Hi all
So it’s been about 3 months since my initial fall/injury. Pain is still bad, been doing PT about two months now and my doctor has ordered more physical therapy. I haven’t been able to do much aside from lite PT because of the pain. My ROM is very limited by pain, and my physical therapist said I don’t have frozen shoulder but because of the pain I’m having it’s having a great impact on my recovery. I still have insane shoulder weakness, and my arm always feels like it’s going to pop out of place if I move it the wrong way. I have an undersurface tear in my labrum, and a surface SLAP tear. I also have a bruised spinal cord, and compression in my cervical neck mri. I have nerve damage to my upper spine. I see my spine specialist next week. My ortho doc has brought up having my labrum surgically repaired. It’s a small tear, but seeing as how I’ve made no progress in PT and the pain is still high, he thinks it might be the best course of action at this point. Obviously this tear won’t heal on its own, and working a physically demanding job where I’m constantly lifting 50+ lbs, I’m worried my arm one day will just come out of the socket as I can barely carry in groceries without feeling like it’s going to pop out of place. I don’t do any intense sports or hobbies. Is this surgery even worth it? The tear is minor but the pain and complications are severe. I feel silly for considering it with how small it is. What’s the recovery like? Is this even something to consider? I don’t want surgery but I don’t want to spend the rest of my life like this as I’m only 25. I have a kiddo I can’t even pick up or really play with, at this point. Input is appreciated.

Introduction

In this post, we'll be discussing something called "Virtue Ethics." This is a normative theory of ethics that's most associated with Aristotle, though has in recent times experienced a resurgence of sorts from modern philosophers, some of whom have tweaked and modified it, and in doing so have created different branches on this tree of moral theory. We will be comparing these different flavors of Virtue Ethics to that of the New Testament's, pointing out where they're similar, as well as highlighting where the NT differs (and is actually superior) from the heathens' views.
I want to preface all this with a verse and a warning:

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."-Colossians 2:8

The entire Bible, over and over again, warns against syncretism. It's a running theme throughout to condemn the practice, with this verse being one of the more explicit ones to do so.
Mapping the ideas of Pagans (and especially Greek philosophers) onto the Scriptures has always resulted in people severely misinterpreting the Bible, as looking at the Word of God through a Hellenistic lens is and always has been extremely innapropiate to the author's original intent.
Whenever Greek philosophy or ideas are referenced, they're always portrayed in a bad light or otherwise used to make a point. Examples of the latter could be found in the apostle Paul's writings, as he was a fully educated Roman citizen of his day, and so he made use of known Hellenestic philosophy and literature (that he would have been familiar with) by redefining their terms and ideas in a way that would be consistent with the theology of his own religion. The apostle Peter did the same within his own epistles whenever he mentioned "Tartarus," the abyss/prison for certain disobedient angels that rebelled against God, despite the fact that the word has its roots in Greek mythology and not Hebrew religion (though, the belief that there were a group of spiritual beings that rebelled against the highest authority in the heavens was one technically shared between the two ancient cultures; even if the parties involved were vastly different, as well as the contexts of the rebellion itself).
The affect Hellenstic philosophy has had on the way people think (even subconsciously) can still be felt to this day, and can be seen in the confusion modern "Christianity" has brought on through its adoption of Gnostic teachings such as Dualism or the inherently fatalistic views that many unknowingly hold due to the error of Classical Theism.
While yes, I will be commending the heathen (unbeliever) whenever they are right with their ideas as pertaining to this subject, I will also show where they are wrong.
Let's begin.

"What Is Virtue Ethics?"

First, we need to define some terms and point out the differences between this view and others within the larger debate of normative ethics.
There are three major approaches in normative ethics, those being: Consequentalism, Deontology, and Virtue Ethics. The following are definitions of the terms:
Consequentialism – a class of normative, teleological ethical theories that holds that the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for judgement about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct.
Deontology – theories where an action is considered morally good because of some characteristic of the action itself, not because the product of the action is good. Deontological ethics holds that at least some acts are morally obligatory regardless of their consequences for human welfare.
Virtue Ethics – theories that emphasize the role of character and virtue in moral philosophy rather than either doing one’s duty or acting in order to bring about good consequences. The virtue ethicist would argue that actions themselves, while important, aren't as important as the character behind them. To the virtue ethicist, consequences are also important, but they would say that good consequences ultimately flow from a virtuous character who has made virtuous decisions. Theories of virtue ethics do not aim primarily to identify universal principles that can be applied in any moral situation, instead teaching that the best decisions can vary based on context, and that there are only some actions that would be universally evil, only because those actions could never flow from a virtuous character in the first place (e.g., rape).
Aristotle's idea of ethics is in an important respect different from most people's, especially today. Heirs as we are to Kant’s idea of duty – there is a right thing that one ought to do, as rational beings who respect other persons – and to Mill’s idea of utility – the right thing to do is that which produces the greatest good for the greatest number – most of us see ethics as concerned with actions. "The function of ethics is to help me see what I ought to do in a given situation," the modern says. Aristotle’s approach was different. His ethic is not so much concerned about helping us to see what we ought to do, as about what sort of person we ought to be.
Aristotle was concerned with character, and with the things that go to make up good and bad character; virtues and vices. His sort of ethic does not look at our action to see if it fulfils our duty, or produces a certain outcome, such as the greatest good of the greatest number, and therefore merits approval. Instead, it looks at us; at the character behind the actions, to see whether we merit approval.
Comparing Virtue Ethics with philosophies such as Deontology and Consequentialism, we are able to divide ethical theories into two kinds; act-centered theories and agent-centered theories. Kant’s (Deontological) and Mill’s (Utilitarian) approaches are act-centered, because they concern themselves with our actions, whilst Aristotle’s is agent-centered because it concerns itself with the character of a person, which in his view was ourselves and our own dispositions that prompt our actions.
Both approaches have ardent present-day advocates, and so both are alive and well. Virtue Ethicists are dissatisfied with the answers ‘modern’ act-centered philosophy offers, and look for a more flexible, person-centered approach that takes more account of the subtle varieties of human motivation. Those in this camp see ethics as being about people – moral agents – rather than merely about actions. Of course, your actions matter. But, for Aristotle and his present day advocates alike, they matter as expressions of the kind of person you are. They indicate such qualities as kindness, fairness, compassion, and so on, and it is these qualities and their corresponding vices that it is the business of ethics to approve or disapprove.
All this seems simple and uncontroversial; there are two ways of looking at an action to evaluate it morally. You can take the action in isolation and judge it, or take the agent and judge him or her.
Virtue ethicists argue that act-centered ethics are narrow and bloodless. What is needed is a richer moral vocabulary than just ‘right and wrong’. There are subtle but important differences between actions that are good because they are kind and those that are good because they are generous, and those that are good because they are just. Likewise, there are subtle but important differences between actions that are bad because they are selfish and those that are bad because they are cruel and those that are bad because they are unfair. These, and many other, distinctions are lost when we talk simply about doing one’s duty, or promoting utility. Questions of motive and of character are lost, in these asceptic terms. Modern moral philosophy won’t do: it is cold, technical and insensitive to the many kinds and degrees of value expressed in human actions. Ethics is more than just thought experiments and hypotheticals about what would be the right course of action to take in any given situation we might conjure up from the comfort of our armchair. Ethics is about doing, and about context and character.

The Different Kinds of "Virtue Ethics"

Virtue Ethics has has been developed in two main directions: Eudaimonism, and agent-based theories.
Eudaimonism (Aristotle's view) bases virtues in human flourishing, where flourishing is equated with performing one’s distinctive function well. In the case of humans, Aristotle argued that our distinctive function is reasoning, and so the life “worth living” is one which we reason well. He also believed that only free men in the upper classes of society (i.e., the aristocrats) could excel in virtue and eschew vice, being that such men had greater access to the means in accomplishing this task as they had the wealth and resources to better perform their distinctive function of 'reasoning,' and thus "live well." For the Eudaimonian, inner dispositions are what one ought to focus on in order to cultivate virtuous traits, and thus a virtuous character.
In contrast, an agent-based theory emphasizes that virtues are determined by common-sense intuitions that we as observers judge to be admirable traits in other people. There are a variety of human traits that we find admirable, such as benevolence, kindness, compassion, etc., and we can identify these by looking at the people we admire, our moral exemplars. Agent-based theories also state that the motivations and intentions behind an action are ultimately what determine whether or not said action is actually virtuous. Whereas Eudaimonism understands the moral life in terms of inner dispositions or proclivities to act in certain ways (whether righteous or wicked, just or unjust, kind or cruel, etc.), agent-based theories are more radical in that their evaluation of actions is dependent on ethical judgments about the inner life of the agents who perform those actions, that is, what the motivations and intents are of a person.
[Note: While both Eudaimonism and agent-based theories are both agent-centered, Eudaimonism is not to be confused with an agent-based theory. Both branches concern themselves more with agents rather than acts themselves, but Eudamonism focuses on the self to improve whereas the agent-based theory focuses on others to improve.]

Common Critcisims Toward Secular Forms of Virtue Ethics

Firstly, Eudaimonism provides a self-centered conception of ethics because "human flourishing" (here defined as simply fulfilling our base function as humans, which is "reason" according to this view) is seen as an end in itself and does not sufficiently consider the extent to which our actions affect other people. Morality requires us to consider others for their own sake and not because they may benefit us. There seems to be something wrong with aiming to behave compassionately, kindly, and honestly merely because this will make oneself happier or "reason well."
Secondly, both Eudaimonism and agent-based theories also don't provide guidance on how we should act, as there are no clear principles for guiding action other than “act as a virtuous person would act given the situation.” Who is a virtuous person? Who is the first or universal exemplar?
Lastly, the ability to cultivate the right virtues will be affected by a number of different factors beyond a person’s control due to education, society, friends and family. If moral character is so reliant on luck, what role does this leave for appropriate praise and blame of the person? For the Eudaimonian, one ought to be born into a status of privilege if they wish to excel in being virtuous. For the proponent of an agent-based theory, one ought to be born into a society or family with good role models and preferably be raised by such, else they have no moral exemplars to emulate.

The New Testament's Virtue Ethic

The New Testament authors didn’t sit down and do a self-consciously philosophical exercise, for this was not what they were concerned with. They were concerned with giving practical instruction to disciples of the faith, and merely trying to express the ethical implications of their spiritual experience. That being said, we know the apostle Paul was familiar with the writings of Aristotle. We can actually identify places where Paul displays knowledge of Aristotle and incorporates some of the philosopher's ideas into his own epistles. Before we do this, however, it's important we refute common misnomers about what the Bible teaches concerning ethics in general.
You probably have heard many attack the ethics of the New Testament as being primitive and simplistic. "God dictates universal commands to follow: 'do not lie,' do 'not divorce,' 'do not insult.' And the only motivating factor is escaping hellfire and obtaining the reward of eternal pleasure." But in reality, this is a gross misrepresentation of the ethics laid out in the NT. I will argue the NT advocates for a form of virtue ethics, instead of claiming the NT contains a form of deontic ethics, as it is so often assumed.
Elizabeth Anscombe was one of the most influential virtue ethicists of the 20th century. Her work helped to revive virtue ethics in the modern era, however she also criticized the ethics of the Bible for promoting a form of ethics different than what Aristotle promoted:
"...between aristotle and us came Christianity, with its law conception of ethics. For Christianity derived its ethical notions from the Torah. (One might be inclined to think that a law conception of ethics could arise only among people who accepted an allegedly divine positive law..." (Modern Moral Philosophy, vol. 33, no. 124, 1-19)
We've already dealt with the issue of the Torah in another post. The Torah is not laying down moral laws, but describing justice in the form of ancient Near Eastern wisdom literature. But does the New Testament teach a deontic form of ethics? Anscombe might appear justified in her claim, as some "Christian" theologians have explicitly taught the ethics of the NT is deontic.
However, other theologians have argued the ethics of the NT is best characterized as a form of virtue ethics. In a study of the NT, we'll support this notion. As noted earlier, one of the central features of this approach to ethics is that the aim of ethics should be on living a virtuous life. Other forms of ethics focus on directing actions when confronted with a moral dilemma, but for virtue ethics every action is a moral or immoral action because all of our actions contribute or do not contribute to living a virtuous life. In other words, for a virtue ethicist, everything we do will contribute to living a fulfilled life. Now, the NT promotes a similar idea with a slight modification. The NT changes the distinctictive function and purpose for man in Eudaimonism from "reasoning" to loving God and others instead, and thus "living well" is changed from self-centered 'flourshing' (as defined by Aristotle) to glorifying God instead. The apostles taught everything we do contributes to living a life that glorifies God:

"Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God."-1 Corinthians 10:31
"And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him."-Colossians 3:17

So we see the same idea in Paul, that everything we do can be seen as a moral or immoral action. Everything we do should be seen as contributing to living a life that glorifies god or not. As a believer, the aim is not just doing good actions to avoid punishments, but to see everything we do as glorifying God. On secular virtue ethics, all our actions are either advancing a good life or not: nourishing your body contributes to living a good life. In a Biblical context: taking the time to properly dress contributes to living a good life, and not giving into the sin of sloth. So all our actions can be moral actions in this context, and so likewise for Paul and Jesus, all we do can contribute to living a life that glorifies God.
Since God made our bodies to thrive and enjoy life, we should nourish our bodies so we can thrive as God intended for our bodies to do, thus ultimately glorifying Him. Since we were created to experience and feel enjoyment, laughing and enjoying things throughout life glorifies God as well since we're experiencing emotions that God created to be experienced. Everything we do should be to glorify God, and often all that is is living our lives in the way that they were intended to be lived. Biblical ethics is very much more than merely performing right actions, but living a virtuous life that brings glory to God.
As Jesus said:

"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind."-Matthew 22:37b

It is also important to focus on what it means to love, which is an important aspect of what it means to be a believer. Paul makes the radical claim that to love is the entirety of the law of God:

"For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."-Galatians 5:14

Jesus also taught that to love God and love others were the two greatest commandments (Mark 12:28-31, Matt. 22:34-40). He also extends the commandment to love beyond one's brethren, and to love our enemies (Matt. 5:44). Loving those around us is central to what it means to be a believer (John 13:34; 15:12-17, Rom. 12:10; 13:8, 1 Cor. 13:1-8; 16:14, 2 Cor. 8:8, Eph. 4:2; 5:2, Phili. 1:9, Heb. 10:24, Jam. 2:8, 1 Pet. 1:22, 1 John 2:10; 3:23).
One might suggest this is no different than the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do to you," or a Kantian rule: "I ought never to act except in such a way that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law." In other words, "to live well is to perform good deeds or actions and nothing more." But an important point about loving someone is it cannot be done through actions alone. For example, one could buy a gift for their spouse to cheer them up. However, one could perform this action merely because they value performing right actions without any love for the person. One could donate to charity because it is the right thing to do, and not because she cares for the people who would benefit. In such scenarios, they can be seen as idolizing moral laws, not necessarily caring about helping others.
But to love someone requires more than merely performing right actions. You cannot love someone and not care about who they are as a person and where they are heading in life. To love is to will the good of the other. Jesus chastised the Pharisees of his day for only performing right actions, but not loving their brethren in their hearts. His criticism follows Matthew chapter 22, where Jesus says the greatest commandments are to love. The implication is the Pharisees perform proper actions, but have the wrong motivations for doing so. James Keenan puts it like this:
"Essential to understanding this command is that we love our neighbors not as objects of our devotion, but rather as subjects; that is, as persons. Thus, we cannot love others only because God wants us to do so, since then we would love them as means or as objects and not as persons. We can only love one another as subjects, just as God loves us." (Jesus and Virtue Ethics: Building Bridges Between New Testament Studies and Moral Theology, pg. 86)
A critic may bring up that verses of the NT are still phrased as commands, and therefore the structure implies duties were the central aspect of Christian ethics. But the importance of duties is not foreign to Virtue Ethics. Instead of being central to the ethical framework, duties flow from a virtuous character. Virtues are active and have certain demands for which a person must fulfill in their active behavior.
According to Aristotle, knowledge of the virtues gives us practical wisdom in how to properly act. Duties flow from the understanding of the demands of virtues. To put it another way, for virtues to manifest in persons, they have certain demands that must be fulfilled. For the believer, the command of love flows from being virtuous and aligning oneself with the character of God. Commitment to the character of Christ, who perfectly carried out the will of the Father, allows us to perform right and proper actions.
The NT also contains lists of virtues the believer ought to emulate, the most famous of these is in Galatians chapter 5:
"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law." (vss. 22-23)
Now, the connection with Aristotle cannot be more pronounced. The Greek phrase "against such there is no law" is almost identical to what we find in Aristotle's politics (3.13.1284a). It seems clear Paul is teaching a similar ethical framework to what Aristotle advocated for. Paul is teaching that the believing community ought to be persons who display key virtues, and that their conduct would not need to be regulated by a law. Instead, their character should be the standard others can measure themselves by. Romans chapter 2 is also a place we see references to Aristotle, where Paul notes that when Gentiles do what the law requires, they are "a law unto themselves" (vss. 14-15). In other words, they do not need to be told to act a certain way. They have the proper virtuous character that directs their actions, to do the good the law requires. Paul is advocating in Galatians that believers should think in a similar way.
So in Galatians 5, we have affinity with the teachings of Aristotle, and in other lists of virtues throughout the NT we see a similar idea, which is that Christians were meant to display virtues primarily (Rom. 5:3-5, 1 Cor. 13:1-8, Col. 3:12-17, 1 Tim. 3:2-3; 4:7-8, Jam. 3:17-18, 2 Pet. 1:5-8). From that, good deeds will properly manifest in our actions.
Anscombe made a great point on what the focus of ethics should be:
"It would be a great improvement if, instead of 'morally wrong', one always named a genus such as 'untruthful', 'unchaste', 'unjust'. We should no longer ask whether doing something was 'wrong', passing directly from some description of an action to this notion; we should ask whether, e.g., it was unjust; and the answer would sometimes be clear at once." (Modern Moral Philosophy, vol. 33, no. 124, 1-19)
Interestingly enough, Paul lays out a similar idea in explaining Christian ethics:

"Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things. Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be with you."-Philippians 4:8-9

In other words, the central aspect on living a Christian life was on what is virtuous, not on what is lawfully right or wrong. Right actions flow from whatever is honorable, true, and pure. Correlating with this is how Paul responds to the Corinthians who claimed that "all was lawful." Paul reminded them the emphasis is not on what is lawful, but on what is good for building a virtuous character:

"All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not."-1 Corinthians 10:23

One's main focus ought to be on what is good, not on laws that dictate behavior.
One of the key aspects of Virtue Ethics is the idea we ought to learn from virtuous teachers and imitate them. A virtuous character is obtained by imitating what a virtuous person does. This parallels a key aspect of Christian ethics. Imitating Christ was (and still is) crucial to living a virtuous life:

"For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:"-1 Peter 2:21

Paul says in Romans 8:29 that Christians were predestined "to be conformed to the image of his Son." Jesus often taught his followers to do as he does (Matt. 16:24, Mark 8:34, Luke 6:40; 9:23, John 13:15, 34). Paul says in 1st Corinthians 11: Be ye followers [i.e., imitators] of me, even as I also am of Christ" (vs. 1). Hebrews 13:7 says to imitate the faith of the patriarchs. 1st Thessalonians 2:14 says to imitate each other. And jesus taught to imitate the good Samaritan from his parable (Luke 10:37). Imitating virtuous teachers was key for Christian ethics.
Aristotle tended to compare acquiring virtues with that of learning a practical skill, like playing an instrument or learning how to become a builder. Such practical skills are best picked up when trained by a master of that particular skill, because a teacher can always provide more insight through lessons they learn from experience. For example, an expert salesman can provide examples from his experience of what works with specific customers that a sales textbook could never provide. Many professions today require on-the-job training or experience before even hiring an applicant. The reason is: experience is key to learning a profession. Merely acquiring knowledge from a textbook or an instruction manual is often insufficient to master a skill, so why would mastering the skill of virtue be any different?
In the NT, a believer is to see the world through the eyes of Christ and to love as he loved. One cannot learn how to be a virtuous person without knowing what that life would look like. A key component of Christian theology is that the Messiah perfectly represented the Father and His will on earth, to show us how to properly live as God intended for man. This central tenet of the NT aligns well with agent-based theories of Virtue Ethics, and modifies it so that the person of Jesus Christ is the universal exemplar that one is meant to emulate. We are called to imitate him through our actions, thoughts, and desires, and to conform ourselves to the way he lived. As Paul said:

"I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me."-Galatians 2:20

If learning from Christ is key, we should briefly take a look at the Sermon on the Mount, which is said to be one of Jesus' most important series of teachings. Daniel Harrington notes:
"The sermon begins with nine 'beatitudes' (see 5:3–12) in which Jesus declares as 'happy' or 'blessed' those who practice certain virtues, and promises them an eternal reward and the fullness of God's kingdom." (Jesus and Virtue Ethics: Building Bridges Between New Testament Studies and Moral Theology, pg. 62)
Jesus laid out what a life for those that follow him look like in detail. One ought to be merciful, pure in heart, a peacemaker, thirst for righteousness, etcetera (Matt. 5:2-10). The Sermon does not merely include what right actions are, but includes sections on proper desires. Not only is it wrong to murder, but it is wrong to desire to murder or wish ill on someone (Matt. 5:22). Avoiding adultery is good, but one also should not covet after another man's woman in their heart (Matt. 5:28). In other words, merely avoiding immoral actions is not enough. One must also not desire vices. A believer is called to desire what is good.
The Sermon is not necessarily laying down universal moral commands. For example, Matthew 5:9 says, "Blessed are the peacemakers," but this doesn't imply absolute Pacifism, as it would contradict passages in the Old Testament where it explicitly says there is a time for war (Ecc. 3:8). The point of the Sermon is to teach what a virtuous life ought to look like. A follower of Christ ought to use reason to know what is proper to do in various circumstances. For example, in Matthew chapter 6, Jesus offers guidance on how one ought to pray by presenting the Lord's prayer (vss. 9-15). This is a model of how to pray. It's not a command for followers to always pray in this exact way.
In reality, the Sermon on the Mount mixes in exhortations, parables, hyperbole, declarations, commands, etc. It is best understood as displaying what a virtuous life ought to look like. It's not a law code. Building on this, it's important to understand a proper action is context sensitive. Under Virtue Ethics, one should not necessarily apply a universal maxim to every situation. Sometimes the proper action will depend on what is at stake, who is involved, what is the background, etc. Aristotle advocated against the idea there were fixed universal laws that dictate actions, and instead he argued the right action would depend on the circumstances one finds themselves in. Although the ethics of the NT may be a bit more strict, it still places an emphasis on being sensitive to the context of situations.
In 1st Corinthians chapter 8, Paul lays out instructions on how to deal with meat that has been sacrificed to Pagan idols. Instead of stating an absolute prohibition against meat sacrificed to idols, Paul instructed Christians to use reason to come to the proper ethical decision based on context. In other words, the right action is not determined only by a law. Instead, the Christian had to make the proper decision based on the context: if eating caused another to stumble, then you ought to abstain; if not, then there's no harm done. The value of the action depends on the context.
A Deontologist might reply that there's still a universal law given here: that one should always abstain if it's going to cause another to stumble. This objection can be addressed by asking: how are we to know if eating the meat will cause another believer to stumble? To answer such a question, one must be sensitive to the context, which in this case would be knowledge of the fellow believer and your relation to him. It is the context that determines the right action, not a universal law. Moreover, Paul states that the primary goal for the believer should be to love (1 Cor. 13). The first consideration is once again not the rightness of action, but having love for one another. From this, knowledge of the proper action will follow.
Paul often explains that living a proper life as a believer will take work and practice. He reminded Timothy to attend readings, practice what these things mean, and keep a close watch on himself (1 Tim. 4:13-14). Elsewhere, he directs that all believers must work on their faith (Phili. 2:12). Beyond this, he also noted that not all Christians would have the same gifts, and to accept that this was normal (1 Cor. 12). For some, certain things may be a hindrance, whereas for others it is acceptable (Rom. 14:2-4). What matters is that we love and build one another up (1 Thess. 5:11). Right actions flow from love and knowledge of virtue. Rules are not the primary motives that dictate our actions; rules are secondary in this regard.
An interesting case can be studied with regards to divorce in the Gospels. Jesus preaches against divorce (Mark 10:7-9) and it is often interpreted to mean "divorce is always wrong, regardless of circumstances." However, it should be noted the prohibition on divorce is not a universal law. The context can affect whether or not a divorce is permissible. Jesus says that one can divorce over sexual immorality. Paul also has a situation where divorce is permissible, namely if one spouse is an unbeliever and wishes to leave (1 Cor. 7:15). The implication one can derive is divorce is not ideal, but there are circumstances where it may be the proper action to take. Given the other features of Christian Virtue Ethics we already covered, the proper action to take will depend on the circumstances and what the virtuous agent thinks is the most loving thing to do. A universal prohibition on divorce is not a Christian ethic. Instead, one ought to discern the proper action from circumstances. However, it's clear in most cases divorce would not be the virtuous thing to do.
Building on this, it's important to note that within NT ethics, certain acts are always wrong. For example, idolatry and sexual immorality are always wrong (1 Cor. 10:14, Col. 3:15, 1 Pet. 4:13). There are no possible scenarios where it would be okay to rape, because such an act would never flow from a virtuous character. But this concept is not foreign to theories of Virtue Ethics. Aristotle noted that for some actions, no qualifications could make them virtuous. Actions such as rape or murder are always wrong, because they would never flow from a virtuous character. So it's not as if a Virtue Ethicist cannot claim that some actions are always wrong. They simply are qualified as being unable to flow from virtue, whereas actions like lying or waging war could be considered virtuous for the right reason.
Now, despite Christian Virtue Ethics having many similarities with Eudaimonism (Aristotelian ethics), there are also numerous differences beyond what we've already noted. One of the deficiencies of how Aristotle lays out his ethical theory is that it is essentially an all-boys club. Aristotle writes mainly to aristocratic men, excluding women and slaves. In his view, women were inferior to men and slaves lacked the necessary rational faculty. But the Christians rejected this mentality, as the teachings of Christ and the apostles were available to all (Matt. 28:19). Paul said, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:28). Peter wrote that all Christians were part of the priesthood of Christ (1 Pet. 2:5). Jesus had women followers (Luke 8:2-3), and they were entrusted with delivering revelation (Mark 15:40–16:8). What we find throughout the NT is a radical change to how women were viewed in the ancient world. Paul is also likely building on Aristotle's household structure and refining it. David deSilva says the household codes of the NT are "...following the pairs laid out as early as Aristotle to such a degree as to suggest that these were standard topics in ethical instruction" (Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity, pg. 231). But Paul adds an important preface: submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ (Eph. 5:20-21). DeSilva says:
"...husbands, we cannot then ignore the distinctively Christian addition they bring to this arrangement; husbands are to be subject to their wives as well." (Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity, pg. 233)
Thus Paul doesn't break down the traditional perspective on the structure of the family, but he does add the idea that we all must submit to each other in reverence, love, unity, and cooperation because all are equal before God. There is no explicit mention in the NT calling for the abolishment of slavery, but it should be noted that Paul taught that slaves should be seen as equals. In the letter to Philemon, Paul is clear that his slave is no longer "as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved" (vs. 16). Thus, within Christian ethics class distinctions were supposed to evaporate. All were brothers and sisters of one family.
An important aspect of Christian ethics is that it wasn't a standalone ethical theory. It's embedded in the larger Christian worldview. The ethical framework is dependent on Christian doctrines. For Aristotle, his ethical theory is for men who were raised well. This is why these specific men desire to be virtuous and perform right actions. As for why the believer does good and desires to be virtuous, it's not because one was raised well, but because they have been activated by the power of God's Spirit (John 3:6, 1 Cor. 12:13). For believers, the reason as to why we desire to be good and virtuous is because the Spirit of God has regenerated us. He loves us so we can love others (1 John 4:19). One is meant to look to the life of Christ and what he has done by dying on the cross, to know that we are loved and forgiven. This in turn is meant to activate a good life, having seen what we have gained and been forgiven of. He calls and activates us to do similar to those around us. This is a more open system for people of all groups and classes. One only has to call upon the name of the Lord to be included. It does not require a specific gender or to be raised a certain way.
The goal of Aristotelian ethics is to achieve 'eudaimonia.' However, within the Bible the goal is as the Westminster Shorter Catechism puts it: "Man's chief end is to glorify God, and enjoy Him forever." Since the central aspect of Biblical Eschatology is that humans will continue on forever in resurrected bodies, the aim of ethics is more than living a good life presently. Living a good life now is important, but it was only one aspect in the Christian worldview. Humans are meant to live beyond this life, so the aim is also about building virtuous souls that will continue on. The importance of this is more crucial than it may seem at first. Paul said that we must all appear before judgment, so that "every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad" (2 Cor. 15:10).
Being a virtuous person requires integrity, because one will still have to answer to God after death. If one can commit an evil act and no one finds out, then from the outside perspective he or she may still appear virtuous. Culturally speaking, the ancient world was very different from our own. All wrongdoings centered around public honor and shame. One did good to receive public honor, and one did not do what was bad to receive public shame. Right and wrong were connected to one's public honor and shame in the ancient Greco-Roman world. Thus good and evil were public ideas, not personal ideas. Ethical demands were grounded in the community in one's public appearance
The Biblical idea of an omniscient God who cared about our ethical status laid a foundation for integrity and personal guilt to emerge. Now one ought to do good because he is beholden to God, not just the community. Believers are to remain focused on God's approval and on the actions that lead them, regardless of the world's response. This lays down fertile ground for integrity to emerge. So the Biblical worldview has another important element built in that encourages ethical behavior, regardless of the honor it brings. One ought to do good because of a commitment to God not, because it might bring honor to one's name publicly.

Implications for Preterists

Paul believed that the Second Coming would happen in his generation, and prescribed certain things in the NT on the basis of that belief. An example of an exhortation that would no longer apppy to us today would be 1st Corinthians 7:24-29, where Paul argues that the times him and his fellow Christians were in called for celibacy, being that the Lord was fast approaching. It wasn't a sin if you did get married, of course; it was just harder to serve the Lord in this context if you had a family to worry about. Thus, Paul encouraged being single.
So, we need to be careful when reading the NT and determining what prohibitions or exhortations are still applicable to us today. Context is key.

So I found out about this game through the Wiki. I had no idea there was a Famicom game, 2 Super Famicom games, 4-5 PS1 games, Game Boy games, Dreamcast, DS games about Mini 4WD. All -JPN only. This one seems to be the most like actually playing Mini 4WD in real life. So I download the Shining Scorpion ROM and start playing it on an emulator. I'm pretty lost since I can't read Japanese but I recognize the parts you can buy. They are dead-on like the real parts. Right color gears, endbells, wheels, rollers, all of it. So I'm motivated to learn it.
3 days after downloading it I see what looks like the cartridge in a local game store. No way. Only way I knew was recognizing the Japanese logo from the emulator. I ask the guy working who could read a little Japanese and he was like "Yeah it says 'Shinning' Scorpion Racing". My city isn't known for having a lot of import games at all unlike a coastal city so it was crazy! I get it home an put it next to my home track box and see the Japanese "Yonku" on both. Break the Super Famicom lockouts off of my SNES and fire it up. It's it.
This was way better than using the emulator since it already had a save on it. Whoever had it before grinded their brains out on the track in the first hobby shop in order to be able to buy all this stuff from the hobby shop in the second town. Unfortunately there is very little English documentation of this game and talking to NPCs to learn more is impossible for me. Problem now is course outs on the track where you race against the guy who looks like a 1940s cartoon depiction of a monkey with a bow tie. I have added all the weight possible to my car. Front, side and rear 19mm rollers. Wide rubber tires (the game seems to like these for stability even though few people race with wides today -- some things the game likes aren't how things are done 25+ years later) Tried dual rear rollers both high and middle plus low and it wasn't as stable. Using Hyper Dash 1 motor since Rev Tuned and Torque Tuned are too slow and still course out sometimes. Even with Hyper Dash I am still 2nd place at the most before eventually coursing out. Both types of 4:1 gears and the 5:1 gears all course out. Switching to 1.2v batteries from 1.5v doesn't stop it either. Car is very heavy. Anybody else played this one and did well?

Introduction

Welcome, summoners! In the complex world of League of Legends, mastering macro strategies is essential for players who want to control the game beyond mere individual skirmishes. This guide dives deep into the art of macro gameplay, teaching you how to read the game, make strategic decisions, and lead your team to victory through superior map management and objective control.

Understanding Macro Play

What is Macro Play? Macro play refers to strategic decisions that affect the broader game state, including objective control, wave management, and territory dominance. It contrasts with micro play, which focuses on individual mechanics and lane battles.
Why Focus on Macro?

• Game-Winning Strategy: Effective macro play can lead to a significant advantage, often deciding the outcome of games.
• Team Synergy and Control: It enhances team coordination and allows for more predictable and controlled gameplay.
• Long-Term Advantages: Mastering macro strategies can consistently put your team ahead by maximizing resource allocation and timing.

Core Components of Macro Mastery

To excel in macro strategies, players must develop skills in several key areas:

• Objective Prioritization: Understanding which objectives (like dragons, barons, or turrets) will most benefit your team's current state.
• Map Awareness: Keeping track of ally and enemy positions to make informed decisions without needing constant updates.
• Wave Management: Manipulating minion waves to create pressure on the map, forcing the enemy team to respond to your movements.

Advanced Macro Strategies

Implement these advanced tactics to refine your macro play:

• Rotational Play: Learn how to move as a team around the map, securing objectives and gaining territorial control.
• Vision Control and Denial: Use wards and sweepers effectively to control sight lines and deny the enemy team valuable information.
• Pressure Points: Identify and exert pressure on the weakest points in the enemy's defense to split their focus and resources.

Building Team Coordination

Since macro play heavily relies on team efforts, enhancing team dynamics is crucial:

• Clear Communication: Develop concise and clear communication habits to quickly relay strategic decisions.
• Role Responsibilities: Ensure each team member understands their role in macro strategies, from the split-pusher to the team fight initiator.
• Adaptability: Be prepared to adapt strategies based on the evolving state of the game and the enemy's responses.

Leveraging Technology and Tools

Use technological aids to sharpen your macro skills:

• Replay Analysis Tools: Utilize tools to analyze game replays for missed opportunities and successful strategies.
• Strategic Planning Software: Some tools can help simulate different game states for strategic planning.
• Real-Time Decision Making Aids: Explore apps and platforms that provide real-time advice based on current game data.

