[straightening some things]
So ... there is this guy, Cenk Uygur, ... I don't know if you know. But the thing is ... the thing, I wrote of before. And now I want to write a bit more about the things he wrote. I'm watching the 'third' "reaction video" on those things right now (ReviewTechUSA, David Pakman, Secular Talk) - and generally I get the sense that people are confused about how these writings led to ... that given outcome.
"Outrage" ... of course. But over what? On the surface level this whole outcry is bullshit already. "But thats how it goes, yada yada, bla bla" ... whatever. But, ... lets ignore the fact that Cenk distances himself from those writings ... and lets look at what he wrote objectively. I'm here referring to the two things that ReviewTechUSA quoted. There is, I would say, 'honest social commentary' in the writings of both of those guys. Right? The one is less relevant because he's just bitchin' about "cheap sluts in Miami" ... OK whatever. (Or ... "not so cheap" ... LOL! [hi-hat]). And the other guy is left flabbergasted about ... teen sluts. And I know that type of girl ... sortof. Have been in that age myself and ... lets just say that drinking and being around on the streets was like coming together and if you're like ... 13 or 14 years old ... thats stopping nobody from giving you stuff to drink!
And sure - to some degree some part of me wants to make sure that I'll write these things in a way that would make "such snowflakes" be outraged and make me resign or something ... where "too bad" ... that that won't happen!
So Cenk stated that this was during the time where he was still a conservative ... and ... sure! I get that. There is also some criticism to be had; But I get it! Conservatism is a much more ... arrogant and ignorant thing. Its the "woops, thinking? Not with me bro!" type of stance on things. As the opposite of progressivism - its all about 'not making progress' because mayhap the own mental capacity doesn't allow that person to take any stance on progressive issues. And he's a Turk. I don't mean to be racist - but lets face it: Races have certain 'at least' cultural differences that give 'prejudice' some kind of ... value. If you know what kind of things 'drive' a certain culture you can have a pretty decent idea of what certain people are like and this won't fail you often! But that only ... if you're ... reasonable. You're judging a 'culture' there, not the independent person. I mean - family rivalry, blood vengeance, ... all that religion/honor related ... righteousness, ... thats as far as I know part of the Turkish culture ... and not all may be liking that; Which is where the individual is at. Here the turkish population may not be different to the german one, for instance. But the fact that it is a part of their culture makes it so that those that don't like it - still kindof have to live with it. Germans that don't have that in their culture don't have 'that' particular problem.
But however. I would argue that 'still' - no matter how not serious that guy was at that time - that he at that time thought that there is some genuine truth to the things that he's writing. And you, dear reader, shouldn't pretend like you can't see what that truth is/may be.
What does that make of Cenk? OK, his statements ... are pretty ... irrelevant. ANd yea ... thats kindof what they are. He doesn't like those statements ... and I also can relate to that. They show him as a person he no longer wants to be seen as. That isn't anything related to the content but the 'person' behind them. You could argue that as a liberal he has to distance himself from that. But either you're too young or you know ... how it is when you grow up and look at your past and ... sortof want to ... forget it ever happened ... give or take.
So I want to review those things as from a different person. Just some random horny guy running through Miami. What these SJWs now are saying is that under no circumstances could that person be allowed to become politically active ... howsoever. But oh, he ended up co-founding Justice Demorats, the very group he got bitchslapped out of for having been that person!
Don't you see how wrong that is?
on Destiny and Destiny 2
Videogames are a fascinating thing. I'm delivered to a fascinating insight, ... and talking about Destiny 1/2s Loot System will take us there. There's a thing, ... in Destiny, ... that arguably only a few do come to get a taste of: true, genuine, luck.
