quick high comes to an end and you're left dealing with the consequences. Which get to some sooner than to others.
I mean, that's like the entire story with Walmart in the USA.
Like - how they've built up a vast empire of underpaid factories, that one could not easily compete against. Unless enough came together to just not shop at Walmart anymore.
"Competition is good" is thereby on par with "Letting your wallet speak" - the latter also only being good if you have like ... the luxury, mental capacity or resolve to "make it so".
So yea, there just are things - things that people would definitely do that just aren't good. And it feels like ... our media is somewhat biased. But it's not so much the media. Say we had two news companies. The one trying to do their job right - and the other being mostly a propaganda station. A political tool. So, at this point, reality is already skewed towards the propaganda station because it is taken as on-par with the real news station. It's like ... either you get real news or fake news. But it's not just that simple - because people that consume the propaganda will inevitably carry their mental state back into society. It's like pollution. Maybe a little bit of toxic gas here and there doesn't matter. But if you have a station that just puts out enough to push the toxic output above what the environment can compensate, you have a buildup that'll eventually become harmful.
Then, technically, at this point you need some counter-weight to provide some kind of balance. It's like a literal slippery slope though. You have news and propaganda - seen as equals - where the average now is ... kind-of lost in the in-between.
And the real news station can't really be like, at least in this thought experiment, be any better at their job. So, what's this concurrence supposed to be good for?
But legally speaking - when is something propaganda? When should we be upset/concerned? What constitutes free speech? How does opinion and individual bias affect journalism? It's ... not that simple!
I had another hypothetical come to mind yesterday. Let's say person X has a hobby. So, they're interested in a thing and there's a broad range of companies that provide products for that hobby. And so X is going to buy things from here and there. Let's say then that one or two of those companies is ... just 'evil'. The point being that they're just bad - and how bad is something we try to figure out here. Like, how bad can a company be? In whatever way?
So, it starts simple. Another company pops up that has product - and people review it, honestly let's say, and it turns out to be decent. Good enough. But they stick out with a little more pazazz to the thing, maybe a more premium packaging, a more 'high end' quality looking color palette - the usual that a corp might try to attract customers. And that might be a good thing as it might attract new people to the hobby. Overall however, because we have to find ways for how evil works here, it's weird how some company can come out of nowhere and have enough product for an already saturated market. That market is now getting split. So, because the people that are invested on average only spend so much money, a fraction of that is now going into the new stuff - and that takes profits from the other stuff. People sense it, develop a negativity for the new thing, while other people say that concurrence is good - like "Git Gud" - but things anyway go to shit. Ever so slowly.
And a principle idea behind this thought experiment (sorry, expanding on it turns out to be more effort than I'm prepared for right now) is how much the new entity even cares about the hobby. Or the product. Because if all they cared about is profit - they're not there to provide good product, but to conquer the marekt. The kind of thing that anti-monopoly laws are written for - except those won't affect them until it's like ... too late.
Thereby it's implied that everything about the new corp can be wrong. Their ethics behind developing new product when there's no more "normal stuff" to dunk on - to be better than - when people are just tired of all the "high end" nonsense that's become normal and melancholy sets in over the things lost. Their work ethics when it comes to their employees - like, how do you think they made all that money? And ontop of that it might just become another propaganda piece.
And stuff.
I mean - to stick with Star Wars - wasn't the thing, after the Prequels, that someone needs to step in and not let Lucas do Star Wars anymore so we could get like ... "real Star Wars"? Yea, how did that go?
I mean, I'm actually happy about how Matrix 4 turned out. I like how everything in that movie is official canon - and I can basically rest easy not being worried that Matrix is going to suffer the Star Wars treatment. I mean, everything is possible - maybe - but for right now I think the last thing I'd want is yet another malformed Franchise worth complaining about.
However, when it comes to general fuckery and fucked upness, that's like ... just the tutorial level.
Although it might get a little conspiratorial.
There's this thing called Astro-Turfing. Some might be familiar with images of Bot-Farms. That stuff is a real thing - and I'd argue we barely have an idea of how the world might look if we could just ... filter the effect of those away. And sure, there's trolls; But ... hmm. That might be how it started.
I mean ... I have some negative things to say about Dark Souls 2. And I appreciate "MauLer"s video on the matter; Similar to his Star Wars takes; Because it's just an objective analysis or deconstruction if you so will. The negativity attached to it - well, I guess that's just the cultural friction that comes with the subject matter.