Conclusion

Mastering macro strategies in League of Legends opens up new dimensions of gameplay. It allows players to influence the game at a strategic level, leading to more consistent and impactful wins. By focusing on macro play, you develop a deeper understanding of League's complexities and how to manipulate them to your advantage.

Call to Action

Ready to take your strategic gameplay to the next level? Dive deeper into macro strategies with our in-depth tutorials and case studies available on our website. Join discussions and exchange tips with other strategic players on our subreddit. Enhance your macro skills and dominate the Rift!

Introduction

Hello, summoners! Mastering the jungle role is crucial for controlling the tempo of a game in League of Legends. This guide is designed to enhance your jungling skills, focusing on strategic monster control, effective ganking, and optimizing your impact across the map.

Understanding the Role of a Jungler

What is Jungling? Jungling involves managing the area between the lanes, known as the jungle, where neutral monsters reside. A jungler's responsibilities include securing these monsters for buffs, supporting lanes through ganks, and controlling key map objectives like Dragon and Baron Nashor.
Why Master Jungling?

• Game Influence: Junglers have unique opportunities to influence all lanes, making strategic plays that can lead to team advantages.
• Resource Management: Efficient management of jungle resources can starve the opposing jungler and tilt the resource balance in your favor.
• Adaptability: A skilled jungler adapts their strategy based on the flow of the game, making decisions that can pivot the entire game's outcome.

Core Skills for Effective Jungling

To excel as a jungler, you’ll need to master several essential skills:

• Pathing Efficiency: Learn the most effective routes through the jungle to maximize time and resource management.
• Timing and Counter-Jungling: Master the timing of monster respawns and learn to anticipate and counter the enemy jungler’s moves.
• Gank Execution: Develop the ability to execute successful ganks by reading lane situations and knowing when and where to appear.

Advanced Jungling Strategies

Elevate your jungling with these advanced tactics:

• Vision Control: Utilize wards strategically to maintain control over the jungle and track the enemy jungler’s movements.
• Objective Prioritization: Know when to prioritize ganks, when to secure dragons, heralds, or barons, and how to balance these choices effectively.
• Team Coordination: Work closely with your lanes to set up ganks, secure kills, and push objectives, ensuring that your actions are synchronized with team goals.

Building Synergy with Teammates

Effective communication and coordination with your team are crucial for a jungler:

• Communication: Keep your team informed of your position and plans. Use pings and quick messages to coordinate ganks and alert teammates to the enemy jungler’s location.
• Adaptability in Playstyle: Adapt your jungling style to fit your team’s composition and strategy. Switch between aggressive ganking and conservative farming as needed.
• Support During Team Fights: Beyond early game ganks, contribute to team fights with timely engagements and by securing flanks or chasing down fleeing enemies.

Utilizing Technology and Tools

Enhance your jungling with the help of modern tools:

• Jungling Apps: Use apps designed to help track jungle timers and suggest optimal paths.
• Replay Analysis: Regularly review your gameplay to identify strengths and areas for improvement, particularly your pathing and gank timing.
• Online Coaching: Consider engaging with professional coaches who can provide personalized insights and improvement strategies based on your play style.

Conclusion

The jungle is a battleground of wits, will, and strategy. By mastering the jungling role, you not only increase your team’s chances of winning but also gain a deeper understanding of strategic gameplay in League of Legends. Elevate your game and become the jungle master your team needs to dominate the Rift.

Call to Action

Are you ready to master the jungle and control the game? Visit our website for advanced jungling courses and personalized coaching sessions. Join our community forum to share experiences, discuss strategies, and learn from fellow junglers. Take the first step to becoming a jungle legend today!

I started this series about a week ago. My friend and I both watch an animated show called Invincible which we both love. He told me if I’m really into animated shows to check out Attack on Titan. I’ve really only watched 2 other anime before; Naruto & Death Note. Ig you can say I haven’t really dug deep into anime. But after watching this so far, it’s clear this is a must watch show even to non-anime viewers. It’s really not hard to get into. For me, it’s always really hard for me to get into any new show, thinking nothing can really meet my expectations. But whenever I do get into something that does it for me, I instantly become obsessed with it and feel the need to binge it all. Been binging aot every night and currently near the end of season 3. (Just watched the episode where they enter the cellar)
There’s so much to say why I think its a masterpiece, but il keep this piece as brief as I can. And I’m aware what I have to say here has probably been said numerous times before. So il try to avoid that.
———————————————————————————
I can imagine a lot of non-anime watchers might mistake anime as a genre of its own, not realizing they are categorized in themes of drama, comedy, sports…. Just like any other show. Here are the several themes I classify with AoT: Action, drama, dystopian, political/war, mystery.
The emphasis on War & Politics is a big one for me. They do it so well characterizing war. What a soldier does. What it does to a soldier. The large scale impacts. Also the importance of following orders, trusting your teammates and them putting their trust in you. Also a lot of sacrifice. So many people die for their collective goal of humanities freedom. It’s inspiring. Naruto does this a bit too with the whole thing about working well with your team, following command, ect. But AoT just goes way further with it and really makes it a larger part of the shows identity.
In season 1 when joining the scouts; Erwin asks those joining: “If you were ordered to die, would you do it?”. - That sentence plays huge importance for the story moving froward, and one could argue the situations some soldiers are faced with IRL when in a squad in real major war.
The world of AoT is so dark & gloomy you can get away with adding horror to one of its themes. This dark, gloomy vibe is a large part of the shows’ popular identity. It’s not only dystopian, but it’s also very anti-fascist. The characters are constantly striving for their collective goal of driving humanity towards freedom.
Another thing that makes the show pop out is obviously the Titans themselves. The idea of the titans is so cool because their scale is so wide compared to that of a regular human. Killing them is no easy feat and a titan battle has the main characters odds stacked 10:1. Their power scale makes most people scared shitless, give up and lose hope. And when the main characters do get to win, it just makes it that much more satisfying. (This is much more outlined in the beginning of the show obviously) This is where a lot of the dark gloominess in the show comes from.
Even after season 1 when its more common to see the characters effortlessly kill titans, the odds continue to get stacked against them but it doesn’t get boring at all. The show just evolves and the characters are provoked in more interesting ways.
In terms of the characters; they’re all masterful. My favourite characters right now are Levi, Mikasa, and Armin (ESPECIALLY Armin after S3 EP17-18). The characters are all good and you really feel for not just the “good” characters.
The show’s obviously not afraid to kill off characters. In every battle, people die. You can say there are both more important, and lesser important characters dying in these scenes, but none of them ever feel like filler characters. They all feel like they mattered in death. Even the lesser important guys have meaning and you really feel it when these people have to sacrifice themselves for everyone else.
Even the antagonist characters eventually don’t seem like real bad guys. I’m obviously still routing for Eren and the other good guys but you begin to see the show is showing you why the bad guys aren’t bad in their own situations. Having not finished the show yet, there’s still a lot uncovered on why certain antagonists are doing what they’re doing, but it’s clear they have a strong reason for their actions and they really believe their actions are what’s perhaps best for everyone.
The runtime is more or less perfect. 4 seasons, 80-something episodes, 20 minutes each. It’s a perfect amount of time for anyone to get into. And more importantly, there’s NO filler content taking away value from the runtime. Literally 0 filler episodes. The pacing’s pretty good and they try to keep it on the faster side in order to drive the events forward, which I like.
The Plot Twists: Seems to be the biggest reason as to why people say the show’s so good. AoT does plot twists like no other. There’s quite a few “betrayals”, and moments of surprise and they come so unexpected. After seeing how they handle plot twists in this show, I’m seeing a problem in how other shows direct theirs. It’s too common for other shows to foreshadow their plot twists slightly too much, or use blatant flashbacks to allude to what’s coming. If you’re someone who already watches a lot of good shows you can already kind of predict what major things are about to unfold slightly before it happens.
Don’t get me wrong, AoT has many flashbacks too obviously (like in many anime), but they’re used pretty well for the most part. They also have minor foreshadowings too you can say but they’re very very faint and used correctly.
For where I’m at in the series, I’m obviously referring to in Season 2, where Reiner & Berthold reveal themselves as titans. The way it was done really gives me chills. When they start talking to Eren and reveal themselves, it’s done so faintly and non-dramatic that you kinda miss it. It’s like I clearly heard what they’re saying but it just didn’t register in my mind because of the nature of the directing. They make it so their conversation is “Background Talk” rather than a dramatic reveal. No fancy music or anything like that. Really just gave an eerie vibe to it. I had to replay that scene like 3 times to understand what was going on. Then of course after their undramatic reveal; they use a flashback to explain their characters a bit further (notice how the flashback is used AFTER the reveal, not before); and THEN they go to their transformation. It is only in this transformation scene that they saved for the dramatic suspense to be unleashed. Maybe I’m looking to much into the writing but I just think the nature of that plot twist was handled very well. (And of course there’s the minor foreshadowing of Berthold chomping on his hand while the castle is falling. It’s an obvious titan-shifter move, but I think it was handled right).
The action scenes are very well blended in with the dramatic parts to its credit. A common occurrence I see with good action shows is they’re good BECAUSE it’s more than just action. And other action shows might get undermined for not having enough of it, maybe being covered, or perhaps outshined by the more emotional scenes. I have no problem with this myself in AoT. Even in parts of the story where action is scarce for a bit I have no complaints. Perhaps my perception of this is different than others because I’m able to binge it all at once while many others had to wait up to 10 full years between seasons and parts of seasons to see all the action.
Like I said, the power scale of the titans are really the meat & potatoes of the battles being what they are. The battle strategy is really cool to get into, and how they’re going to outdo their titan opponents (Armin as a character really adds to this for me).
The battles are one thing but the fighting itself is a whole other. The actual combat and the animation of it gets the adrenaline pumping. The whole concept of the ODM gear is genius. Using gas powered grappling hooks to leap throughout their environment like a speeding bullet, and zing around everywhere to take down the titans looks like such an adrenaline rush. It gives me adrenaline just watching them, and hearing the sounds of the gear. Its iconic really. Just the idea of it. Also really fits well with the 19th century setting, the technology being where it is.
Ig I have nothing more to say about the animation. Everyone knows its top tier, along with the gore. Nothing really extra I have to add about it, it’s self explanatory. Ofc can’t forget about the OST as well, just like the ODM gear; it’s iconic, adrenaline-pumping. ‘Nuff said.
———————————————————————————
Unfortunately I already spoiled myself with a big plot twist for season 4. Whenever I get into a show like this it’s always so tempting for me to look at reviews of the show to reinforce why it’s so good, or do the character quizzes, or look at memes related to the show. That being said its too easy to spoil yourself with this.
I saw what the “final boss” looks like. (His head basically, and who it is). Really wish I didn’t see that yet, but it’s literally so hard to not get spoiled I tried my best. My friend warned me how easy the spoilers go. Told me I can’t google the show, search it on YouTube, ect. Anytime I type the shows name I’m risking anything coming up. I also know that 80% of humanity is wiped out from this “event/person”. Found that out the hard way. Other than that I’m spoiler free. I really wish I didn’t see any of that but it’s my fault ultimately and here I am. I probably shouldn’t be going on this subreddit to begin with. I’m lowering my eyes just going on this sub to post this. Not looking at anything else on this sub, not even daring to scroll to other posts. But with how far I’ve gotten in the series I really can’t hold it in and just really want to let out my thoughts so far on the show on here. Please keep the comments spoiler free for me. Just had to unload and discuss a little with you guys.
Edit: Hollllly shit! Just finished season 3. THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING

This is so silly to even ask (for people who know DotA)...but let me try do a short description.
I played an AD match with 2 buddies. We won the game (my score KDA was 6-1-23) in the end but one of the buddies (his score was 5-8-9, he was playing pos 1) I played with, went on a rant after the game was done that he didn't have a good game and it was mostly down to me. He blamed most of his deaths due to me not putting enough wards up or not playing a pos 5 properly. Now, in all fairness, I took his criticism and later checked the replay in more detail to actually see how many of his deaths could honestly be blamed on wards...and to me it seemed he could have easily avoided 5 of his deaths just by better positioning, 2 were a team fight that gone wrong and 1 (or 2) could have been maybe blamed on lack of wards. Now, I've been in his situation, but never thought of blaming someone else for my mistakes and just because if I was having a bad game, to try and ruin my teammates game over it...
Later after our game and after I watched the replay and noted my findings, I sent him what I found and said that it's not fair for him to blame me for wards when most of his deaths could have been avoided as he had overextended himself or not payed attention to minimap. Then he went on a bigger rant about me leaving him in a lane (I announced me leaving before hand), bad itemization (I dont think I needed much items, had shukuchi, mars spear (stun) and mirana's arrow (stun) and Queen of pain ult), and so on...all this blame being put on me and my play but not a single mention of his own actions or mistakes...
I am honestly bothered by all this cause we played many games together and had plenty of fun in them, and there was almost an unwritten agreement between us how it is not nice to derail your teammates game if you are having a bad game, but still winning it as a team...He seems stuck in his mind and almost bashes me for defending "that shit" (just defending my self in the end). I can endure a lot, but where I draw my line is being blamed for someone's else's mistakes. I feel like our friendship has come to an end because of this.
I wouldn't mind another perspective to this...I do not feel like the asshole, but maybe I am wrong...I love playing AD cause it is not ranked and possibilities are endless and most of all, there is no strict role positions (just my thoughts).
Best regards, random AD player :)

Introduction

Hello, summoners! Mastering the jungle role is crucial for controlling the tempo of a game in League of Legends. This guide is designed to enhance your jungling skills, focusing on strategic monster control, effective ganking, and optimizing your impact across the map.

Understanding the Role of a Jungler

What is Jungling? Jungling involves managing the area between the lanes, known as the jungle, where neutral monsters reside. A jungler's responsibilities include securing these monsters for buffs, supporting lanes through ganks, and controlling key map objectives like Dragon and Baron Nashor.
Why Master Jungling?

• Game Influence: Junglers have unique opportunities to influence all lanes, making strategic plays that can lead to team advantages.
• Resource Management: Efficient management of jungle resources can starve the opposing jungler and tilt the resource balance in your favor.
• Adaptability: A skilled jungler adapts their strategy based on the flow of the game, making decisions that can pivot the entire game's outcome.

Core Skills for Effective Jungling

To excel as a jungler, you’ll need to master several essential skills:

• Pathing Efficiency: Learn the most effective routes through the jungle to maximize time and resource management.
• Timing and Counter-Jungling: Master the timing of monster respawns and learn to anticipate and counter the enemy jungler’s moves.
• Gank Execution: Develop the ability to execute successful ganks by reading lane situations and knowing when and where to appear.

Advanced Jungling Strategies

Elevate your jungling with these advanced tactics:

• Vision Control: Utilize wards strategically to maintain control over the jungle and track the enemy jungler’s movements.
• Objective Prioritization: Know when to prioritize ganks, when to secure dragons, heralds, or barons, and how to balance these choices effectively.
• Team Coordination: Work closely with your lanes to set up ganks, secure kills, and push objectives, ensuring that your actions are synchronized with team goals.

Building Synergy with Teammates

Effective communication and coordination with your team are crucial for a jungler:

• Communication: Keep your team informed of your position and plans. Use pings and quick messages to coordinate ganks and alert teammates to the enemy jungler’s location.
• Adaptability in Playstyle: Adapt your jungling style to fit your team’s composition and strategy. Switch between aggressive ganking and conservative farming as needed.
• Support During Team Fights: Beyond early game ganks, contribute to team fights with timely engagements and by securing flanks or chasing down fleeing enemies.

Utilizing Technology and Tools

Enhance your jungling with the help of modern tools:

• Jungling Apps: Use apps designed to help track jungle timers and suggest optimal paths.
• Replay Analysis: Regularly review your gameplay to identify strengths and areas for improvement, particularly your pathing and gank timing.
• Online Coaching: Consider engaging with professional coaches who can provide personalized insights and improvement strategies based on your play style.

Conclusion

The jungle is a battleground of wits, will, and strategy. By mastering the jungling role, you not only increase your team’s chances of winning but also gain a deeper understanding of strategic gameplay in League of Legends. Elevate your game and become the jungle master your team needs to dominate the Rift.

Call to Action

Are you ready to master the jungle and control the game? Visit our website for advanced jungling courses and personalized coaching sessions. Join our community forum to share experiences, discuss strategies, and learn from fellow junglers. Take the first step to becoming a jungle legend today!

Introduction

Welcome, summoners! In the complex world of League of Legends, mastering macro strategies is essential for players who want to control the game beyond mere individual skirmishes. This guide dives deep into the art of macro gameplay, teaching you how to read the game, make strategic decisions, and lead your team to victory through superior map management and objective control.

Understanding Macro Play

What is Macro Play? Macro play refers to strategic decisions that affect the broader game state, including objective control, wave management, and territory dominance. It contrasts with micro play, which focuses on individual mechanics and lane battles.
Why Focus on Macro?

• Game-Winning Strategy: Effective macro play can lead to a significant advantage, often deciding the outcome of games.
• Team Synergy and Control: It enhances team coordination and allows for more predictable and controlled gameplay.
• Long-Term Advantages: Mastering macro strategies can consistently put your team ahead by maximizing resource allocation and timing.

Core Components of Macro Mastery

To excel in macro strategies, players must develop skills in several key areas:

• Objective Prioritization: Understanding which objectives (like dragons, barons, or turrets) will most benefit your team's current state.
• Map Awareness: Keeping track of ally and enemy positions to make informed decisions without needing constant updates.
• Wave Management: Manipulating minion waves to create pressure on the map, forcing the enemy team to respond to your movements.

