u/RenaissanceOwl

'Retroactive Continuity' or Retcon, as how I understand it at least, means to provide a piece of detail regarding the story or worldbuilding/lore that contradicts what might have been previously established prior; however this new detail is meant to "overwrite/abrogate" the previously established one,

I think the original trilogy, while not necessarily fully thought out ahead, did have a prior framework and overall plan for the story (I could be wrong here, that said), that ensured there hasn't been much retcons in its lore,

From my side, I can think of maybe two worldbuilding deets that might be considered retcon (and even they don't really count, as I'll deconstruct why),

#1 is the lack of female guards and priests among the Hammers (Not really a retcon, imo)

(This is assuming TDP doesn't have any explicit piece of in-game lore that affirms or hints at the Hammers not having female guards or priests within their ranks, otherwise, it's the meta explanation of TDP simply not having them in general, I guess for this reason, it doesn't count as a retcon, technically)

The more "Doylian", meta explanation is that TDP (and TG) in general, doesn't have any female guards.....yes there are female NPCs, but no guards - they are something introduced only in TMA onwards, and the devs do a good job of justifying/explaining, via visual storytelling, how the Hammers and their monasticism and adherence to outdated traditions and norms, meant they couldn't have the more mainstream patronage and reach the Mechanists enjoyed (particularly from the bourgeoise) in TMA,

Curiously enough, Deadly Shadows regresses in this regard, as apart from Pagans (who are mostly social outcasts and fringe), none of the other factions and institutions in-game have female guards or enforcers within them (apart from one noblewoman from whom Garrett stole from showing up herself in person along with her guards to kill him, lol......very lady-like of a woman of such her stature, missed opportunity for Garrett to have snarked on that whole situation, I guess),

However, there's not much convincing in-game explanation for why the local/house guards had no female representation in any of the fancy manors that we raid in TDP. Or among the mages in their mission >!(as well as in the recent Black Parade fan expansion!<). Assuming the local/house guards are hired from some agency that deals with home security.

Is there some in-game piece of lore in TMA that kinda hints at some bleak economic conditions that might have resulted in women, who otherwise didn't partake in such roles in the Thief verse (or at least the City that's near-exclusively the setting), being forced to take such roles by the time of TMA?

I can't remember, likewise, any piece of lore from Deadly Shadows that hints the opposite (i.e. the lack/regression of female rep. among the guards and City Watch), maybe it's the Hammer influence? Maybe the overt progress and industrialisation from TMA and the realization of what Karras/Mechanists were upto, meant the City swung hyper-conservative to the point of abolishing female guards? Again no such piece of in-game text explicitly hinting or stating any of this, iirc.

#2 is the reveal in TMA that it was Karras who crafted and gifted the Mechanical Eye to Garrett as a token of appreciation (plus the beginning of his obsession and antagonism against Garrett, likewise) for the events of TDP.

I don't think this is also a retcon, tbh, as an actual retcon would have been something like TDP specifying a particular Hammer priest or any individual having gifted it, only for TMA to overwrite this as Karras being the one behind this. When in actuality, TDP leaves it vague from who or how Garrett got the Eye from, and this detail gets expanded further in TMA,

These two details are what I can think of from my side (and I personally reject),

Does DS retcon anything regarding the Keepers? Since it was handled by a different studio with a decent deal of the original creative crew absent in it, that would mean the workflow and the consistency in the whole creative process would have been disrupted if not outright lost during that transition.

All I am familiar with, is that the third entry was always meant to be about the Keepers, and was meant to be the conclusion to Garrett's arc and story, as how it plays out in DS? Even if LGS had developed it using their Siege Engine?

Retcons usually are bound to happen whenever a different set of creative crew takes control over a project and "advance" it, as they mostly are left to come up with their own ideas and concepts, often times previously established ones being hard to obtain or having outright been lost when these transistions usually happen.

I mean, sure, the internet always had a rep of bringing out the worst of people, due to the anonymity, they can get away with being a jerk online that they otherwise might not be able to irl,

And this site does seem to attract users of certain disposition/temparement, who tend to be condescending, snarky, or pedantic, I suppose it's an oft-cited stereotype when it comes ot profiling a typical Redditor,

But even with all this, I kinda feel that people seem to be more "harsh/aggressive" nowadays here than how it used to be? I dunno, how to articulate this,

People seeming to willing the worst of others more, be it other subreddits, be it the OP, being confrontational or hostile in the replies when it wasn't warranted,

I remember giving a respectful comment for OP's post, there were some users who snarked or straight up told how stupid or foolish his post was being, from my side, I gave a more "considerate" reply, with nuance and multiple perspective, even I felt the post was being quite daft, but I never said it outright unlike some of the comments and wished to have a honest exchange,