I could here go on a whole tangent of how certain individuals get a bad rep because they're like ... maybe too specifically ranting about things that got "too woke" - or too uneducated on certain topics to be like "defensible". Thinking of Asmon Gold there.
But anyhow. I don't there mean to say that all of the things that MauLer ever said about either Star Wars or DS2 are like why I don't like those things. And I suppose those analysis are on par with say ... the early stages of academia. It's a step into the right direction, but the field isn't ripe or mature enough for the "lessons learned" to be ... easily applicable. "Academic Hubris" comes to mind. Like when talking of the Souls games in general, or From Soft - ideas of what makes a game challenging and fun - I find a lot of similar phrases when it comes to that. Like, how beating a boss feels rewarding. It's certainly true - and "difficulty for difficulty's sake is bad", sure; But ... I don't think it's that simply. We're certainly not at a point where we could take out our trusted checklist and accurately rate a game by those metrics.
My problem "starts" with realizing that me being negative about DS2 comes with all those implications. That I'm like "standing with MauLer", having all this list of objective Facts to tell you why the game is scientifically bad. Because, I'm sure it isn't. It might not even be objectively bad. It's just bad in comparison to the ""true" Legacy" Souls-games. For a variety of reasons. So it's more like I'm admitting that I'm a little bit snobbish when it comes to how I enjoy "my" games.
I mean, the thing is this - that is, removing all the social clutter for now; So, just my own take: I haven't played DS2 a lot. The longest I've played it was via remote Play on the PS4, the dude who got me hooked on DS3 originally watching and dropping some hints here and there. And saying that I couldn't get into it is to say as much as that something felt off in whatever way, hard to say, I don't care to give it a rating. But, whenever I'd express my appreciation for the Souls games, there's that 'Dark Souls 2' lingering in my mind. This idea of, how people might think that I'm also talking of Dark Souls 2. Like, the further we move from people who could tell the difference, the more likely a person is to think that they're all the same. And that's where my problem starts. Give or take.
Ontop of that ... I'm like under the impression that for some reason Dark Souls 2 is "The definitive Dark Souls experience". I mean, it's like the sequel to Dark Souls 1 but "more death" or whatever - while Dark Souls 3 apparently got a bunch of criticisms from established fans. I'm sure that this is an impression of those games that's alien, albeit somewhat familiar, to those that are familiar with the subject. Like, "what do you mean DS2 is seen as "the definitive DS experience"?" - and yea, it is not; And that somehow needs to be emphasized because if DS2 did something good, it was marketting.
So, my issue with it - most of the time - isn't even the game itself but the struggle of distinguishing it from the others. But to someone who then doesn't pay a lot of attention to what I'm saying might see me arguing that DS2 is just an objectively bad game.
And that's compounded by the fact that I can't say the opposite. I guess I can say positive things ... like ... well, it's functional. To me it's however just one of the many Souls-likes that I may or may not have played but also don't really care a lot about because From Soft has so far satisfied my itches pretty well.
And that also has nothing to do with "die hard". It's just that ... I don't care how good Lies of Pi is. There are games I yet want to play but either lack the time or money for. Like ... Doom Eternal. I really enjoyed the original ... reboot ... it's one of those games that kept playing after beating it - and still it's pretty low on my priorities list.
And talking of video games - I kind of see it as an obligation to offer useful insight for those that might be interested. Like, when I get into something new, I don't want to learn things the hard way. Like, especially if I don't have the money for it. I don't want to spend my money on shitty product. And yea, that comes with the downside of not knowing why something is good or shitty - but if something is barely usable and only good for collecting dust ... that's not what I want either.
Anyhow - that there's like ... two political camps that more or less claim ownership of certain takes on various subjects makes this whole thing not better. Like so has "DEI" become a term, or is it DIE - whatever; the general gist being that there's a slightly overweight PoC female weird hair protagonist that tries to look cool - which does in a way look like the scientifically crafted "anti gamer". Like so far removed from anything games related. Like ... a Pakistani Girl/Woman ... might anyway have more pressing concerns. Like possibly getting killed for wearing even remotely similar clothing as your average female videogame protagonist on either side of the spectrum.