Advanced Macro Strategies

Implement these advanced tactics to refine your macro play:

• Rotational Play: Learn how to move as a team around the map, securing objectives and gaining territorial control.
• Vision Control and Denial: Use wards and sweepers effectively to control sight lines and deny the enemy team valuable information.
• Pressure Points: Identify and exert pressure on the weakest points in the enemy's defense to split their focus and resources.

Building Team Coordination

Since macro play heavily relies on team efforts, enhancing team dynamics is crucial:

• Clear Communication: Develop concise and clear communication habits to quickly relay strategic decisions.
• Role Responsibilities: Ensure each team member understands their role in macro strategies, from the split-pusher to the team fight initiator.
• Adaptability: Be prepared to adapt strategies based on the evolving state of the game and the enemy's responses.

Leveraging Technology and Tools

Use technological aids to sharpen your macro skills:

• Replay Analysis Tools: Utilize tools to analyze game replays for missed opportunities and successful strategies.
• Strategic Planning Software: Some tools can help simulate different game states for strategic planning.
• Real-Time Decision Making Aids: Explore apps and platforms that provide real-time advice based on current game data.

Conclusion

Mastering macro strategies in League of Legends opens up new dimensions of gameplay. It allows players to influence the game at a strategic level, leading to more consistent and impactful wins. By focusing on macro play, you develop a deeper understanding of League's complexities and how to manipulate them to your advantage.

Call to Action

Ready to take your strategic gameplay to the next level? Dive deeper into macro strategies with our in-depth tutorials and case studies available on our website. Join discussions and exchange tips with other strategic players on our subreddit. Enhance your macro skills and dominate the Rift!

Intro

It’s not much of a stretch to say that violence is the primary form of interaction in video games. With a handful of exceptions, most video games involve guys whacking other guys, with varying degrees of brutality. Even chill games fall into this - Stardew Valley has sections with combat in them! Considering the pervasiveness of violence in video games, there has been a ton of amateur and academic commentary on the topic. However, while this is a well-established school of thought, I haven’t seen people try to apply this to Fire Emblem specifically.
So, let’s do that now! In this post, I’ll be exploring how violence in Fire Emblem is implemented - what limitations are placed on violence, how it warps wider game and narrative design, and what it implicitly says and does not say. I hope this post doesn’t come off as too early-2010s “makes you think”-y, but I do think there are multiple interesting things worth talking about here!
Despite the length of this post, "a brief discussion" is an appropriate title, as we won't be able to go into depth on everything. After all, video games are holistic works, so the attitude towards violence is relevant to every aspect of their design. However, I have managed to wrangle some of these threads into the following structure: first a discussion on the fundamental mode of interaction in Fire Emblem, then how stories are constructed with regards to violence, and ending with the aesthetics of violence and how they relate to characters. Also, as FE is a huge series, be aware that I am gonna be making some broad statements which may not apply to each individual plot point of every game. I actually planned to write 3 case studies around Thracia 776, Fates, and Three Houses (which have the most interesting attitudes to violence in the series IMO) which point out these deviations, but this post is way too long and full of tangents already. If people are interested, I’ll make a followup to this post which goes into them in more detail. Also also, because of the nature of this post, I’ll actually give a useful TL;DR for once:
TL;DR: Nintendo games must be fun mechanically, and they can’t be too uncomfortable narratively. If you try to provide a counterpoint by saying “oh this Kirby final boss is super dark it eats 100 morbillion galaxies”, you do not deserve rights. IntSys has to keep to this as a 2nd party publisher, but they also have to deal with the fact that their games are at least nominally about ‘war’ (or at least they put their toes into that particular thematic pool). This conflict between making a fun video game for children/teens and the wider framing of the narrative leads to interesting narrative and aesthetic tensions. also fun is cringe, misery is based

“Do you like hurting other people?” (or The Fundamental Mode of Interaction)

OK LISTEN I KNOW I LITERALLY JUST SAID THAT I DIDN’T WANT TO COME ACROSS AS A EARLY 2010s “VIOLENCE IN VIDYA BAD :O????” PERSON BUT I SWEAR I’M GOING SOMEWHERE WITH THIS
The best place to start when talking about violence in video games is to think about the primary form of interaction in said game. In the case of Fire Emblem, this is in the in-chapter gameplay. Sure, in objective terms the player moves arbitrary objects across a 2D grid which perform subtraction on arbitrary objects controlled by the computer, but this is always framed as controlling a squad of soldiers to engage in (typically lethal) combat with enemies (who are normally also soldiers). When you’re not doing this in-chapter gameplay, you are preparing for the next chapter of combat. This involves surveying the area of combat, preparing weapon loadouts, etc, however more recent entries also include light life-sim-esque elements. To summarize, Fire Emblem’s interactivity involves ordering violence as well as the preparations to order said violence.
For players, this strategic thinking is extremely fun and is the primary draw of the series! You have all these tier lists of who’s better at killing, discussion of the maps where you do the killing, complaints about the length of gameplay sections where you don’t do killing, etc. This is by design, as while I don’t know the core brand tenets of Nintendo, I imagine the Reggie quote “If it isn’t fun, why bother?” is carved into a solid gold statue of Mario in the office lobby. This then is enforced on all associated studios, including IntSys and so Fire Emblem. While I would disagree with that Reggie quote (especially the bit where he says “If it’s not a battle, where’s the fun?” which is a wild statement to make about an entire medium), this approach to making games is ultimately fine, and so IntSys tailored the strategic gameplay to be satisfying to your dopamine receptors. You could analyse what the normalisation of violence even in ‘just for fun’ games says about wider gaming culture, but I won’t get into that here. In any case, let’s dig into a few specifics of FE’s interactivity.
One thing that’s interesting with regard to strategy games is the detached perspective of the player. You order units and observe the resulting violence, but it’s not tactile, you don’t directly swing the sword or shoot the bow or cast the spell like with action games. This adds a layer of separation between the player and what fundamentally happens, at least within the framing that the game provides. It’s not like Call of Duty, where your relationship to the violence is very visceral, where you view everything down the barrel of a gun. OK, I probably shouldn’t use a series that I have very little personal experience with (I only listen to the supplementary lore material, so let’s talk about Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice. While you’re not directly in the driver’s seat, John Sekiro reacts to your every input with extreme responsiveness, so overcoming the game’s challenges i.e. stabbing people is incredibly visceral and satisfying. While this violence is fantastical in nature, there is sufficient blood and explicit sword-action to clearly say “oh yeah you are violently killing all of those bozos with a katana”. Coming back to FE, not only are you far more detached from the violence, it is presented in an extremely cartoony manner… but let’s not get ahead of ourselves here, we’ll get to the aesthetics later. Point is, Fire Emblem gives the viewpoint of a stoic commander, who Does What Needs To Be Done™, and not the viewpoint of an actual soldier who has to do the actual killing.
Now let’s view the player’s perspective on violence from a different angle. Fire Emblem intends for its combat to be relatively relaxed on the player side of things - the turn-based nature allows the player to calmly think through all of their moves, and you typically have perfect information on the enemies. The only exceptions to this are Fog of WaSame Turn Reinforcements, which are rare and typically unpopular amongst the fanbase. This leans into ‘combat as sport’, where (going back to the Reggie quote) you have a fun time picking apart a puzzle with the tools you have, and we all collectively enjoy this! This is a valid way of designing strategy games, and I like what IntSys has done. However, it’s not the only way of making these games - for example, in Total War you have to juggle all your battalions in real time whilst the enemy is bearing down on you, and the XCOM games always have Fog of War and limited information on the enemies, with you never knowing what kind of awful new monster is going to suddenly charge at you. Don’t get me wrong, neither of these follow ‘combat as war’, the principle that violence should properly mimic the stress, tension and unfairness of actual conflict. Hell, neither of them are particularly mature either - Total War is the strategy game equivalent of smashing action figures together, and XCOM emulates a pulp sci-fi alien invasion story. However, the additional pressures these games have make them hew slightly closer to actual conflict, putting you more in that mindset in a way that the clean fun Fire Emblem doesn’t really do. Again, I want to say FE’s approach to violence in in-map gameplay is fine, but when all three of these franchises have an explicit narrative framing of ‘warfare’, it does make Fire Emblem’s narrative a little more… stretched.
Finally, I want to briefly mention the maps. To steal from a brilliant Jacob Geller video, these are Worlds Designed For Violence. At least outside of the Kaga games, the maps you fight on are primarily designed around how the player interacts with them, i.e. fights on them. While I imagine the narrative designers and artists at IntSys are involved throughout the map design process, the gameplay flow probably takes precedence most of the time. Maps are not designed to resemble realistic places that you have to fight through, they are instead designed primarily to provide fun gameplay experiences before being dressed up by the artists to look realistic/fit the specific story beat. This is a more consistently entertaining approach to map design - heaven knows we have a lot of Kaga castle assault maps which are as fun as actually assaulting an entrenched position IRL - but this lack of friction could potentially take the bite out of the intended vibe, neuter any commentary on violence throughout the story.
You may have noticed that we’ve only talked about the “in-map” gameplay for now, when there’s an entire second half of these games, i.e. all the gameplay between the maps. Don’t worry, we’ll get to all of that, but this may fit better in:

Something something “ludonarrative” something something (or Narrative Implications)

(To clarify, here I’m going to talk about the wider plots and narrative structure as opposed to characterisation, as that fits more into the aesthetics of the series)
It’s not bold to say that the narratives of games have to warp around the core gameplay structure. Especially in AAA video game production, the narrative designers usually have to take a back seat to the systems and level designers, at least outside of the initial rough outline they provide in the original game pitch. In this case, the job of the writer is to form vaguely coherent connective tissue between individual levels, setpieces and expensive pre-rendered cutscenes. This must be a very difficult job, and is probably the reason why most video game stories are the way they are. I am not privy to IntSys internal meetings, but I imagine they abide by this paradigm, trying to give a reason for why you fight 20 battles which roughly align with plot beats that were decided years ago.
Put another way, the writers of Fire Emblem must contrive a reason why the characters fight a vast number of violent battles in a strategic manner. This has a pretty easy solution - war! We have found something it’s good for, as whenever the gameplay designers decide that an extra map is required, the writers can just insert “oh no there’s a blockade of enemy soldiers in the way, guess you gotta kill them all”. This is the case for almost all the games and is a fair enough narrative choice, as it’s frankly one of the few scenarios where you could reasonably contrive so many battles, but it’s worth examining this in a bit more detail.
Even in the framing of warfare, there are still a lot of skirmishes, which sometimes the narrative or tone fails to support - or at least, their presence means that violence isn’t taken that seriously. Let’s take an example from early in Awakening: Emmeryn sends the Shepherds to negotiate an alliance with Regna Ferox. On the way, they are ambushed by Risen on the Northroad (1), have to fight the border guards who think Chrom is a bandit I think??? (2), and then after arriving they need to take part in Regna Ferox’s ritual combat to secure their alliance (3). These beats aren’t necessarily bad, and I actually think Awakening uses these opportunities quite well: the Risen are established as a constant threat to the world (except not really in the main story but that’s a whole other thing), “Marth'' gets more development, we set up Regna Ferox as fighty people who like to fight, and while the middle encounter is very tenuous it does set up a funny joke in Cynthia’s paralogue. However, I want to communicate that if the map/encounter designers need X maps between plot points A and B - in this case, needing low-stakes trials in the tutorial period - then there’s gonna be a fair bit of narrative filler. That is to say, there must be multiple combat encounters that kinda just happen, which makes violence a lot more casual in the narrative. See also the myriad examples of “oh shit random bandits attack!”, used to have a lower stakes map, with bandits appearing and vanishing as needed. This works fine enough in the context of ‘combat as sport’, allowing your favourite scrunglo to build up a triple-digit body count, but this casual attitude circumvents potentially interesting ideas with regards violence. Taking the example further, banditry and its causes are never seriously explored, as bandits are just treated as a filler enemy (except in Based As Hell Thracia 776).
Another narrative consequence of needing so many fights is that… you need to fight. That is to say, any anti-war sentiment or appeal to diplomacy in the series is fundamentally undercut by a) strategic combat being a core appeal of the series and b) narrative beats needing to be structured around fighting enemies. It’s a struggle to have moments of diplomacy and reconciliation when you had a fight within 3 minutes of said moment, lest some people start screaming that things are getting boring. This also makes any appeals to pacifism kinda moot. Xander’s quote about “war bad” in Conquest is utter bullshit, as a huge part of the marketing around that route focuses on the coolness of the tactical combat and its challenge. Eirika and Ephraim can never be equal, because Ephraim’s “fighting is fucken awesome” is encouraged by the gameplay, and Eirika can NEVER save 11037 because we need a final boss and no-one else fits the bill.
Speaking of, in video games it’s best practice to have a big bad guy you fight at the end of the story, the toughest mechanical challenge coinciding with the narrative climax. In Fire Emblem, you have one grand final battle which decides the fate of the war and/or world, before cutting to a brief wrap-up and then credits. This is an attempt to make these games satisfying, which is fine, but this is at odds with an anti-war message (which FE often gestures towards) - that is, actual wars tend to be deeply unsatisfying in a narrative sense! Oftentimes, after a decisive battle, things just kinda keep going for a little while afterwards with casualties continuing to pile up until peace terms are agreed. In the few cases where there is a final battle, it’s more of a formality as the decisive moment occurred months ago. See World War 1 and… World War 2 for examples of each, not to mention a whole host of war-related books and films. The problem with doing this in a video game is that it would require having multiple one-sided fights past the most climatic fight, which would be unfun, and we return to that fucking Reggie quote again. While video games can effectively explore this anti-war narrative space - This War of Mine is a fantastic example - it just doesn’t gel with the fun games that IntSys wants to make. I bring this up in the context of FE because Fire Emblem has such an aesthetic focus on warfare compared to other video games, so it sticks out even further. Even in FE6/FE9 where the war is effectively over in the final few maps, the enemies still remain extremely challenging, because if they didn’t things would be boring.
A few minor things that didn’t fit in above before we wrap up this section. First of all, in making an action packed story, Fire Emblem neglects an important aspect of army life in warfare - the “hurrying up and waiting”. In the majority of cases, the breaks between fights is under 10 minutes, it’s just glossed over. Fire Emblem Three Houses is the exception to this, but there it’s more framed as school life. Some people may say “what’s the point in having large amounts of timewasting where nothing happens in my game about war” and to that I would say fuck you, I want to play Jarhead Emblem. Next, Fire Emblem involves fighting people AND monsters, but these targets are typically given equal narrative weight, outside of maybe a funny line of dialogue about someone being afraid of monsters. In 99% of cases, enemy soldiers you fight have no more humanity than literal monsters. The death of any of your beloved soldiers is a tragedy with big sad death quotes, the death of those poor fuckers is quite literally a statistic which is proudly used to rank how well your guys have done at the end of the game. Finally, the limited scope of the violence the series can show limits the potential impact of scenes. In some cases, this is good as the implication is enough, e.g. the ‘Monica’ scene in Sacred Stones is wonderfully grim and would be weakened by anything explicit. However, a number of other scenes are neutered by the limitations on violence. This fundamentally relates to the aesthetics of the series:

insert prozd tweet/skit here (or Aesthetics, Tone, and Characters)