The OP didn't reply to the other, more outwardly critical replies, but they replied to mine and they got offended by one particular choice of word I used, and told me to "go out and touch some grass", I expressed how needlessly harsh it was in a follow-up reply and told them it wasn't my intent to offend or come across as critical from my side, they didn't reply/apologize, and worse I got downvoted (which I suspect was mostly the OP doing it),

Then I used to be the host of an invite-only group chat (not in this account), one of the users took offence when I merely told them to not behave like a jerk with me, as they had (or at least what I presume), a snarky tone in their reply, I wasn't even engaging with them, I was discussing with others, and they felt the need to reply (I didn't invite this person, someone invited their friends en masse, after I gave them the green signal, so neither of us know much about the other), I know I could have handled it better, but all I told them was not be a jerk in the chat,

They got offended over that, reported me to Reddit, and Reddit took down my comment, because me telling "kicking out" was apparently harassment, when I appealed, the human admins still felt it was "threatening violence" How? I was merely using the parlance/terminology Reddit itself uses to remove someone from a chat?

I dunno, it almost feels scary to post or share something here, ngl, because there seems to be someone who'll be offended or triggered over some particular phrase or choice of words. And assume the worst.

Is it a reflection of a more partisan and polarized social media landscape? Where the algorithm seems to constantly funnel divisive topics like gender wars, politics, etc....and since how much social media seems to have consumed our daily lives, it has made people more "on the edge" and prone to lashing out, due to being fed such negative content regularly,

Is it a reflection of a post-COVID landscape where many folks seem to have woken up to how broken and biased the system is, how much a lot of modern soceity is pretentious nonsense, and the sheer helplessness over the realization that individuals in and out of themselves can't make any meaningful changes, as everyone seems so divided and polarized nowadays to meaningfully come together and make any changes?

It is a sick joke that the worst sociopaths and ghouls that mankind has to offer, have a near-absolute control in how people connect one another (I know real life is much different to social media and is not necessarily reflective of it, but it unmistakbly has bled itself onto it, to the point it seems to be difficult to clearly distinguish them and the divide between them has become fuzzy/blurry)

(Not a gen-Z, nor a Millennial. I am neither. Or am I both? Lol, I am Zillennial, as a 1996 born, identify myself a tad slightly as being Gen-Z than Millennial but relate with neither, tbh)

I keep hearing this claim how Gen-Z seem to incline more to traditional gender norms, compared to Millennials

I dunno, I've heard many theories and explanations as to why this might be the case (assuming it indeed is happening),

One theory I've heard is the pandemic and the aftermath that came with it, ever since then, things have been more uncertain and random (inflation, AI's advent threatening job losses, which was happening even without it tbh, wars), and this has made people cope and seek refuge in a romanticized past that never really was a thing or was an outlier (the 50s gender norms and lifestyle),

A decade or so back, I don't really remember coming across many discussions regarding traditional gender roles, suddenly post-COVID, it seems to be quite omni present, at least here in Reddit,

Maybe because I was in my teens and didn't really think much about them all that seriously?

Maybe it's because the internet has become more widespread and mainstream in the past decade and that means, more conservative folks started using it also began to voice their opinion out, when prior, it was more niche and likely attracted social outcasts and soceital misfits who are unlikely to subscribe to such positions? (I feel it's still the case with this platform, in that it mostly seem to attract neurodivergent folks, there's a merit to that old joke, I guess),

Maybe it's also a reflection of a more polarized internet, which also bleeds onto real life. No longer are there gradients, most seem to be a rigid binary. Thus, Gen-Z are extremely unorthodox regarding this and other aspects, or they tend to double down on these traditional gender roles and other conservative aspects, on par with, if not more than Boomers and the prior generation, even.

Personally, I don't mind being a provider, as a man. But, I feel being able to provide to your loved ones, that's not necessarily gender specific and arguably, is a universal trait. How many women "spoil" and go out of their way to appease their male loved ones in their lives, I mean?

I guess what I don't like is me being reduced just only to that and being judged and treated based solely on my tendency to provide. From my side I don't have any traditional expectations towards women, I mean I do all the household chores (and like doing them on my own, tbh) and really, categorizing those as being traditionally women's roles doesn't seem right, either (again, the "traditional" household setup people romanticize nowadays, was not really the norm for most of history, and both genders toiled and did hard physical labor, such a setup was more of an aristocratic thing, that became associated with the middle class gradually, post-Victorian Era, and especially after the propserity of post WW2)

I also wish to be child-free, at most I might consider being a foster parent (granted of course, my spouse will also be on board), but I don't intend on bringing a new life onto our planet, it's mostly personal reasons, plus some concerns about the state of our world, but mostly personal otherwise.