So - I get where some of the hate is coming from. But I also think that somehow it also clouds people's judgment. That's because not all gamers are white and male. So, gamers making a big stink over female Characters not living up to their masturbatory ambitions ... that's ... sad. It's sad because if you can't get over fictional Characters that exist outside of your comfort zone, how could you reasonably deal with them in real life? So yea, you might not think it to be racist, but it kinda is!
And yet, some games are affected more than others. I mean, trying to get people to abandon Street Fighter, Baldur's Gate 3 or Elden Ring "because they're woke" isn't gonna fly! That because enough people are playing those games that'll gladly tell you to GTFO and STFU. But if there's a game that nobody really cares about; The hate mob will carry a lot more weight.
So far the Lore.
So yea. I'm in this world where all of that woke nonsense doesn't really affect me. Whatever "too woke" or "anti woke" games there are ... it doesn't bother me because I ... well, insert statement where I say that people who are stuck with those games have no taste and suck at gaming.
And sure. Capitalistically that's not a better end-result for this and that game ... but that's not my problem now, is it?
I guess we could say: If you (must) swim in the dirt, you have to expect getting dirty!
On the other hand: It's relatively easy to shit on gamers if you know what you're doing. So to speak. But uhm ... it's like ... "please do so in the designated areas".
Anyway. Now assume that there's this thing called competition. So, company X has reasons to not like company Y to succeed. And in this day and age it's relatively simple to find negative comments on in about anything. Or to just ... shit it out anyway. And then add some astro-turfing and just make it a little bit louder.
That's how what I feel is going on ever so often. And that then adds a different tone to people who enjoy Dark Souls 2. Because for once ... it's like ... we're supposed to let them have it. I mean, there's no problem with people who enjoy DS2. Or so we say. But if the bad game out of the bunch gets all the positive PR while the rest is stuck with whatever bad take there is out there - that's ... not real. I mean, it is real - as far as I could tell - but wrong. Fake News!
We're just like one step away from the "Chud DS2 enjoyer versus the Crying Wojack rest-of-the-games enjoyer" meme feeling like ... it's on point.
And it's not like it mattered anyway. But the further away we get from the reality of those games ... the more wrong the image will be; And ... that in turn has an effect. One that we might ignore - but it still ends up being a lens through which we then will be seen. For better or worse.
I mean - what could be good about it? Well, nothing straight, for sure. It'd be more like incidental positivity; Because ... in essence the circumstance isn't deserving of a defence in its favor. That's not what that is supposed to say. But while the forces at play are what they are - we might be doing more harm by trying to fight a battle we're not prepared to have.
And I suppose at the end of the day there are actual reasons for why I would yet continue to distance myself from DS2. I mean, in as far as the scenario is driven by "the meta perception" - so, the realm where D2's marketting is "the thing" - I have to call it cringe. I mean, yea, "Prepare to Die" is like ... marketing the game as "the game where you die a Lot". I mean, it's not like people didn't die a Lot in Mario Bros. either. Or Destiny - people be dying all the time there. And after being stuck on a boss for a while I'm sure as fuck that dieing isn't really the point of those games either! It's just a consequence. Sometimes dished out more ... generously than other times.
I mean, I'd be disappointed if I walked into a Dungeon and there wasn't at least one corner with an enemy hiding behind it. Is it fun? I'm sure in the moment it might just not be the case; But overall it could still add more than it takes. Atmosphere for once.
But anyhow. What I'm saying is that there are forces at play that try to paint certain narratives in certain colors - to so produce a public realm in which everyone has reasons to hate everybody else. Give or take. For whatever reason.
Like that we can be happy in our little bubbles, thinking that everyone else is inferior.
"Thou shalt not assume that something is impossible just because you think you're right!"
And I guess, all of this would be good to know if all the relevant topics weren't already soaked in this polarizing bullshit to the point where these things aren't even subtle anymore.
On the other hand we shouldn't be required to think around 40 corners because of how this might affect that, give or take over e minus pi; And we shouldn't need to be scared to get into arguments and more hopeful that we can be honest without it turning personal and into a feud.
But alas, there we were and here we are.
Here are some of my AC6 builds:
BaselessAccusation:
Originally equipped with the 10x Rocket launcher, the basic Laser cannon and the default Sword, this build constitutes the end-point of my initial route of progression: "Level Vigor, they said". It is born from the need of carrying the newest, top level stuff and a lack of in-depth knowledge concerning AC construction.