I’ve been talking a lot about ‘the violence committed’, and this might have seemed a bit weird to you. It’s a true statement, but because the violence is mostly cartoony and abstracted - bad guys disappear into nothingness, there’s no blood, etc - it’s hard to think of it in that way. It’s basically impossible to place Fire Emblem in the same artistic sphere as, say, All Quiet on the Western Front. This aesthetic sense was partially tech-limited in the early NES and SNES games, which was grandfathered into the more graphically complex titles, but it’s also related to how the aesthetics unavoidably warp the tone of the work. IntSys needs their games to be relatively lighthearted and unconcerned with the consequences of its violence, as one of the core appeals of these games is the charming cast of characters. As you would expect, it would be a lot harder to appreciate your goofy blorbos and their lighthearted chats about nothing if you could see the brutal consequences of their triple digit body counts. If violence was more realistic, there would be a lot less “ooh I like training and/or this one hyperspecific food” or “I like peace, but I guess violence may be possibly needed sometimes” and there would have to be a lot more trauma and dourness. There are also age rating concerns, as you can’t exactly sell Come And See Emblem to pre-teens. And once more, to clarify: Fire Emblem as it exists now is fine! I like the lighthearted tone of this series, and I like the characters that reside within it. However, a few problems do arise from IntSys’s approach to violence, as occasionally they brush up against darker ideas but (due to similar reasons to the above) they can never commit to them, which neuters their potential impact. This is especially troublesome with regards to characterisation, as the little dudes are a core appeal, so if something is off that could cause problems. In a sense, at points we have severe aesthetic tension.
A fairly useful case study to see how this affects characterisation is with Mozu in Fire Emblem Fates. Mozu is a charming character, a genial country bumpkin with a bit of an edge at times, who has fond memories of her hometown. This lines up with the lighthearted tone of her recruitment paralogue, where (checks notes) her entire village gets massacred by inhuman monsters, with her mother literally being murdered right in front of her, and she joins up with Corrin’s party because there is literally nothing left of her old life. I understand that people who experience extreme trauma do still manage to live meaningful lives, and that IntSys wouldn’t want to have a character who is a barely functional traumatised mess for 90% of the campaign. However, this doesn’t explain the sheer dissonance between the relatively normal and well-adjusted Mozu who quietly remembers her lost loved ones, and the fact that her village got My Lai’d a handful of weeks ago in the game’s timeline. IMO this would work a lot better if there were a few survivors (instead of literally everyone else dying), with Mozu actively choosing to leave her old life to help others instead of being forced to leave by circumstance. This reduction in scope would mitigate the dissonance between the character and what actually happens to her. This is by far the most extreme example in the series, however I’m sure you can think of others. My issue here is not with having ‘normal’ characters, or with them suffering tragedies, my issue is the dissonance between the two when viewing the scope of said tragedies. This is just one way the series wants to get into darker territory, then swiftly backing off instead of delving into the consequences.
This aesthetic restriction also affects the potential impact of dramatic scenes in the main story, limiting what the focus of these scenes can actually be. This little bit will involve heavy spoilers for Genealogy of the Holy War and Spec Ops: The Line (I KNOW THESE GAMES ARE VERY DIFFERENT WITH VERY DIFFERENT INTENDED DEMOGRAPHICS IN VERY DIFFERENT CULTURAL CONTEXTS, SHUT UP). Both have a very important narrative moment around their midpoints, involving fire magic/white phosphorus respectively. In each game, the deaths that occur are utterly horrific when you think about them. In FE4 the focus is on the drama of the plot twist and effects on the characters, with the actual effects of the violence being left to implication. We don’t know if this was the original intent of Kaga and the team, or if this was enforced by various tech- and publisher-related restrictions, but in either case we do not see anything explicit. In any case, in Spec Ops: The Line, the horror and graphic nature of the violence is completely inescapable, and therefore forms the core of the turning point of the story. The specifics of the violence itself are crucial - the game does not work if you don’t see the consequences of the white phosphorus - and it leads beautifully to the complete descent of its endgame. You may be saying “of course you couldn’t show that violence in FE, it’s a kids game” which is true, and in any case the scene in Genealogy is very good, even without showing the violence. I imagine if we get a remake in the year 202X we wouldn’t see anything explicit anyway, partially due to the publisher but also because the scene doesn’t necessarily need it. The point I am trying to make is that the aesthetics form a limitation on what Fire Emblem can explore, narrative space that the series fundamentally cannot reach.
One more thing, and this isn’t really about the games themselves but the impressions leading into them, and how the aesthetics can affect that. Do you guys remember when the intro cutscene of Three Houses was released a few weeks before release? I do, and I also remember the collective shock of the community when seeing the early previews. It was so drastically different to everything that had come before, and consequently was really intriguing - you can see a lot of speculation in the above comments. To clarify, I don’t want to pretend that 3H is some kind of super mature ultra gritty war story, or that blood = good game, but that beginning cutscene gave one hell of a first impression. Even though the game isn’t that much darker than any other FE game, the sheer unexpectedness put people off-kilter in a kinda awesome way. Does the game actually deliver? YMMV, but I think this (and some of the later cutscenes, such as the mid-game Dimitri one) work quite well. Sometimes, a little injection of harsher violence can go a long way.

Conclusion

Frankly I don’t really have a conclusion, sorry. As you can see, there are so many disparate strands, I can’t possibly make one grand thesis statement. Maybe the inherent contradictions of having warfare in a family friendly video game weakens the potential end result? I guess, but I don’t want to imply that what we have now is bad, as it is pretty good tbh. So, uhh…
…
OK, if I had to say something, it’s more about the process of making this. Having to try and think about how violence intersects with a video game you like takes you in a number of different directions. Ultimately, this process was really fulfilling for me, and I would recommend that you do the same (for FE or anything else)! Trying to analyse something you enjoy from a perspective not usually applied is pretty neat. If you guys have any thoughts (on the points above or your own), I’d be very interested to hear them!
Also, if people are interested, I’ll try to make a few case studies. I would focus on Thracia 776, Fates, and Three Houses, as (when thinking on this topic) I found that these games were consistently the most intriguing, with the most interesting relationships to violence. This would probably take a while though, as I am gonna be very busy in June, and I probably won’t have time this month either.

Okay so I just got back from seeing this!!! Ohmygod. Ohmygod! Okay spoiler warning because I just need to talk about all my feelings!!!! SPOILERS COMING!!
IT WAS AMAZING!
I loved every moment. Kinda shocked people felt it was a bit to slow but I'm just so enthralled by the apes I'm never bored. Like could it have been even longer??
FIRST I need to cry about the Mae betrayal!!! THAT HURT! I'm still not okay. You know something's wrong. You know she's taking advantage of how clueless Noa and his friends are when they enter that vault. You know whatever she's after, it's not good for apes, everything in that vault screams bad for the apes. But I still didn't expect for her to do what she did, betraying Noa and his friends and leaving them to die. After Noa and his friends helped her, and Raka died trying to save her
The way that whole scene plays out, the utter terror as Noa and his apes are all just fighting to survive and stay alive, it was insane. And THE GORILLA!!! Nothing has scared me yet in this franchise like him. Every time he showed up you were just terrified. When he was charging Noa at the end - I was just replaying The Last of Us and it felt like a bloater charging you, that's the feeling I got because he's so strong and just charging and roaring and you know he's to powerful.
When Proximus says, "What have you done" I actually got chills. Proximus is terrible, enslaving clans and killing other apes, but in that moment you felt horrified realizing he was right about needing to get into that vault first. He knew how apes were once kept in cages and he knew you could not trust a human. And Noa trusted a human, and suddenly they were all at risk of death.
I'm still in shock over what Mae did, and yet I realize from her point of view, Raka and Noa and his friends were the only good apes she'd ever met, but she couldn't let that get in the way of her mission. It goes back to the Colonel "what would you have done?" and Dreyfus "I'm saving the human race" Mae has to do the hard thing, to in her mind, save humanity.
I'm so curious on what comes next for Mae. When she was holding that gun behind her back, I felt like she was both considering shooting Noa or preparing to defend herself if he reacted badly. But his mention of Raka, and gifting her his necklace with Caesar's symbol and pondering if humans and apes could ever live together, she reacted in a way that suggests her actions caused her pain. I'm so curious what Mae's journey will be. Will she continue to be ruthless for the sake of humanity, or will she give consideration to the idea of apes and humans living together? She felt like quite a mystery, holding onto so many secrets.
And also OMG - so many humans survived underground!! What does this mean for apes??? What did Mae take from the vault? It feels like the apes have another big threat coming! After War, I didn't think humans would be a threat again and yet, 300 years later it looks like they're trying to find a way to reclaim their place, but how can they? So many questions for what is next!
More things I need to talk about - gosh I got teary eyed at Caesar's funeral. Wasn't expecting to see him one last time, or any of his apes from his time. So seeing that funeral got me, and then Noa finding his father dead got me teary, and then him reuniting with his friend and his mom got me too. The movie was so emotional and intense. I enjoyed watching Noa leave on his own to find his clan, and meeting Raka and learning about Caesar. I really liked the quiet moments too. I get so lost in watching the expressions of the apes, their movements, how they react to their world.
Loved all the characters. I want more!!! Waiting is gonna be so hard again, but we're all in it together!!

In the annals of gaming history, few titles command the reverence and adoration as the legendary Doom franchise. Born from the minds of John Romero, John Carmack, Adrian Carmack, and Tom Hall, Doom would go on to lay the foundations for just about every modern video game that exists. It was a true tour de force, a success story few could scarce ever imagine.
Released in 1993, Doom was an immediate smash hit, thanks in no small part to its shareware format, which allowed users to experience the first few levels of Knee Deep In the Dead, and then order the full game via the phone number included. Players could then share the floppy disk with their friends, and so on, and so on. It was a truly revolutionary system, and within a single year, Doom had sold over 2 million copies.
The history of the Doom franchise is one of innovation, ultra violence, and controversy (1999's Columbine High School Massacre), and that reputation is one that continued with 2016's DOOM. DOOM was officially revealed at Quakecon 2014, ten years after Doom 3. Players had long resigned to Doom being considered a dead franchise. A reboot had been in the works for a number of years prior, but never got released, having been quietly cancelled by id in 2010. The future was bleak, but the 30 second long teaser ignited a spark that had been burning dimmer every passing year.
Then came E3 2015.
The hype was unreal. The trailer had everything that fans could possibly want. Gore, intense violence, insane run n gun gameplay, a rip-roaring soundtrack and the MFING CHAINSAW. But fans had been let down before. Would it really hold up its promises?
Yes. Yes, it would.
PART I: Presentation
When DOOM burst onto the scene in 2016, it did so with a visual and auditory spectacle that left players awestruck. From the moment the game boots up, players are made aware that this is not your average shooter. You are greeted with a deep, commanding voice. "Rip and tear, until it is DONE."
Immediately, players are greeted with a scene of carnage and the Doom Slayer chained to a table, which, of course, he instantly breaks free from. A zombie attempts to relieve the Slayer of his life but is beaten to the punch with a prompt skull smashing. After putting the other zombies to rest, he interacts with the panel in the corner, is greeted by one Dr. Samuel Hayden, who attempts to justify the outbreak, and decides he would rather kill shit than listen to excuses and destroys the monitor.
That is the introduction to this game. It never wastes the player's time. We aren't here to listen to long droning monologues or watch MGS style cutscenes. id Software knew their audience, and knew what that audience wanted, and they deliver in spades. This introduction sets the tone for the entire experience: relentless action, unapologetic violence, and a protagonist who is as unstoppable as he is uncompromising. The Doom Slayer's disdain for exposition and his single-minded focus on annihilating demons resonate with players who crave a pure, unadulterated gaming experience.
By eschewing lengthy cutscenes and exposition-heavy dialogue in favor of fast-paced gameplay and visceral action, id Software delivers a game that respects the player's time and delivers exactly what they came for: non-stop demon-slaying action. In an era where many games are criticized for padding their runtime with unnecessary filler, DOOM stands out as a shining example of how to create a focused and engaging experience that keeps players coming back for more.
Rather than bombarding players with lengthy exposition or intrusive cutscenes, DOOM opts for a more environmental storytelling approach. Throughout the game, players can discover audio logs, read text-based terminals, and observe environmental details that provide context and background to the events unfolding around them.
The story of DOOM revolves around the Doom Slayer's mission to stop a demonic invasion unleashed by the Union Aerospace Corporation (UAC) on their Martian facility. As players progress through the game, they uncover details about the UAC's experiments with Hell energy, the origins of the demonic invasion, and the Doom Slayer's own mysterious past.
While the story may not be front and center in DOOM, it nonetheless adds depth and richness to the game world, enhancing the overall experience for players who choose to engage with it. And for those who prefer to focus solely on the action, the story remains secondary, allowing them to enjoy the game on their own terms.
That's all well and good, but what about the actual gameplay? Simply put, it is exhilarating. From the moment you are given control of the Slayer, players are thrust into a frenzy of blood and violence, and it never lets up. At its core, DOOM is a first-person shooter that harkens back to the genre's roots while injecting it with a healthy dose of modern flair. The gameplay is fast-paced, frenetic, and utterly unapologetic in its brutality. You're not just a player – you're the Doom Slayer, a force of nature hell-bent on eradicating every last demon in your path.
Central to the gameplay experience is the game's combat loop, which revolves around a delicate balance of aggression and strategy. In DOOM, there's no hiding behind cover or waiting for your health to regenerate – you're constantly on the move, strafing, dodging, and leaping across the battlefield as you unleash a torrent of bullets, rockets, and plasma upon your enemies.
Weapons include the iconic shotgun, heavy assault rifle, plasma rifle, rocket launcher, and the devastating BFG 9000, among others. Each weapon offers different firing modes, such as single shot, burst fire, and continuous beam, providing players with tactical options in combat. A key aspect of combat is the Glory Kill system, which allows players to perform brutal finishing moves on staggered enemies. Glory Kills not only provide health and ammo but also contribute to the flow of combat by encouraging aggressive play. It is incredibly satisfying to watch the Slayer rip an imp in half or stomp their head into the pavement, and doing so rewards you with a large return of health.
The Chainsaw mechanic is another integral part of combat, allowing players to instantly kill most enemies and gain a large amount of ammo in return. However, Chainsaw fuel is limited and must be managed carefully. Like Glory Kills, watching the chainsaw tear demons apart is incredibly satisfying. Certain demons require more fuel but provide the player with more ammo in return. Balancing which demons you chainsaw and which ones you choose to Glory Kill is an important part of combat.
Exploration is key to progression and is rewarding to those players who choose to do. Hidden throughout the levels of the game are Argent Cells, Praetor Tokens, and Rune Trials. Each of these provide upgrades to your health/shield/ammo, suit, and passive abilities respectively. Also hidden throughout the game are levers that lead you to classic levels from Doom 1 and Doom 2, which then unlock the full level of its respective game, playable from the main menu. You can also find toy models of the Doom Slayer, which unlock various character models to view. On some of these models, the Doom Slayer will perform a unique action when picking it up, such as fist bumping the classic Doomguy. It's a nice and cute little touch added by the developers that does a little to add character to the Slayer, who is a silent protagonist.
id Software masterfully blends modern game design with a deep reverence for the classics, paying homage to the series' storied history while introducing new elements that propel the franchise forward. Central to this approach is the game's character design, which strikes a delicate balance between nostalgia and innovation. At its core is the iconic protagonist, the Doom Slayer, whose design pays homage to the original Doom Marine while incorporating modern updates that make him feel both familiar and fresh. With his battle-worn armor, imposing stature, and silent demeanor, the Doom Slayer is the embodiment of raw power and unrelenting rage.
The game's roster of enemies is a veritable who's who of classic Doom foes, reimagined for the modern era. From the lowly possessed soldiers to the hulking Cyberdemon, each enemy is lovingly crafted to capture the essence of its 1990s counterpart while introducing new mechanics and behaviors that keep players on their toes. Whether you're facing off against the agile Revenants, the relentless Hell Knights, or the grotesque Cacodemons, every encounter is a nostalgic trip down memory lane, punctuated by the satisfying sound of demon flesh being torn asunder.
But the main story is not where it ends. DOOM has an arcade mode, where players can run through the levels again, this time trying for high scores and medals while collecting 1 Ups. It's important to move fast and have accurate aim; the more kills you chain together, the bigger your score is. Getting hit reduces your score. At the end of the level, your score is tallied against others on a leaderboard. It's a great way to incentivize players to keep playing, in order to get a better and better score.
There is also multiplayer, where players compete in various game modes such as classic deathmatch, warpath and free for all. Players can become demons by collecting runes on the battlefield and this gives them a distinct advantage; demons are larger, stronger and more resilient. Players are bizarrely restricted to only two weapons and a loadout in multiplayer, which blew my mind. Loadouts. In a DOOM game. The demons are also massively unbalanced and if one team manages to get a particularly powerful demon such as a baron of hell, then it's a guaranteed win. All in all, the multiplayer just isn't great. You are better off replaying the story or arcade mode, or even SnapMap.
SnapMap is id Software's proprietary level editor, and it puts every other editor on the market to shame. SnapMap is an incredible, intuitive, easy to learn system allowing players to create their own multiplayer, co-op and single player maps. There is an extensive tutorial system that teaches users the basics, and goes up in depth, covering how to use AI triggers, switches, combinations, object layering, actions, recalls, audio cues, etc. Never have I ever seen such an in-depth interface on a console game before. While it is only surface level in the grand scheme of things, SnapMap is a great introduction to teaching users how game development works, and I urge everyone to try it out at least once.
Part II: The Music
In DOOM, the music isn't just a background accompaniment – it's a driving force that propels players forward, electrifying every moment of the gameplay experience. Composed by the incredibly talented Mick Gordon, the soundtrack of DOOM is a relentless onslaught of metal and electronica that perfectly complements the game's fast-paced action and visceral combat. From the moment you boot up the game, you're greeted by the iconic strains of the main theme, a haunting melody that sets the tone for the epic journey that lies ahead. As you traverse the game's environments, the music shifts seamlessly between atmospheric ambience and pulse-pounding metal.
But it's not just the composition of the music that makes it so memorable – it's also the way it's integrated into the gameplay itself. Mick Gordon's dynamic scoring system ensures that the music evolves in real-time based on the player's actions, ramping up in intensity during combat encounters and dialing back during quieter moments of exploration. This creates a sense of momentum and flow that enhances the overall pacing of the game
One of the standout features of the soundtrack is its use of unconventional instrumentation and sound design. Mick Gordon's signature sound combines distorted guitars, pounding drums, and industrial noise to create a sonic palette that is as brutal and unforgiving as the game itself. From the deep, guttural growls of the synth bass to the ear-shredding shrieks of the guitar solos, every element of the music is designed to evoke a sense of chaos and destruction, mirroring the relentless carnage unfolding onscreen.
Of course, no discussion of the music in DOOM would be complete without mentioning the iconic tracks that have become synonymous with the game. From the adrenaline-fueled "Rip & Tear" to the bone-crushing "BFG Division," each track is a masterpiece of composition and production, perfectly capturing the essence of the DOOM experience and elevating it to new heights. Mick Gordon's composition for the DOOM soundtrack is a tour de force in heavy metal and industrial electronica, meticulously crafted to evoke the essence of the game's frenetic gameplay.
The backbone of the soundtrack is the distorted guitar, which provides the driving force behind many of the tracks. Gordon's use of extended-range guitars and custom-tuned instruments gives the music its signature low-end punch, while his aggressive playing style adds a raw, visceral energy to the sound. In addition to guitars, Gordon incorporates a wide range of electronic and synthetic elements into his compositions, including synthesizers, drum machines, and sampled sounds. These elements are used to create atmospheric textures, rhythmic patterns, and dynamic effects.
One of the most innovative aspects of Gordon's sound design is his use of audio manipulation techniques, such as granular synthesis and spectral processing. These techniques allow him to deconstruct and manipulate audio in real-time, creating complex textures and effects.
Perhaps the most revolutionary aspect of Mick Gordon's composition for DOOM is his dynamic scoring system, which adjusts the music in real-time based on the player's actions. This system, known as "MIDI-controlled dynamic music," allows the music to seamlessly transition between different layers and variations depending on the intensity of the gameplay. Gordon achieves this dynamic effect by dividing each track into multiple stems or layers, each representing a different element of the music (e.g., drums, guitars, synths). These stems are then triggered and mixed in real-time using MIDI data generated by the game engine, allowing the music to adapt and evolve dynamically as the player progresses through the game.
Part III: Building a Legacy
All too often in this industry, legacy franchises are either left in the dust to be forgotten, or brought back to a limp fanfare, only to be thrust back into the shadows of the past. This happens for a myriad of reasons, and I believe the biggest one is that they don't respect their legacy, and they don't respect the players who engage with them.
At its core, DOOM is a game that understands what players want: fast-paced action, engaging gameplay, and a sense of empowerment. By focusing on these core principles, id Software created an experience that resonated with players old and new, capturing the spirit of the original games while pushing the series forward. Central to this approach is the game's unwavering commitment to respecting the player. From its minimalist storytelling and streamlined level design to its intuitive controls and dynamic difficulty system, DOOM prioritizes the player's experience above all else, ensuring that every moment of the game is engaging, immersive, and satisfying.
One of the most notable ways that DOOM respects the player is through its approach to difficulty. Rather than imposing artificial barriers or punishing players for their mistakes, the game encourages experimentation and mastery through its responsive gameplay mechanics and adaptive enemy AI. Players are given the freedom to approach encounters in their own way, whether it's through brute force, cunning strategy, or a combination of both.
Another key aspect of DOOM's player-centric design is its emphasis on accessibility. From its difficulty settings and intuitive user interface to its robust accessibility features, such as colorblind modes and customizable controls, the game ensures that players of all skill levels and abilities can enjoy the experience without feeling excluded or overwhelmed.
But perhaps the most important way that DOOM respects the player is through its commitment to fun. At its core, DOOM is a game that prioritizes the player's enjoyment above all else, delivering a seamless and exhilarating experience that keeps players coming back for more. Whether you're blasting demons with a shotgun, exploring hidden secrets, or rocking out to Mick Gordon's pulse-pounding soundtrack, DOOM is a game that never stops prioritizing YOU.
DOOM's legacy is one of respect – respect for the player, respect for the franchise, and respect for the medium of video games as a whole. By prioritizing fun, accessibility, and player agency, id Software created an experience that not only honors the legacy of the original games but also sets a new standard for what a modern first-person shooter can be. And for that, we owe them a debt of gratitude.