I've heard an argument that it can never be 50-50 because men never have to undergo pregnancy and labor, and lose some of their years in taking care of the baby, hence why them being the primary provider is still expected in this day and age, well after a post-Industrial Revolution where most manual and hard, monotonous tasks have been automated, the ones men usually did (and still do) owing to their superior physical stats,

Most white-collar jobs demand cerebral and interpersonal skills, and I don't think it's something either gender is inherently better at than the other (I could be wrong, that said), if anything, women are often told to be better at soft skills and diplomacy, and most white-collar professions demand and thrive on those skills (again I could be wrong)

And really.....it's also "transactional" to seek relationships based on such strict, cold mathematical precision and expectations.

I dunno, as someone who's suspecting to be on the spectrum for a while now, due to struggling with many adult milestones like career, relationships, etc....I feel it's quite challenging to subscribe to traditional gender expectations while being neurodivergent (even if I myself am not, I am sure, many ND folks here can resonate with what I've said here, that said many ND folks also have good career and/or relationships, likewise),

One thing I've noticed is that while the older generation might have usually subscribed to more traditional gender roles, owing to circumstances or otherwise, I feel it wasn't as "rigid" as most people might make it seem like. Many times even in very traditional household with a stereotypically masculine man, the wives absolutely do help their husbands with financial stuff, in order to run the household and likewise, that man will also do the cooking and other chores, whenever they are at home,

I feel, online discussion strips away these empathy and nuances in these dynamics, and in a way, maybe paradoxically, the younger gen folks who do subscribe to these traditional rigid expectations seem to lack empathy for the opposite gender that the previous gen possessed, even if they uphold such traditional expectations on both their sides,

Seeing online discourse on relationships and marriage, the whole gender wars that seems to be an inevitable whenver these discussions happen online, makes me NOT want to get married, ngl.

I mean, it makes sense, Fatal Fury and Street Fighter's history are intertwined,

Terry Bogard was meant to be the protagonist of the original Street Fighter, the guy who shows up in the intro punching through a brick wall. He got retooled as a generic character by the name of 'Joe', I suppose, once the original director(?) left the project and would go on to eventually make Fatal Fury a few years later, which in many ways, might be a spiritual successor to the original SF more so than SF2 itself might be,

Otherwise, he looks like the "quintessential Street Fighter" as in an urban brawler who was raised in the streets, has been in brutal streets fights and brawls, ones that molded and shaped him to the person he might be today,

He has a carefree, lone wolf (Garou) spirit, someone who doesn't have much attachments and possessions in his life, and is a wandering nomad and only purpose seems to be seeking a worthwhile challenge, much how like Ryu is.

While his fighting style and moves are unique (I believe the creators went out of their way to make him unique compared to the SF roster that had already been out by that time?), in many ways, it's a decent parallel to Ken's, in that it is aggressive and "offensive" (apart from both being blond and long-haired pretty boys)

Unlike Ken however, who's meant to be Japanese-American, Terry is an all-American character, and his design is unabashed about it, much like Guile's. Guile's is meant to evoke the militaristic aesthetic and aspects of American culture (duty, honor, loyalty, etc....), Terry's meant to evoke the more "everyman" aspect of American identity - individualism and free-spiritedness, boisterous yet friendly attitude, the "working class" ethics and resilience.

He's similar to Alex in that regard, who's also meant to be an American representation, but on the more working class, everyman aspect of it, as opposed to an ideal and heroic figure like Guile's, at least Alex is a professional wrestler (based off Hulk Hogan), there's a larger-than-life aspect about him, Terry in comparison, is more grounded,

He's such an instantly (as in "intuitively") recognisable character, and is extremely likeable and fun to play, he seems to possess a lot of the traits that the other SF cast represent individually, it is such a masterstroke of characterization and visual language, I guess.

He also seems like he would be great in a beat-em-up game, due to his urban aesthetic and fighting style, surprised he hasn't made any guest appearances in any such beat-em-ups (yet),

It does make me wonder what the original ("excuse") plot was for the original Street Fighter when Terry/Joe was meant to be the protagonist, maybe it would had been the same as Fatal Fury's, I guess.