Its not only Destiny that employs RNG to distribute rewards - but Destiny is a little special in that ... it is what it is. Comparing Destiny to any other Online Multiplayer First Person Shooter ... the clearest line I saw so far is that in "classic Games" there is a 'split' between online and offline content. There are the menus that get you into a game, and that game is played online, versus or with others, ... and once the match is over its back to the Menu. Destiny now has an emulated environment instead of those Menus. The Menu basically is: Pick your Character. There-after you're "in Orbit" and whatever the game has to offer is done from there. There so are things that could be replaced by a simple menu. The entire tower/social space could be just that. Yet it puts the individual you are into a grander perspective. Instead of having a Character thats usually not there, ... the Character aspect is 'there on screen' ... all the time. Minor detail. It also gives the back and forth, from Mission to Orbit to Base to Orbit to Stuff, ... more of a sense of a journey. Minor detail? Sure. Where my argument has to be that the players Character is much more in the foreground - technically a lot of that just comes down to those choices of presentation,
Yet its integrated into the gameplay. We could think of a Version of Destiny where all the navigating would only be a menu. So, waiting for people to join the party wouldn't visually be the orbit, but some box top-left that shows the people in the team, and that so in a mundane green/grey-ish monochrome box. But then - Destiny is Destiny for the things that are then being done. And ... what Destiny has to offer are a variety of activities. There are "single player" segments that can be played in a team, there are 'team strikes' - and next to the PvP content those PvE scenarios are, when thinking in terms of PvP, just there to give you better gear. You play, you earn stuff, and the more you earn the better things will get as better gear replaces older stuff, ... while all of that progress isn't really tied to these individual missions. Not anymore at least - at least, ... there's the token system now. So, instead of gear you'd get tokens that you eventually can get stuff for. And I guess that breaks/broke "the Destiny immersion". The issue that yet ... players get into these adventures and come out with better stuff to do stuff with. And in Destiny 1 that meant that the very same thing you got already could still have been slightly different.
I didn't really have a fixed opinion on the 'random roll' to 'fixed roll' changes. I wasn't against it. But it should be pretty clear that during faction rallies when you redeem faction tokens and you get each piece multiple times ... it gets kindof pointless after the 4th or 10th time you got the exact same sniper rifle as all the times before. On the other hand everyone who has it has the exact same "True Prophecy" - but only a few even played it.
But whats so fascinating?
Well - in first place: Lets establish that the things someone gets in a Video Game are technically 'real'. Its a pretty ... "fringy" claim to make, but ... lets just invent a modern sect that religiously believes this is true just so we have a bit of a more expanded foundation dedicated to that matter. To so more realistically talk of those issues.
Otherwise we'd go and pretend they are 'not' real - which totally leaves all issues of the emotional attachments we establish something that can't be talked about properly. Well, lets explore one of the Dinosaurs of the gaming world: The Legend of Zelda. Once you start playing it you have 3 hearts and not even a sword. You have to get into that one cave right there on the first screen of the map and fetch it. Therewith enabling your virtual self to now strike at enemies. (There also are "no sword" runs of the game, by the way. The magic of how simple those games were). What I'm saying is that this sword 'has been' a 'real upgrade' at that time. And so is the hookshot in a Link to the Past which allows you to get across a canyon. And also what you have in terms of abilities in a fantasy game for instance. If you can throw fire, you're gonna have a smoother time to get through an area that is filled with enemies that are weak to it.
So there comes a game which would tell you: "Wait, you can now here buy - for real money of course - this magic wand which gives you the ability to cast fire". WHile the game is built so it doesn't give you any fire ability up to that point. So, because you don't like to spend that money you'll have a really frustrating time getting through that area. And some might be compelled to buy it. ANd all in all there is 'real' value to it.
Games in and of themselves are not good or bad because of parts that are too easy or too difficult. OK, if things are 'too' easy or difficult - to be due to that better or worse ... that is the case, but what I'm trying to say is that ... we can also over-exaggerate this and argue that games are inherantly bad because people cannot be trusted with that kind of power!
The way out of that is as it is with Fiction. Make the thing real within the confines of the universe. So, you level up through things done in the game, ... you provide some logical structure of obtaining those skills to make it to the end ... you know ... "the classic".
Thats where you can get to that point where you aren't a fire-mage, ... so, thats on you, ... thats bad luck. Therefore ... you're better off elsewhere. Maybe the fire-mage is the best fantasy class ... maybe it isn't.
But what is who supposed to get?
And there is what a few have called 'Gamer Entitlement'. Its like: Oh, I cannot play Street Fighter like Daigo Umehara - the game has to be made easier! It also sortof goes into that random vs fixed loot drop issue; Although this issue is split into that and the gameplay balance issue. Although - there is the potential best of a kind anyhow. But, thats a different issue.
There certainly is this 'voice' in gaming that ... well, I ... have to say, ... it takes us into darker areas.