This is party 2 of a discussion regarding how poly could have been handled a little better in BG3. I recommend you read through the first part here: https://new.reddit.com/BaldursGate3/comments/1crb2s7/how_the_polyamory_could_have_been_handled/ so you can get context and I sound like less of a rambling weirdo.
​
Astarion:
Out of all the discussions, people were the most confused by this choice. Not only does making him poly at the last minute feel contrary to a lot of statements he himself makes throughout his romance arc, but it also runs counter to what other characters say about him and his backstory as a whole. He is one of the most insecure characters in the game, he was trained for two hundred years to lie in order to avoid punishment, and he has far more trauma and healing to do than the other characters. Astarion is the most likely to lie about the Halsin relationship in order to avoid appearing weak or demanding. Out of the poly players who expressed disappointment, Astarion was the one that bothered them the most, since many felt he wasn’t fully consenting.
Most of my reasons for why he’s not a good poly option (from a development standpoint) have already been stated in earlier sections, so most of this will be spent diving into the “Is he fine with poly or not?” debate, which had me intrigued. (This will be the longest section and won’t be as connected to the overall topic, so if you want to skip to the Halsin part, feel free.)
I’ll start with the main arguments I see defending him being poly.
Argument 1: He says he’s fine with Halsin and the twins, so we should take him at his word.
While this can definitely be argued, and it’s not good to treat an adult man like a baby, his constant lying as a defense mechanism and current issues with sex/relationships do need to be taken into account (if not by the players then at least by the developers). There were plenty of people (some of them victims of SA) who talked about their own experience of tolerating poly because they were scared of their partner leaving or finding them too demanding/narrow minded. This led to their self-esteem and views on relationships growing worse rather than better. For someone like Astarion, who outright admits he has never had a healthy relationship and doesn’t want to lose this one, it’s understandable that people view his response as a coping mechanism rather than his own genuine feelings. There were also two different mental health professionals who reminded players that although a few victims of abuse do enter poly relationships, statistically most do not and it is far more common for them to agree to poly relationships out of pressure (which often make the person’s mental issues even worse in the long run).
Argument 2: He claims to be fine with open relationships during Act 1.
This is countered by the fact that everything he says about himself in Act 1 is a lie (unless he’s specifically talking about Cazador). He lies about wanting to sleep with you, he lies about his identity until he bites you, he claims to only care about sex (then later admits it makes him feel disgust and loathing), and he brags about his former conquests (which you later find out he regrets and feels guilt over). His statements that he’s fine with open relationships are made when choosing between him and another Origin character in Act 1 or 2, but this is also said at a time when his act is still up and he isn’t in love with the player. If you choose between him and another Origin character AFTER he confesses and let’s his guard down, he insists that he is NOT fine with sharing. “You’ve decided to replace me?” If the player says they care about both him and the other person, he’ll say, “Don’t give me that. I can see what this is.” Then he promptly breaks up with them. This second reaction is not only said using his genuine voice (whereas before he was still using his fake one), but a few poly people mentioned that this isn’t a normal reaction from someone who is fine with poly.
This isn’t to shame people who want to think Astarion is fine with it, or to judge players who went through with the poly relationship. Instead, this is once again asking the developers why they chose this option, rather than someone who wouldn’t spark so much debate or remind abuse victims of their past without giving them a dialogue option to address it. (This is a similar issue with Astarion’s brothel scene. They should have either removed it by having him say he’s not comfortable again, or at the very least, let players talk to him about it after.)
I think it’s pretty clear that after reading the discussions and evidence both sides provided, I myself lean heavily to one side. However, the main defense I personally have for the opposite side is that the writers were sometimes vague about Astarion’s true preferences and wishes. I especially felt this during the origin playthrough, where his narrator would constantly flip between him liking hedonism and despising it. It gave the impression that two opposing authors were wrestling while writing him, unable to decide where he truly stood on things. It felt similar to how the devs tried to write a respectful story of overcoming abuse and the fear of being sexualized, only to turn around and repeatedly sexualize the character in both the game and promotional material. I really wish the writers and developers had picked a lane and stuck with it.
Now I’ll get into the evidence for the counter theory: That he’s not actually open to sharing, but says he’s fine with it to avoid appearing weak or losing his partner. I personally prefer this theory because it makes the writing seem more intentional, adds more nuance to an already complex character, and feels more realistic. However, even if this is what the writer or actor were trying to convey, it’s still a far worse alternative to simply keeping him out of the poly options in the first place.

1. His hedonistic playboy persona is stated to be a façade. Anything he says in act one about being poly and wanting open relationships is stated when he is both wearing his mask and before he trusts the player. Every statement about relationships here has to be taken with a grain of salt because his mask is centered around attracting victims for Cazador. Since he hated bringing “sweet innocents” to his master, it makes sense that he would initially try to attract the opposite (“criminals and brothel goers”) by sleeping around and making a show of wanting casual relationships.
   
2. Once he gets comfortable in the relationship, he makes it clear he is looking for someone who will make him feel safe and value him for his personality over his body (“I don’t want you to think of me in terms of sex. I don’t think I want anyone to.” “How do you want me to see you?” “As a person. Is that so much to ask?”). If the player chooses to sexualize him, he will go through with it, then regret it later and break up. He makes it very clear in Act two that he’s not actually looking for casual hookups because they make him feel “ashamed and alone”. So it is odd that he’s fine with Halsin (who seems to care more about the sex and the body than the emotional bonding) and the brothel (which is solely about sex). One can argue that he’s fine with the poly relationship because he’s not taking part, but Halsin DOES wish for him to take part ‘eventually’.
   
3. Jumping off of that, Astarion’s dialogue makes it clear he wants a partner who cares about more than just sex, but if you tell him you want to date Halsin solely for the sex (and because Astarion’s not doing it with you), he will say that’s fine and he doesn’t mind the player seeking sex from others. This seems to counter his previous statements and arc. It’s especially strange that even if you reinforce his greatest insecurity (that his refusal to have sex has made his partner immediately seek out other people), he will still claim to be fine with it.
   
4. In terms of dialogue, the actor for Astarion seems to be very intentional when using the fake theatrical masking voice vs. the more genuine softspoken voice he uses when he’s comfortable and being honest. The fake voice is blatantly obvious throughout the Act 1 romance, in Act 2 if you force him to obey the blood merchant (his voice goes from genuinely scared to flirtatious and over the top within seconds), and in Cazador’s mansion where he’ll speak genuinely to you, then be over the top when addressing Cazador’s servants. He’ll often use jokes and loud laughter to conceal his true feelings and insecurities. Meanwhile his laughter in the confession scene, graveyard scene, and Spawn epilogue is quiet and subdued because he’s being genuine. It feels like a strange coincidence that when addressing both the Halsin situation and the brothel situation, his voice becomes very loud and high pitched again, he immediately starts making jokes, and his laughter is over the top. This hints at him not wanting to go along with either situation, but he’s putting himself through it because this is what his partner wants and since he’s tolerated sexual stuff he hated before, he can do it again. Plus, after killing Cazador, he wants to ensure no one views him as weak. He has to prove to himself and his lover (at least in his mind) that refusing to take the Ascendant powers was good and he’s strong enough to not need it. I can understand players not picking up on the voice changes (because not everyone is going to replay the game or even care) but those who did notice it believe it’s done intentionally (either by the actor or the writer or both). If it’s not intentional, then it’s a strange decision to make from a developer’s standpoint.
   
5. Throughout the threads I read, most poly people made it clear that poly relationships require complete trust, clear communication, and general confidence. Astarion himself admits to lacking all of those traits to some degree. If you don’t romance him, he will literally not trust any of the characters right up to the epilogue (he’ll hold a knife behind his back while talking to the Dark Urge). Even though he does seem to genuinely trust his lover by Act 2, he will still lie to them several times. He lies about being fine with the drow twins (he states he’ll leave if he hates if but never does despite disassociating), feigns confidence when the player says they’ll become a mind flayer (he says he only cares about them becoming ugly but expresses his true fears only after the fight, that he’s worried they are no longer the person he fell in love with by losing their soul), he manipulates his lover when confronting Cazador despite being conflicted about it himself and wanting reassurance, and (on a more minor note) he continuously claims he’s doesn’t care about Yenna or the Gur children despite getting upset when they’re in danger. This is a character who, even after he kills his tormentor, struggles to be honest with his partner. That isn’t a good combination when addressing poly. (Again, it could be worked through in real life, but is better avoided in video games where there isn’t time to address it).
   
6. There are also plenty of situations where he agrees to do things he outright hates. In Act 1, we know he is (at least somewhat) disgusted by having sex with the player or Laezel, but he’ll do it. In Act 2, he tries to be genuine about not wanting to touch the player until he no longer feels disgust, but if the player pressures him, he will cave and obey. He does break up with the player afterwards, but it is only after he has gone through with the act. In Act 3, he will state three times that he doesn’t want to take the tadpole, but if the player pressures him by bringing up his darkest fear, he will give in. Worse, he will give in and STILL stay with the player romantically despite them clearly manipulating him to do something they know he fears. He does thankfully break up if you fail the checks, but if you succeed, he goes through with it. If he’s willing to cave to something as huge as altering his entire body, it makes sense that he would cave to something he views as more minor (like tolerating unwanted sexual acts in a brothel or sharing his partner).
   
7. I didn’t know this until I saw others mention it but there are points where he will flirt with NPCs if he is single (the girl in the sewers), but he uses neutral dialogue if he is dating the player. This reinforces the theory that he doesn’t actually plan to sleep around or be with others as he claims (though there are some dialogues that I think slipped through the cracks where he still flirts with others despite being in a committed relationship).
   
8. If Halsin propositions you after Cazador has been killed, Astarion no longer asks if you’re doing this because he hasn’t been fulfilling your sexual needs. However, he does give another response that feels out of place: “I’ve realized it doesn’t matter if anything (in our relationship) changes.” Parallel this with what he said at the graveyard, that “no matter what happens, I don’t want to lose this (relationship).” It’s very odd to have him say he doesn’t want to lose the relationship, but then the next day he is totally okay with losing it. Granted, it is nice to know that even if the characters break up, he’ll be fine, but it does feel contradictory for his character, especially with how devastated he acts if they DO end the relationship. If the Halsin statement is just an act and he’s overcompensating, however, then it feels more intentional on the writer’s part.
   
9. I’ve seen lots of people say that Ascended Astarion also shouldn’t be fine with poly, and I agree, though it’s for different reasons than Spawn Astarion. Unlike SA, I think Ascended would absolutely do the brothel scene because 1. He’s actively suppressing his trauma and playing a new character and 2. He feels in control in the brothel and is the focus. However, with Halsin, he doesn’t have any control. For someone obsessed with possessing his lover and ensuring they can never leave him, letting them sleep with Halsin doesn’t fit his writing. He isn’t participating. He doesn’t know what they’re doing behind his back. For all he knows, Halsin and the player might be discussing how to kill Astarion or escape him. In some deleted party banter, Halsin literally tells Ascended Astarion he doesn’t approve of the abusive spawn/master relationship they’ve formed. With that knowledge, not only should Halsin not be willing to join a poly relationship that he thinks is unhealthy, but he has a motivation to help the player get away from AA (and AA would know this). I could see Spawn Astarion hesitantly agreeing to the Halsin thing despite not wanting to share, but AA just wouldn’t. It feels contrary to both his and Halsin’s writing.
   
10. This is the second most convincing piece of evidence for me: The Drow twins. If you ask Astarion to join a ‘group activity’, he’ll use his fake voice and flighty laugh and agree to go through it, saying he’ll run away if he doesn’t like it and comparing the act to burning in the sun (a little concerning that he’s already comparing the two). Then during the act, he will immediately ask the player what they want “us” to do. Not only is he lumping himself in with the prostitutes, but he is also doing something that an Origin playthrough reveals is a trigger for him (he tells the drow twins that being ‘told what to do’ reminds him of his time as a slave). If the player tries to check up on him, he ignores them and says he wishes he was drunk. Then he disassociates and never brings it up again. This has been viewed two ways: either he doesn’t want to have casual sex anymore and wants to be in a one-on-one relationship, or he does want to do stuff like this but just needs to heal more before he can. I lean toward the first assumption because he is acting flighty and fake BEFORE the sexual act even begins. If he really wanted to do it but changed his mind after, it makes more sense for him to sound genuine at first, then fake halfway through.
    

But the main thing that sticks out to me is his reaction to you asking for only ONE drow twin. If you do, he will accuse you of having a thing for prostitutes and call it embarrassing, then glare at you for the rest of the conversation. This is especially sad because not only have the player’s actions made him feel like a prostitute again, but now he seems to be wondering if you started dating him BECAUSE he was a prostitute, not for who he really is.
Compare this to the Halsin situation and the drow ‘group activity’. For Halsin, he says he was expecting this for months. He’s had several months to plan his reaction and decide what he’s willing to tolerate. Hence, he has a very rehearsed reaction. With the twins, he had less time to anticipate this but probably also worried about it (especially if the player asked about them earlier and he said no. Now he expects the player to try again and has planned accordingly). Again, this response feels rehearsed and fake. The only response where he uses his real voice is when you ask for one of the twins alone. This is something he likely wouldn’t plan for, so we get to see his gut reaction for the first time: he doesn’t want you to do it.
Now some people argue that he’s fine with Halsin and not the other Origin characters because Halsin is just a fling and won’t try to take his spot. If that’s the case, he should be fine with the twins too. If anything, they are even less of a threat. Yet he doesn’t want you to do it and responds accordingly. If he truly was poly, he would respond like Karlach did and tell you to have fun, or like Shadowheart telling you to give him a heads up first. But we don’t see that.
One other thing about the twins that I felt I could point out: if you or the twins ask to do a group activity before Cazador is killed, Astarion says he’s not comfortable with this yet. The “yet” part has been pointed out to show that he’s fine with it after Cazador has been killed (even though he still disassociates later). However, another explanation of the “yet” part is that he’s trying to soften the blow because he’s scared of using a blunt NO. We see this with Araj, the blood merchant. Even though he is absolutely disgusted with her treatment of him and how she’s “defiling” him with her fantasies, his rejections of her are very soft and nervous. Even when reinforced by his friend/lover, he says “It’s still a no, I’m afraid” with a smile. Turning down sexual encounters is tough for him, even when he has people backing him up, so I can see him using words like “yet” or “I’m afraid” to soften the blow. I know several people in real life who do this, despite later admitting there was no “yet”.
There’s another part of this dialogue with the early twins that I want to point out (really overanalyzing here but if we want to believe the writers do things intentionally/with a lot of forethought, I think it’s okay to read into the words they use). When Astarion says he’s not comfortable with the twins, the player’s response is “I wouldn’t ask such a thing of you”. This will raise his approval and make him respond positively. The promise you give him is not “I’ll ask them later, after we’ve killed Cazador” or “I would have liked to but okay” (that one doesn’t trigger his positive response). He only approves of you saying you won’t ask him to do things like this (stated in a tense that implies you will NEVER ask him to do such a thing, regardless of Cazador’s stabbed or unstabbed state). This could have been the writer hinting that if you bring him back after, you’re going back on your promise and thus have to see the disassociating scene. That…or the writer wasn’t thinking too hard and we are simply thinking too much.