The center-piece is the LR-036 CURTIS in the right hand a long range cannon on the left shoulder. On the right shoulder sits the auxiliary "in yo face" device, to say: Rocket launchers that fire up are counter to the design philosophy of this piece. On the left arm a melee weapon constitutes an easy and effective close range option. This is topped off by the NACHTREIHER/46E Arm pieces for optimal rifle usage. OS Tuning prioritizes Kinetic Damage (after repair pack upgrades), followed by critical.
It was, to me, the logical conclusion to the default Mech after refits to meet my preferences. I assume that effect use comes with a high skill ceiling without a whole lot of benefits. I struggled quite a bit through the bosses with it.
A valuable lesson has been that the leg pieces are an important factor in AC design. Most importantly they determine carrying capacity. I went with these because the legs I wanted to use didn't provide enough capacity for the things I wanted to carry.
After the "destroy the HC/Catafract" mission I started a new game because I thought that I might get different rewards for finishing the other mission; Having been confused about what the "decision" tag meant (it means that the missions are mutually exclusive. Not sure how they affect incompleted missions as they somehow implicate plot progression). Anyway, the HC Mission gave me a really hard time. Getting back to it - I tried to build around the legs I meant to use, and came up with
Slingshot:
Originally equipped with the default Sword, it proved to be really effective against the Sea Spider. This also marked the point where I learned to appreciate the Songbirds - something I withdrew from because that firing behavior wasn't what I thought when reading "Grenade Launcher". And I was wondering about some device that would do just that. Deliving high yield explosives at high velocity towards the enemy.
Based on that and on unlocking all the Training mission gear, that led me to
AC Hammer:
Originally carring the default Laser cannon, it is a simple attempt at maximizing the payload delivery. The "destroy the HC" Mission proved to be challenging - but this is what I did it with. Which is also why it has a spot on this list.
Much like the previous one.
Being unhappy however with a perceived lack of direction, I aspired to start from scratch - removing all weapons while trying to focus on speed first; As that's - even with BaselessAccusation - the stat I worried about the most. This gave birth to
Flashpoint:
Originally equipped with the x3 plasma launcher, it combines the general design principles around a quick and agile frame. This setup is in about as much as goes without having to consider compromises.
The build proved to be very effective. Based on that, two prototypes have been created. After testing, the
RX2-Valkyrie:
became the go-to backhand model such as for zooming through the Arena.
A valuable lesson learned is how the Generator affects carrying capacity and overall AC effectiveness. The RX2 series lacks a consistent setup between Chestpiece and Generator in order to prioritize any particular loadout specification. To notable RX2 models that emerges are
RX2-Lancer:
For good performance against ["Mecha Malenia"].
Following some inspiration from the tubes it tries to make good use of the weapon swapping technology to maximize the amount of oomph this frame might carry.
and
RX2-Sun Tsu:
As an experimental divergence from the Lancer model. Primary fire consists of heavy MG fire with auxiliary stun needles and swift melee attacks; The VE-60SNA being "the good measure" to go along with that.
RX2-Empress 2:
Is the current top-shelf model and culmination of the aforementioned process. It marks the return to a long range option, opting for a laser cannon for the occasional extra punch. Notably it also resembles the foundation for the RX3 series, which more specifically focus on the NACHTREIHER over the FIRMEZA chest pieces.
The in-depth reasoning first acknowledges, that the FIRMEZA chest piece IS the preferrable one. It may yield slower recovery time, but does boast a larger recovery rate. When however running with a high energy requirement, the choice of Generator - IIRC - negates this advantage of the FIRMEZA enough to make the NACHTREIHER at least worth considering.
Therefore, overall, the Empress 1 might be the superior model.
RX3-Hornet:
Means I'm bad at version tracking - possibly because in my situation there isn't a real point beyond a certain degree of granularity. This build ... is similarly ineffective. For what it tries to do the impulse dagger might be the better choice - and while not actively playing the game to check why I might have made which choice it's hard to tell why some of the things might be the way they are.
On that note have I not yet learned much about Recoil. I know it exists and might be something worth looking into, which might again make some difference. Maybe lighter or more energy efficient arms could make a better cut; Maybe the better cut comes at another cost of weight or energy such that more severe compromises have to be made.
Off Note: I didn't pay much attention to the color material up until late.
being where it's at right now. 27 for the colored bits (generally) and 24 for the base.
Also: Progress is steady, even if sometimes stuck in a ditch.
And that's that!