Conspiracy, ... Esoterical stuff, ...
Starting with the 'complaint' that a game 'could be too hard' to be considered ... "legal" ... because of "social exclusion issues" ... err, ... really? Is this a thing?
Gaming Challenges are 'real' challenges. I'm not sure 'if' there is a 'raid' in any MMORPG where ... LOL ... not at least one player has to do something skillful. And if it is just moving from A to B at the right time. Err ... I can really recommend the 'the Ringed City' DLC for Dark Souls 3 for instance because ... its a really diverse challenge. But that is ... you can't play if if you haven't beaten the game yet. Or the Ashes of Ariandel expansion. But it is real. Of course I could beat the game for you and then let you play the expansion, but only a few could beat the game for you and not level the Character up once; So you could play it with 'your own' Character.
The 'Gear' I collect may be the same for everyone who traverses a given area - though certain things are hidden in certain corners, so, its a detour or a gimmick or a challenge. Whatever. Whoever gets through Dark Souls eventually gets the same stuff. But if you want to be like the Nameless King ... you got to face off with the Nameless King. The first boss of DS3 might seem stupidly tough at first - but actually, when familiar with the games mechanics, he is really easy!
Its a journey where everyone gets the same stuff - but nobody can use all of it! The player has a limitation in terms of number and weight of items he can equip/carry, and then ... skilling just int and faith doesn't go well with having a Claymore equipped. But its technically still viable ... say ... you can use it to break through shielded enemies; And use the spells for most of the damage. What you do, how you do it - that is your choice ... and choices you will make! Just get the first few Level upgrades and you're settled. What do you want? Strength? Intelligence? Dexterity? Its going to influence the equipment you can then utilize 'effectively' - and even for those who end up min-maxing, ... "bowing to Rosaria" ... sotospeak ... the options for how to optimize which playstyle ... its ... what it is. Diverse. I may not have the smartest build there is ... "the One" luck/bleed build ... but I don't need it. I'm effective with the Claymore as I am with Magic weapons. Period. End of the line. And I can cast spells. At the very least can I put those utility spells to use. Its better for PvE than it is for PvP ... but or whatever.
I'd call it: A 'heavy' assassin (Magical).
That'd go well with the stupidity/courage/relentlessness I tend to get at my opponents while generally playing a class within restrictions of a game engine that doesn't support that kind of ... thinking. So the strength of a Paladin in WoW is determined by the Level Ups and not his true virtue.
And so here we are: Loot Boxes and are they Gambling?
So, some people compare them to Collectible Card Games; But ... this comparison is flawed. When buying a pack of cards for a CCG, you of course buy what you need in order to play the game. What you get is fate. The one things cards always stood for I guess. You get what you need and what you have is what hand you're dealt. You're getting 'into' playing a 'Card Game' ... . If you however 'get into' playing a First Person shooter and you are required to buy Cards in order to get better at the game, ... you're forcing people to 'Gamble' - as - it isn't really a 'Card Game' that is being played at all. So, what they buy the 'cards' for is to be more powerful - and hence the 'getting more powerful' is tied to opening packages of random rewards. Paying time and money for them. Is it gambling?
Well - once we're arguing that 'this' is the game, Battlefront 2 for instance, ... that the game is like a Card Game ... in that it consists of you throwing money at it to get stuff in order to compete ... technically a card game in that the cards determine the odds while the game is played differently ... well ... ... I'm sure there are ways to make that kindof compelling; But being then so a card game it is also, as much as a card game, ... based on gambling. German: "Luck Game".
However ... what is Luck? Quantum Physics. Potentials. Thats what we get to in a game like Destiny. So - if the entire fate of the Universe depended on a singular dice roll, ... the meaning of how the dice rolls is a lot larger than if the dice only effects each Loot Roll. That is, each time Loot is being rolled out. So, there is a larger quantity of 'relevant' outcomes and while each outcome generates something that is then in direct competition with anything else that got rolled out - there is some ... 'even field' wherein this potential is unfolding.
Who gets what? I didn't get a God Roll 'Imago Loop' - but still had fun with my first one. The second and third, ... well - hit and miss. That was my luck with it - and - that was my "Destiny". Its not like its that big of a deal ... . Its ... life.
So there are people complaining about what they get. Its a meta-joke you get to hear from time to time. ...