1. With all that out of the way, we’ll get to the final point that solidifies this theory for me personally. It’s the statements of Shadowheart and Minthara if you ask to do a three-way relationship with one of them and Astarion. Shadowheart’s response is: “I think you’re overestimating his willingness to share. He may seem like a carefree hedonist, but there’s something fragile beneath the façade.” Minthara says something nearly identical, that sharing would wound his pride and he is far too fragile to handle it. You could even add Astarion’s line from the other end, where if you ask Astarion to share with you and Karlach, he will say they shouldn’t because Karlach loves the player and relationships are fragile (implying that he either thinks open relationships don’t work if there’s love involved, or perhaps he himself can only do open relationships if he doesn’t love the other person).

The main argument I’ve seen disproving these statements by Shadowheart and Minthara is that they’re just plain wrong about him. If so, it’s a strange writing choice to not only have both of them be wrong about the exact same thing, but they’re both high wisdom characters who are proven to understand Astarion in a lot of ways other characters don’t. (All three of them have been enslaved and manipulated, Minthara comprehends the depths of his relationship with Cazador within minutes of being in the camp, and Shadowheart is one of the closest to Astarion in terms of friendship and liking him.)
If Astarion actually is fine with poly, then it means both Shadowheart and Minthara are wrong. That means the writers either made a mistake or made a very weird writing choice.
However, if Astarion is actually pretending to be fine with sharing as they say, not only is the writing consistent but these dialogues become very clever foreshadowing. I want to give the writers the benefit of the doubt and believe they did a good job with Astarion, so I prefer to lean into the theory that he’s pretending because it makes more sense for him overall.
That was quite a long tangent and somewhat unnecessary, but he’s a character whose mannerisms and statements are meant to be heavily analyzed, so it’s fun to go more in depth. Let’s move on.

1. ISSUES WITH HOW HALSIN WAS PRESENTED

We’re finally at the last point, and in a way the direct cause of this entire thread: Halsin. Now, I have no issue with Halsin being poly (again, he’s listed as one of my four ideal options for it) but I do have several issues with how he was written and presented. The Shadowheart part I will skip over because I already got into it, but there are many other problems to address and most of them could have been fixed very easily.

1. He is not presented as poly until Act 3. I was reading through a thread full of people who loved him and several of them were early access players who had requested he become a romance option. However, the reason they requested him was very important. In EA, all three of the male options seemed immature (Wyll), condescending (Gale), or straight up evil (Astarion). Meanwhile Halsin was, in their words, a mature man who seems like the type to settle down with them in a cottage and help raise their kids. This is the impression he gives and what drew many people to him. As a result, many of these players were extremely disappointed to reach Act 3 once the game was out and discover that not only was he the complete opposite of their initial impression, but he won’t even stay with the player after the game ends (in most cases). Honestly, if I was a developer and saw that they liked him for those earlier reasons, I wouldn’t make him strictly poly because that wasn’t what the players wanted. They wanted him because he was muscular and a good, stable man. It was a very odd choice to turn around and give the players the opposite of what they asked for. But if the devs were truly determined to go the poly route, they should have at least gone back to Act 1 and 2 and slipped in some hints that he was poly. I saw some newer players who recently played the game for the first time and wanted to romance him for the aforementioned reasons (stable, mature, kind, huge). They ignored all other romances until Act 3, then got hit with the “I’m only poly” discussion. Had they known he wasn’t monogamous, they wouldn’t have blown off all the other options.
   
2. But let’s ignore that. We’re focusing on the world where he IS completely poly (though some were arguing that it should at least be an option to ask if he’ll try being monogamous with the player.) The way he is presented still has a lot of issues according to poly players. For one, the way he tries to butt in on the relationship is done in a really sketchy manner (especially considering what some of the Origin characters have gone through/are currently going through). It would have been far better to do what they did with Minsc and give the PLAYER the option to hit on Halsin, rather than the other way around. Have them offer poly to him, and then he can discuss it from there. Having the proposition come from Halsin himself puts him in a negative light, and it’s pretty clear the writers didn’t actually want to portray him as a bad person so they messed up here.
   
3. The flagging for Halsin’s dialogues is awful and despite seeing people report it for eight months, that hasn’t changed. Even if you pick the most neutral option, he will still hit on you by saying “I think you feel the same way”. Not a good idea. “I HOPE you feel the same way” would have been infinitely better. Women often have to deal with people assuming their friendly, professional conversation is something more when it isn’t. It’s not a great idea to bring that into fantasy games too. It hit too close to home for some.
   
4. Even if you use the most neutral option at the Act 1 party (“Go have fun and mingle”), your main dialogue option the next day is “Sorry for coming on so strong last night”. It’s a strange thing to say. Again, I’m not sure how developers missed this and why it was never patched out. I saw people reporting it since the release.
   
5. He will also ask for a relationship at neutral approval. In most of my playthroughs, I stopped talking to him beyond the Thaniel quest and avoided asking about his personal life. He still led his proposition with “I think you feel the same way”. How does he know when we only spoke to him three times? They should have at least required you to go through all his extra dialogues before triggering this.
   
6. When Halsin says he loves you, you have two options: reject him straight away, or ask about his opinions a little more. Oddly enough, if you ask a bit more and THEN reject him, he’ll have a proper response. “That’s fine. I understand. I won’t ask again.” However, if you reject him as soon as he starts talking to you, his response is very off putting. He’ll protest and say, “but you asked me about my former lovers” or, if you didn’t even do that, he’ll claim “you looked after me with the care of a lover, not a host.” These pushy assumptions turned a lot of people off. This is entirely on the writer, in my opinion. He should have realized how weird these sounded.
   
7. Halsin is the only person you can’t dismiss from your camp at any point through dialogue. All of the origins have to be pursued and recruited intentionally. Halsin is the only exception. This makes some sense because you need him to cure the Shadowlands, but for Act 3, he literally has nothing to do. They should have given players an option after the Ketheric fight to dismiss him and tell him to take care of the Shadowlands. It makes a lot more sense narratively and would help avoid a lot of the more awkward parts later.
   
8. Halsin’s initial dialogue about monogamy vs. polyamory is mostly fine, with him comparing it to gardens and wolves vs. bears. But (and don’t quote me on this because I can’t recall the specifics), if you ask your partner to do poly and they say no, Halsin will be a little more judgmental about your partner, saying he was hoping they would be more “open minded”. Statistically, the majority of BG3’s players are going to be monogamous, so it’s strange to see nearly every character (monogamous or poly) criticize monogamy in some way. It is called selfish, narrow minded, and old fashioned by at least 3 characters to my knowledge (Halsin, Act 1 Astarion, and even Gale (who is monogamous himself)). If the developers truly wanted to be inclusive, criticizing one’s lifestyle and having no characters openly defend it in the game (even those who practice it) is a disappointing choice. In this case, it might be an unintentional mistake (maybe they feared that by defending monogamy, they were somehow demonizing polygamy or polyamory), but it would have been better to just leave the criticisms out of it entirely if that was the case.
   

And that’s it. I think that’s all the points from myself and others that I wanted to compile. I don’t think any of this will be changed in BG3 but I hope all of these points and opinions will at least improve any future games. It’s great that BG3 was able to make nuanced characters with their own opinions and preferences—I much prefer it to “everyone is poly and no one gets mad if you cheat” games where characters feel more like statues than living beings—but I do wish they thought the poly options through more carefully (trying to make poly people comfortable while leaving room for monogamous players to enjoy the romances too).
The only feasible fix the developers could make at this point to avoid all the issues mentioned is keeping Halsin poly but removing his connections to other Origin romances (or at least Karlach and Astarion). At this point, that’s the only thing that could realistically be done. I also wish they made characters break up with you if you cheat on them in the brothel, since that’s what many people including myself would do.
Again, these opinions are my own (and those that aren’t come from a variety of comments across Youtube, Reddit, and Larian’s forums). I enjoyed getting to see so many different viewpoints and appreciated how civil (most of) the people on both sides were. It’s an interesting topic and here’s hoping game studios handle it better in the future.
If anyone reads this far and wants links to the threads, forums, and youtube comment sections, let me know.

Context: I played Fallout 3, 4, and New Vegas before this. I'm not interested in putting my words into a coherent review, but more of my personal experience and emotions playing Fallout 1.
This game is old, it's so old that it needs the original PC box that came with a manual, which contained the keyboard controls, Thank god for the internet. This has no tutorial and my god has it aged visually that I wondered if my eyes were dying. I need to remember to F6 (it's not F5 to quick save here) a lot before I do something unintentionally stupid. My strength was too damn low to even hold up a hand gun??? Restarted with a new character at least 4 times before I got to the 2nd town and got my ass handed to me. How the fuck does sneaking work and pickpocketing work?
With all these complaints set aside of learning how to play an old ass game.
This game great, it doesn't hold your hand and rewards you greatly with solving problems like an old time adventure game and takes the table top style role playing game seriously. The exploration is addicting like the newer iterations where you rummage every bookshelf or locker and talking to every NPC to collect as much info as you can. The quests aren't logged and there's no direction or map pinpoint to show you where to go much like Elden Ring as a recent example.
Oh you think you can be a brain dead player following an indicator on your map? No you dumb fucker, you're gonna have to actually read carefully and remember an NPC's name and location. You missed or ignored a side quest for a few days? Guess what, those NPCs are dead cause the Super Mutants invasion plot is taking over since the plot is moving forward. That's right, there's a 100 day countdown and 100 day extension (1000 caps to send water) to save your vault. So you can't bankrupting the towns or save a settlement that needs your help (Preston cries in settlements) with this urgent plot moving forward fast.
So I built my character on speech and small guns going for a charismatic, gunslinger and thinking I'll be the talk of the town. Well the game takes your cockiness into consideration when a deathclaw hands your ass in a near beginner quest. Apparently you can sneak past it, but I don't know how that works. So I worked on getting to the brotherhood of steel to get that sweet power armor. Wait, you can't wear it cause you don't have a carrying capacity unless you get rid of a lot of the loot you collected. Killed the deathclaw, but disappointed i can't wear it like a trophy.
Talking my ass out thinking i can get out of any situation with 100 speech. Most of this is true. Then you snark in front of the Super mutant boss and he blows your ass off with a minigun. Or you join the mutants and the game ends. But wait, the mutant leader can torture you and see if you can take punches. As a result you get thrown in prison and you can't escape unless you have high sneak. Well sneak these nuts, I'm reloading to a save before I got into that predicament.
Hey look. I got a companion named Ian, cool dude, I like Ian. then Ian got blown up by a rocket launcher from a random super mutant encounter. RIP Ian and his leather jacket. No companion respawns.
I beat the game talking to The Master to death. Hell yeah, my charisma and science check saved my vault. Wait they fucking exiled me after going through the meat grinder for them? Then Ron Pearlman narrates there were side stories I missed and had some very bad endings for the side characters.
This game is merciless and a roller coaster of emotions unlike the modern games which have a more action rpg focus that let you off pretty easy with little consequences. This entire game feels like a wack a mole of consequences and I love it. I barely even talked about 1/10th of the things that happened in my play through. This is a game where you want to talk about your journey, because of how difficult and strange it can be going in blind.
As for the lore, I'm very impressed to see where the later games took the baton and grew from there including my man Harold, the mutated dude who turns into a tree in Fallout 3. I didn't know you had it so bad Harold.
I have to replay the game with a different build and take a different exploration path. But what really made this my favorite fallout game was the Bramen cows saying "Moo, I say."
further random thoughts.

• the action point system being able to shoot specific limbs must have been extremely impressive back in the day.
• Still not sure what backpack and bags do, apparently they're for organizing inventory. I thought a backpack would increase carrying capacitor.
• still can't find ammo for rocket launcher. My only shot went past the super mutant I intended to shoot and killed another further away. Beautiful happy accidents.
• They had a stacked voice cast. Jim Cummings, Tony, Ron Pearlman, Richard dean anderson, Cree Summer, David Warmer, Tony Jay, Clancy Brown, and so many others.
• The best written Fallout? Not in overall narrative, but it was very thoughtful in writing out the choices and letting them play out. Especially if intelligence is 1 point.
• There's something very special about the crude full motion videos back in the day.
• I would love to have Fallout return to the table top style game play one day.
• I will play Fallout 2 as soon as I get all the good endings and exterminate all the deathclaws.