WHats fascinating there is that we, in the broadest sense, created environments wherein we could take actions to actually regulate that sort of stuff. And thats why "random loot games" are ... somewhat ... to me in general ... on the iffy side of things. Things I enjoyed ... but in a very 'conservative' way.
Its a realm where a situation as simple as placing two stones into a room could derail in a vast discussion round about potentials and balance shifts and what not. So, instead of having a waterfall that happens to be populated by hefty creatures you got to argue in terms of how that matters within the gamers progression. Is it "the hard part" and shouldn't there be some gimmicky side-way to get past it easier? Or is it the 'tough and epic' final stretch or that 'unknown threat that gets you by surprise'?
Its like that. And thats why, sotospeak (I would argue), that you see the same two stones in a lot of games, just placed into a different rotation or maybe with a bit of changes here or there; ... which happens to be a deeply intricate science though someone however at some point just randomly placed two stones into a room.
"Waterfalls attract Hefty Creatures". Bam! Broke it!
WHat I'm getting at is that there is some science of manipulating the gamers experience by those methods of when to show what and get you to do what; At least in theory. Same for movies. And my point of argument is that those methods don't warrant an 'all-over' good story. Things that 'can' happen are limited by the forced demand for extended reason and purpose that in worse cases needs to live up to some degree of epicness.
But so there is this stranger standing next at the top of a waterfall and some mysterious eagle glides onto his arm - who has what he has through aeons of good work for the right people - and yea, ... most people won't ever get that! Except maybe through a Videogame that puts the player into these shoes.
Anyhow ... 'not having the answers' is maybe the big theme of Dark Souls. Its derived from something its creator once said - as I've heard - which is that he took inspiration - to Bloodborne at least - from having watched an English movie once but didn't understand a word of english. Something like that. Its another thing that makes me cringe - that everything supposedly needs to have some deeper meaning. That spoils the point of mystery ... but ... whatever.
It comes down to that though. That what a creator has on mind when creating a thing - that determines what the thing is - and when the consumer comes in the consumer in first place 'envalues' that whatever it is. By determination of fate. So - me holding up my own fictional little "Dark Souls (3) Badge" here - thats something about what Dark Souls 3 is and most of it what it is for me. That I now could have Dark Souls assets to 'style out' my identity is something that comes from that - and should the game be made easier for others to get the same things?
I would argue that to me, my DS3 Character would have a lot less value. Its not only difficulty that matters though. It are the experiences the game provides. As of that my World of Warcraft Paladin is a ... Lumberjack. From around Stormwind. Not much challenge implied there. Not much progress either.
What I'm saying is maybe identical to the answer for why "Overpowered Weapons" in MMORPGs generally have the villains theme. There just are those items that have this great strength those dark figures look after or forge for just that purpose. And if you want to pride yourself with the garments of those that overcome - if you want to "be that badass" - you should look nowhere else but what made those get there. For thats what it took. Thats how it was made. Thats what everything round about it comes back down to.
I mean - Dark Souls. I've created a Variety of Characters and played them to some degree. But there is the one I stuck to and did beat the game with. I might start me a new one to get to the Expansion - but I decided to take my NG+ Character to get through them. And that, so my point on my own there, because thats the build I "would" ordinarily want to play the most. Whether it actually makes sense in there or not. And sure - its totally legit! ANd if it isn't 'the best' - it only adds value to it in the end.
And at the very least is that being recorded in the Eternal Memory Banks, ... where all in all it will always be - I suppose - that greater challenges, ... are regarded ... that - so - special achievements will also always be that!
We technically are all the same. We could be all the same, do the same things, ... have made the same choices ... - but are 'circumstances' the only thing that determined our paths? I would argue that not! Its all about what we 'want'. And don't we all want the same? Maybe - ... ? I wanted to beat Dark Souls 3. For some reason. It fascinated me. I had fun with it. Now some would look at this with grief - and I got to wonder: Why? Where does it come from? How is there that? Why don't you just pick up a controller and beat yourself to it?
Its like ... you'd see what you would want to identify with - but what you see there are "people who 'are'". And why am I dragged into an argument about identity here?
Its because of what we want! Why we want what we want. How we want it. "What things we pursue".
Why we pursue them.
So - identity and Clarity for instance. I am what I am - and I do the things I do. And what is that? What do I do? What have I done? What are my actions making of me? Some would - I guess - like to argue that my actions don't correspond to my 'Clarity' - and yea, thats what I'm trying to say here. Its the thing about good and Evil in the realm of God, where 'Evil' isn't 'Evil' - and so me being evil 'there' is different to being 'evil' - as of which I wouldn't do evil things ... "regardless".
So, the "being evil" in the good way is about being ... true to God we might say. Honest about disagreements or disalignments or things like that. Being a true legitimate satanist that is endorsed by God would be someone like that. Someone who is "Satan" (Against) - but endorsed by God, ergo ... righteous and that. So, you don't get that "evil cred" by being just evil. Thats gonna get you fried!
So, there is barely any synergy between the good Evil and Antichristianity. While it would seem that there is a common line of disagreement - that is strictly not really the case. God is superior, perfect, ... all that superstuff, ... due to which we need to learn that so there isn't any disagreement. We may all have been Antichristians of some kind ... before ... and there-after just weren't. Those disagreements don't carry over. How could they? What Antichristians want is basically that their wrongs are being accepted, ... that they get in despite them. Which in some way turns into some form of Clarity esque philosophy - which in comparison to me at first sight seems a lot more like personal ass kissing than actually trying to kiss your own butt.
First you have to straighten yourself out and then we can talk about what individuality there is.
Because thats what it is all about. Fitting into the whole. Being a good person. That sort of thing.
That I prefer being a whore to maybe get my inner beast curbed upon other things ... is I guess ... a matter of individuality.
Well - "again" - the issue with Clarity isn't of 'wanting'. There is no 'need' to want that which I am. So - the rain drops down a slanted roof. There is no need for a slanted roof to want that to be the case. It is ... 'given' ... as by its ... simple ... form.
That goes to say that you have to 'accept' that, ... well, if you're fat for instance you won't be the next Scarlett Johansson.
And that women look stupid when taught to fight like a man ... good that Hollywood has found women that do look like they can fight ... outside of china ... is another talking point on matters of gender differences.
And what it takes.
The matter of looking at your own self - and making it count rather than just ... being arrogant about it. It seems like arrogance is what the Antichrist blames us for/about - but we aren't the ones that pretend that just being who we are/want to be is enough to make the world work.
Hmm ... sigh. I never said that this is enough! I say: Baptism (Testimony First, possibly), then Unification - and that because and so and at least there are those two conditions to which we could find some reason about us, what we are, want and do - and ... making it work 'right' - doing the thing, the 'wanting' ... showing the 'will' to repent, to become better than we are, to be 'good' and righteous, ... and that some of us would stick to that even within the deepest and darkest perils is just ... something round about that.
Where, the issue that we can't be broken might be because you can't come up with shit tougher than what God does!
Everybody needs safe space - I guess - but to me that would generally be time "off" from society.
Where I have to disagree with God is where He has to pick a clear side in terms of fun, for instance. And disagreeing there is what makes me a Slut - more than any other reason there could be. That doesn't mean that I have to be friends with everyone that is into Sluts. Or whatever that is. And so are our pedophiles different - as, because they are that due to deeper reasons that requires them to have an intimate relationship with a consenting counterpart ... it is that. An intimate emotional situation between consenting individuals. So on a timeless range. A Kink of intimate interactions. Not generalized as habit of mature-to-infant dominance. Not just a fetish whereunder people are being generalized to some point of items or gimmicks or whatever.
I for instance am old enough - to date a woman that could be my mother. Now in the timeless range that begs the question why I couldn't for the time of being underaged? There might be reasons - but at the bottom where the issue is that of their 'timeless relationship to each other' ... things just 'are'.
Well, bottom line: God isn't really into the whole "nerfing" thing either. Well - He's God, He has no need for balance changes. Saying, the demands that have been made are still the same; And basically now Unification is being introduced as the 'actual' thing - so it kindof even got some more difficult Expansion we can say. Those of us that made it did very sure get 'guided' into it. Thats ... the VIP entrance we might say. We are those that God came towards, intimately/personally, ... suggesting they were "ready enough" - so, 'automatic pass' basically. So, on the safe side of issues - but so also cool with God or whatever. Whatever ... all and everything, ... its Gods choice.