Killer Grips: Anne Maria, Brick, Jasmine, Justin, Millie
Screaming Gaffers: Chase, MK, Ripper, Scott, Sky
Episode 6: The Aftermath I: Trent's Descent
A riff from an electric guitar opened the episode as a pair of purple concentric circles flew across and back in the screen towards the upper-left corner, a group of smaller, bluer circles flying through them in the same direction but at a higher speed. As it neared the top of the screen a large and blocky red 'T' flashed into existence and descended back down, and the background music continued into a theme fit for an evening talk show. A similarly-styled 'D' and 'A' appeared next as a few more purple or blue rings crossed the screen, then the three letters slid in from the left to spell out 'TDA'. The word 'AFTERMATH' popped up from the bottom of the screen, temporarily bumping up the first three letters before they slammed back down and centered the text in the middle of the screen.
A gleam swept across the text from upper-left to lower-right, and the 'D' briefly popped forwards with the faint sound of a camera, turning a little bit counterclockwise before reversing into its former position.
Clip 1
"Any final words?" Chris asked the eliminated contestants.
“Yeah. You guys actually voted me off. I respect that,” Eva nodded with a smirk.
“Good luck dudes. Wicked play,” Geoff smiled as he and Eva got off the bleachers and went to the red carpet.
The 'D' popped out briefly again and another bout of recap footage began.
Clip 2
"Here's the deal," Chef stated, pacing about slowly in front of the teen. "I'll help you man up and win this thing. You don't ask any stupid questions and you split the prize with me.” He leaned in closer towards Brick's face. “Like they say, it's an offer you can't refuse. I won't let you," he finished with a deadly scowl, much to Brick's discomfort.
The 'D' popped out a third time, signaling the start of another set of recap footage.
Clip 3
“Trent, it's time to go!” Chris informed the eliminated contestant.
Trent got off the stands. “Before I do, can I at least say goodbye to Sky?”
“You could, but it'd be pointless since Chef will just carry you to the limo,” Chris smiled.
“Alright,” Trent sighed and faced his former teammates. “I'm really sorry about my actions, guys. I'll see you later.” With nothing left to say, he turned and walked down the red carpet.
A fourth time the 'D' popped out, and the last set of recap footage played.
Clip 4
"Izzy!" Izzy was left gaping. "Time to go!" Chris announced.
“I'm not going anywhere,” Izzy objected. “That's not my name.”
“Can I get a pen over here?” Chris raised his hand in annoyance. A pen was given to him, and he started to write on the paper. “It says "E-Scope" now, okay?!” This made Izzy finally stand up.
"And remember," Chris told her as she started to walk past the stage, "you can never come back, ev-er!" The host pressed an orange button next to his microphone, and two identical guards came over and grabbed Izzy by her arms.
(Theme Song)
The same sequence used to open the recap was replayed, an unseen audience cheering wildly after the 'TDA AFTERMATH' logo shined. The camera faded into a shot of a stage from the shadowed audience; it was set up like a talk show with one couch and table in the middle, and two tiers of couches on either side. A variety of lights both stage and decorative were scattered around, and to the left was a passage backstage half-hidden by dividing walls and the dark red curtains that framed the set.
And most importantly, sitting on that central couch, were two figures. Damien on the left and Priya on the right.
The camera zoomed in on them as the applause died down, a pair of computer displays visible on the table turned towards the hosts as Priya waved. "Hey there everyone!" she greeted with a smile. "Welcome to the brand-new Total Drama Action Aftermath Show!"
She paused as the audience cheered and applauded again, and once they'd died down, Damien spoke up. "We're coming to you live," he said, "to dish everything Total Drama Action!"
"This is where the real action is!" Priya said to another bout of cheering. "I'm Priya!" she added in with a smile.
"And I'm Damien!" Damien beamed.
"You may remember us from the hit series Total Drama Island," Priya continued.
"And it's thrilling sequel, Total Drama Action," Damien said, “even if we're not on it.”
"I hate that we missed out on the season and a chance to get the money,” Priya grumbled but regained her positivity, “but we have our own show, so I think it compensates."
"Being in the sequel could've given me the possibility of being rich, but when I'm with you, money doesn't matter," Damien smiled happily at Priya, and the crowd awwed.
"Aww, that's so sweet!” Priya gushed and turned to the audience. “And with no competitions here, we get to talk to all of you."
“So about that new season. Pretty cool, right?" Damien asked, looking out at the camera.
"Of course," Priya nodded. "They get to be on a film lot and do different kinds of movie challenges. How spectacular is that?" The crowd cheered in agreement.
"Super spectacular," a voice said from off-camera, the shot zooming out to show that the couches on the right had been occupied by the other non-competing contestants. On the top row were Rodney, Sam, and Gwen, while the bottom row had Topher, Katie, and Sadie.
“We were being rhetorical," Damien pointed out, "but hey, thanks for reminding everyone that you're not invisible! Topher, everyone!" The camera focused on the dirty blonde, who took stride in the applause from the audience.
"We also brought along all the others from the first season," Priya said.
"They may be considered losers," Damien said, "but not to us."
“Aww,” Katie gushed.
“That is so sweet, you guys,” Sadie added.
"The pleasure's all ours," Damien replied. "Give it up for Topher!" he said, and the crowd cheered as the camera cut back to the fanboy. He shot a wink as the screen was split and a clip played of him smacking a fly onto his eye and getting it swollen.
"And Rodney!" Priya added, the camera cutting to the country boy waving at the camera. The screen also split to play a clip of him, showing him returning back to the game on boat.
"Katie and Sadie!" Damien introduced the two girls.
“Oh my gosh!” Katie cheered.
“We are so super excited to be here!” Sadie expressed her happiness.
"Next we have Sam!" Priya said as the camera moved to the gamer smiling at the camera as a clip played in the split screen showing him hanging from a tree by his knees before falling down.
"And how about a shout out to Gwen!" Damien said. Gwen smiled at the camera while the split screen showed a clip of the goth eating blueberries from a bush.
The camera cut over to Topher, who was engrossed in a phone call. "How long are the papers going to take?" he asked before noticing the audience. "Sorry mom, but I'll have to call you back later!"
Priya and Damien shared a glance before Damien smiled at the camera. "We've also got a lot of texts and emails from all of you!" he said excitedly.
"Plus," Priya said, "we'll have a couple of you on webcam!"
"Eva and Geoff will be here," Damien announced, and the crowd went wild.
"And let's not forget our favorite nutcase, Izzy!" Priya added with a smile, earning another roaring cheer from the crowd.
"Plus the guy with the soul of music, Trent!" Damien finished to another round of applause.
"You know what's strange? The four that you two mentioned were part of the final six in Island along with Scott and you, Priya," Topher said.
"That is pretty shocking," Priya added. "Eva and Geoff especially."
"Eva could have won the season again, but I guess no one wants a repeat," Sam laughed a bit.
"We've got a lot to talk about," Damien told the audience. "It's almost time to welcome our first guests," he announced, "but first, take a look at this!" The nervous wreck looked up to the wide and flat television hanging above the central couch.
The television's static cut to a clip of Geoff and Eva running together to escape the monster. "Geoff and Eva's time on Total Drama Action may have been short," Damien said.
"But it sure was packed with the action that we grew to love," Priya continued as Eva and Geoff stuck their heads out from behind a cardboard cutout of a small red car.
"Eva managed to recover from her broken ankle from last season," Damien continued as the muscle woman was shown running through the sidewalk.
"And Geoff proved that losing a tooth doesn't mean losing your positivity," Priya said as footage of Geoff showing off his golden tooth replacement was shown.
"And they both did well for themselves, even if they didn't win the second challenge!" Damien followed up as clips of Geoff and Eva being shown on the ground along with being shot with paintballs courtesy of Chef played.
"But unfortunately, they weren't able to play for another day!" Priya continued.
"I don't even blame the contestants since Eva and Geoff were last season's Final Two," Damien spoke as a clip played of the two going into the limousine. "At least they still have their friendship!"
"One has eaten dog food," Priya said, "and the other has taken control of a forest fire. Our first two guests are Geoff and Eva!"
The Aftermath theme tune played and the crowd went wild as Eva and Geoff pushed open the backstage doors and walked out, smiling at both the audience and the hosts as they took their seats on the lower couch on the left.
"Hey guys!" Priya greeted with a smile as Damien waved.
"Damien! Priya! Glad to see you two again!" Eva said happily.
"Yeah!" Geoff added. "You two getting the hosting gig is impressive!"
"Great to have you guys!" Damien told them. "Sorry you two got eliminated first."
"No need to apologize," Geoff said. "We didn't leave completely empty-handed!"
"Wait, how so?" Damien asked in confusion. "You didn't win the money."
"Not like that," Eva answered. "Geoff managed to take pictures of everybody and everything from the first two seasons to put onto his scrapbook."
"And Eva managed to use part of her money to get construction to build her dream gym," Geoff added. "It's still in construction by the way."
“So how did you two manage to become the Aftermath hosts?” Eva asked them.
"The producers took note of me and Damien's relationship and decided on us being the hosts," Priya answered. "I couldn't pass up this opportunity."
"And plus, the other non-competitors either refused or were turned down," Damien added.
“They especially turned me down,” Topher grumbled. “I would've made a great host.”
"That's pretty understandable," Eva said. "I sure as heck don't want to run my mouth longer than I need to."
"Yeah, hosting a show is something I won't be able to perform well in," Geoff added.
"Moving on," Damien said, "how does it feel being the first two voted off the show?"
"Honestly, I gotta say it was kinda like a punch to the gut," Eva admitted. "I know I'm strong, but I didn't think the contestants would team up to vote us out in just the first episodes."
"I didn't mind as much," Geoff interjected. "I mean, I did want to win the million dollars, but given how we competed in every episode of the first season, it seems fair for us to go home early this time around and give the others a shot. And besides, money isn't everything."
"Thanks for your inputs," Priya said as the camera cut over to her and Damien, "I think it's time for a game called 'Truth or Hammer'!" The crowd started to go wild.
A grand tune played as a shot of a golden statue of Lady Justice was shown. The camera slowly pulled back from it, and as the music ended a large wooden mallet swung down from the left and smashed it to pieces.
Damien stood up as the scene cut back to the hosts and guests. "Here's how this works: we ask you a question, and if you give the wrong answer, a huge hammer will swing down on you."
"Uh, what?" Geoff said as he and Eva looked at each other nervously.
"Eva, Geoff, move out of the way as we do a test run!" Priya announced, and a giant wooden hammer immediately swung down at Eva and Geoff, the two barely avoiding the hit.
"Looks like the hammer is working well. How about we get to the questions?" Damien turned his head to the reality TV fan.
"Absolutely," Priya agreed. "So Eva, after winning last season, why do you think things didn't go well for you this time?"
"Like we both said, we were big time threats. If we didn't get voted off in the second episode, one of us likely would've been in the final two again," Eva answered and looked above her, the hammer still remaining in its position.
"I'm a strategic player, and if I wasn't the first season's winner, I obviously would've voted out the strongest player just so I could get closer to winning," Eva continued.
"Good answer!" Damien said. "So Geoff, are you even remotely mad at not winning the first season and getting kicked off in the second?"
Geoff looked up. "I'm not going to lie at all, especially when there's a hammer that can crush me," the party guy said. "I'm kind of upset."
Everyone was silent for a moment before it became clear the hammer wasn't going to swing down. "I mean... it's like you got dreams for this money and to see them flushed down the drain is disappointing," Geoff explained. "But it is what it is. I had a good time competing, and I got news from one of my brothers that my golden tooth can be sold for money, so at least I got some compensation."
"I'd suggest cleaning the tooth before you sell it," Damien advised before looking at the camera and smiling. "So how about we hear from one of the viewers!"
"Let's see," Priya said, looking down at the computer display on the table in front of her. "CunningLinguist316 asks: Who are you rooting for now that you've been eliminated?"
"Well, I'm rooting for Sky," Eva answered. "I can see some parts of myself in her, and she's one of the more worthy players in the game."
"I'm hoping my man Chase wins," Geoff answered. "He's super athletic and fast, and we're sorta like each other in many ways."
"Good to hear your thoughts," Damien told them.
"Exactly!" Priya added. "But I think it's time we bring out our next guest."
The camera panned up to the wide-screen television as footage of the wild child began to play. "Izzy's time on Total Drama Action may have been short," Damien said over a clip of Izzy pushing Ripper out of the way and getting captured by the animatronic monster.
"But it was a thrill ride," Priya added.
“Seriously, Izzy can make a bowl of paste tasty by adding herself to it,” Damien quipped over Izzy getting dropped into the bouncy castle.
"Later on, she suffered a serious blow at the hands of Chef," Priya added over the footage of Izzy falling onto the ground after getting shot in the chest with a paintball and Chef looking over her in worry.
“Chef thinks he's killed her. Look how scared he is!” Damien chimed in as the recap footage paused on Chef; a red circle was drawn around Chef's face.
“Never thought he'd have a sense of humanity. Check this part out! Super hilarious!” Priya giggled over Izzy standing up and laughing about her fake death. “Unfortunately, it was Justin that ruined Izzy's chances when the two took to the stage.” The clips of Justin performing his role and Izzy grumbling over her loss played.
"Dramatic and devious, Izzy will be back for more," Damien continued as the footage showed Izzy getting up from her seat and blowing kisses as the limousine took her away.
The scene returned to the hosts. "Our first guest has impersonated a grizzly and was caught peeing in a pool. Currently number eight on the RCMP's most wanted... Izzy, A.K.A Kaleidoscope!!"
The crowd went wild as the Aftermath theme played, but it suddenly stopped as the hosts looked up at the television. It was now showing footage of a room backstage where Izzy was currently sitting on a couch and eating crackers. The crazy girl had a snack tray-laden table in front of her, and to the left was a television showing the same feed as the one on-stage.
Izzy took notice of the television set. "I'm on TV!" she exclaimed before accidentally spitting out her chewed-up crackers, making the audience laugh quietly. “Oh, oops. Cracker crumbs, you get back here!” She grabbed the crumbs, along with a few grapes and a cracker sandwich with cheese in the middle, and put them all in her cleavage, prompting more laughter.
Izzy stood up and walked out to the stage, the Aftermath theme playing again as she opened the backstage doors and walked out. The audience cheered, and Damien and Priya, along with Eva and Geoff - who were now on the top row of the couches - waved at her, causing her to return the gesture.
“Hello E-Scope!” Priya eagerly greeted her friend.
"Hi, Priya. Hi, Damien," Izzy greeted back as she sat on the couch. "So glad to be here."
“Awesome to have you, but it must be hard losing out on a million bucks,” Damien talked to her.
“Yeah, well... you would know,” Izzy responded, unamusing Damien and Priya while the audience gasped. “Hi, you guys!” she focused on the Peanut Gallery.”
“Hi, Izzy!” Rodney waved.
“Hi, everyone out there in TV land!” Izzy turned to the camera and noticed someone in the audience. “Graham Cracker! That's my old boyfriend Graham! He got a restraining order against me last year. Remember that, Graham?” The audience started mumbling. “So funny. Okay. We were in the courtroom and the judge was all like, "You cannot come within two hundred meters of the plaintiff or you shall suffer the consequences of this courtroom."
After taking a moment to laugh, Izzy continued her story. “The long distance was hard, but we made it work. By the way, Graham, you should get new blinds for your room. What are they made of, lead? I couldn't see a thing with my binoculars! Miss you, Graham Cracker!” She took a cracker out of her cleavage. “I am totally into crackers right now. They're just so flaky!” She giggled and put the cracker into her mouth.
“Kind of like someone we already know,” Damien muttered quietly.
“So Izzy, how did it feel to be the third one voted off the show?” Priya asked.
“My life is an open book. Well, not yet, but it will be once I write it. And you open the book!” Izzy guffawed.
“What was going through your head after being voted off?” Damien questioned.
The music turned sad. “When you realize you're not getting a Gilded Chris Award, well, I can't lie to you,” Izzy sniffed in a rare moment of sadness.
“Oh, it was that painful?” Priya expressed her sympathy.
“No, I just can't lie to you,” Izzy returned to her normal state. “I was outfitted with a lie deterrent microchip that sends shock waves at the first hint of dishonesty. Those are really nice pants, Damien.”
Izzy then got shocked in her neck, demonstrating the microchip inside the body part, but the wild child laughed it off.
“Carrying on,” Damien said uncomfortably. “So what exactly did losing out on the Gilded Chris mean to you?”
“It means I missed out on that buttery chocolate statuette. Ooh, I once took an art class sculpting chocolate nudes, my instructor said I had a real flair for cocoa,” Izzy brought up and earned another electrocution. “Okay, okay, okay. He said I was totally loco. That's what he's actually said.”
"Let's see if you can be honest while answering our questions,” Priya said sneakily, “and the giant hammer will come down if you don't tell the truth!"
“If my implant doesn't get me, the hammer will!” Izzy said, earning laughs from the audience.
Priya and Damien shared a look of bewilderment before facing the camera happily. “Want to know which questions we'll be asking Izzy?" Priya asked the camera.
"Be sure to stay tuned," Damien said. "Right now, we have to take a quick break! We'll be right back!"
The show's logo was shown again, and the 'D' popped out and transitioned the scene to a close-up of a plate of brown mush sitting on a tan-and-goldenrod striped table. Flies were buzzing around it, and part of a familiar torso could be seen standing behind it.
"This episode of the TDA Aftershow," Chef Hatchet said to a catchy elevator music-like jingle as one of the flies buzzing around died and the camera began to zoom out, "was brought to you by Chef's Roadkill Cafe, where Sundays are Bring Your Own Meat!" The camera stopped moving to show the hulking man in full, standing between the table with the plate of mush and a large stone fireplace in the background. In his left hand he held a skewer of a reddish and steaming hunk of meat resting on a plate-like guard piece. The tail of a skunk extended from the top of the meat hunk.
"You hit it, we spit it," Chef said with a motion to the steaming dish in his hand.
(Commercial Break)

Everyone has their favourites and less liked installments, but what is something you enjoyed about every FF you've played? (or as many as you want to). It can be your favourite aspect, or just something that stands out to you. I just stuck to the mainline games but list as many as you want. Hardmode: Don't mention the music.
FFI: I love the real sense of exploration it has. Once you get the airship, which you can get much earlier than you're supposed to, it essentially becomes an open world game with the only place being off limits the final dungeon.
FFII: This might not be the most significant thing and it is very underdeveloped, but I enjoy the keyword system in concept. It turns it into more of an adventure game where you have to talk to the right people about the right now.
FFIII: The first game to introduce the class system! It's not quite FFV but even in its more primitive state it's still very enjoyable. Also I love the twist that the world map you've been walking around in is actually only a tiny part of a much bigger world.
FFIV: I feel like one has the best difficulty out of any FF. It's never too hard or too easy. You can go through the whole game without grinding, but if you need to it's never too much.
FFV: Obviously the job system! It's easily the most replayability FF for me because of it. Also I love the more goofy tone. Final Fantasy games have a tendency to take themselves too seriously so I like that there's one that doesn't.
FFVI: I love pretty much everything about this one so it's hard to pick one specific thing. If I had to pick something I specifically like about this one though it's the whole world of ruin segment. The whole idea of the whole being destroyed, being seperated from all your friends and then having to go find them in what is essentially an open world.
FFVII: The atmosphere in this one is amazing, especially in the Midgar section. I love the darker, dystopian vibe. I'd love to play some sort of neo-noir adventure game in that setting.
FFVIII: I like the more modern setting. We have your standard medieval fantasy and futuristic fantasy in FF, but there's something oddly enjoyable about having to pay for a ticket and riding the train. Also it was a unique experience to be able to get the option to completely turn off random encounters in a FF game and not worry about being under leveled.
FFIX: I love the locations and backgrounds in this. The pre rendered background were already amazing in VII/VIII but they really went all out with this one. Lindblum is my favourite town in the series. The more fantastical locations from later on the game also look amazing.
FFX: This is my favourite in the series, probably because it was my first one, so I love a lot about it. This might sound vague but I love the whole journey. The story, the characters, the twists, just the whole adventure. A lot of people dislike the more linear nature of this game, but I do like how you're constantly on the move seeing new sights. It feels like you're really on a pilgrimage.
FFXII: I really enjoy the combat here! I like turn based combat, but I also like how they got rid of random encounters and combined combat and exploration here. The gambit system allowing you to program your whole party is also great. You can essentially make the game play itself, or control every single action of your whole party, it's up to you.
FFXIII: I don't love much about this one lol, but if I had to pick something it's the overall presentation of the game. The graphics, the menus. The little background motions when you open the menu, it all looks very high quality and polished.
I typed a lot more than I intended to 😅

This is a follow-up to my salt post from the other day. In my desperation to find a reasonable way to learn this game, I discovered there's a secret debug mode that you can enable through Pro Action Replay or Pseudo Saturn Kai.
https://www.consoledatabase.com/cheats/segasaturn/layersection/
If your Pseudo Kai is up to date the code should already be in the database so you don't have to manually enter it.
This mode lets you toggle invincibility, fast forward, freeze and advance frames, and, most importantly, STAGE SELECT.
This is exactly what I needed and should have just been a feature. Now that I'm able to practice stages 6 and 7 in peace, it's really highlighting how OUTRAGEOUSLY UNREASONABLE it was to expect players to just learn these stages by getting to them. I'm losing all four credits in stage 6 alone.
Also, side note, but I actually bought a rotating game monitor this week just to play the game in taté mode, thinking that would help, but evidently "Arcade" mode (which is synonymous with the game's taté mode) is not the same difficulty as "Normal" in the Saturn mode, which begs the question, "Normal in what sense?" So playing in taté mode ended up being DRASTICALLY HARDER. So don't be like me and buy a rotating monitor to make this game easier. It doesn't work. Also don't be like me in general.
Anyway that's all, game on.