'Street Fighter' implies an "informal/unofficial" brawl or fight, however the series' plot otoh, (usually) features more "formal/organized" tournaments and competitions with hierarchies and a winner, this also explains why its main protags (Ryu/Ken) are wearing karate gis, as they are participating in a tournament with other competitors. This was likely due to 'Enter the Dragon's influence on the series (which also influenced Mortal Kombat in this regard, the whole competition/tournament where the protags participating it have their own agenda/purposes in partaking in it)

Over the years, both the franchises influenced one another, and SF too, has tried to take a more "urban, street" direction (atleast SF3, somewhat, and especially the recent SF6, I guess), and Terry himself officially debuted in a SF games as a guest character (not counting crossovers), but yes.

The recent The Ghost in the Shell teaser was lit, the music was dope, I couldn't stop re-playing it enough,

The animation was quite good, the art style, I'm told is meant to be accurate to the original manga and the author's style (for some reason, it reminded me of Edgerunners (yes, yes, they're both Cyberpunk fiction, it ain't due to that, still.....I'm not sure why),

Aside from this adaptation being more faithful to the original manga/source material and the author's vision (I guess at least the initial arcs were more of a black comedy? A Major who is able to make funny faces and reactions, does seem way more interesting/likeable), what else about it is captivating enough?

Is it its cyberpunk themes? That has been explored, deconstructed, and parodied/subverted to death the past 3 or so decades since that genre's inception and its surge and popularity since.

I feel the only selling point of this new series is that it's manga-accurate with manga-accurate art style, it being a cyberpunk story exploring the usual themes from that genre, I doubt it has anything new to say,

Especially since GiTS is often considered to be a seminal work that influenced a lot of subsequent cyberpunk media since, the 1995 movie might have taken quite the creative liberties from the source material, but its influence otherwise, I'm told, is far-reaching.

From the Matrix, I believe even Deus Ex in some way, is influenced by it (a govt. agent/law enforcer navigating a near-future dystopian reality, and beginning to question the establishment/status quo and eventually rebelling away from it)

It will be a classic case of the 'Seinfeld is Unfunny' trope (GiTS, in turn, would have taken inspirations from Blade Runner, which while very technically not cyberpunk, as it's debated, did influence the aesthetic, tone, and storytelling of the genre overall. A law enforcer questioning everything including reality, as they navigate a dystopian near future, eventually raging against the machine)

I guess what I'm trying to get across with all this is that Cyberpunk as a genre, as of today, seems to be purely made for the sake of cool and flashy aesthetics (and 80s nostalgia, which was a big thing in the 2010s, and maybe very early 2020s, now the 90s might have a nostalgia phase, and cyberpunk was still popular and relevant in that decade too)

I remember a video essay made all the way back in 2017-18, discussing about that Altered Carbon live-action adaptation and how Cyberpunk, at least most works based on it, seems to have not updated themselves aesthetically or even thematically, and seem to be stuck in the same time period they originally were from, repeating the same arguments and talking points, maybe with slight subversion or some twists, but same nonetheless.

I guess another reason why Cyberpunk doesn't feel as interesting or "attractive" as it used to be, is I personally feel in many ways, we live in such a reality, maybe nowhere near as flashy or exaggerated, certainly not in regards to the tech. but still....

Our reality seems to be cyberpunk with all its cautionary warnings and foreboding being all the more relevant and real, minus the cool aesthetics and inventions,

Our ability to enjoy fiction I guess, can be affected, when we realize, whatever it discusses and critiques about, it's all something that hits a bit too close, actively living in such a reality and all,

In a way, cyberpunk, as the "punk" part of it emphasizes, is inherently a genre of anti-establishment and dismantling the status quo, I suppose a high-profile adaptation with a massive budget and producer/distribution backing from some of the largest corporations out there means, that aspect can never be fully realized in such an arrangement, it's a very theme-park, "Disneyfied" take on the genre,

I wonder if there are authors or indie titles that explore cyberpunk all the while still remaining fresh and offering new discussions and arguments,

It truly does seem like it's easy to imagine the end of the world than it is to imagine the end of late-stage, hyper-individualistic capitalism of today.

Side Note: I wish Solarpunk gains more traction, as I feel it is something the masses truly need at the moment, with all the bleakness and doom and gloom in the real world today.

Sure, it can seem like civilization might truly come to an end in the coming decades with how unchecked corporate greed seems to be and how much the planet is getting exploited in an attempt to satisfy something that never realistically can't be,

And maybe Solarpunk as an aesthetic/theme, can be very unrealistic as I really can't see it playing out anytime soon in the coming decades, maybe at minimum a century or even two away from now, maybe after a "hard reset" that at the very least sets back present civilization by a few centuries back, if not a fresh start, even.

Solarpunk, I believe, demands, scaling down, and us reducing our consumption, appealing a more symbiotic and mutual/healthy relationship with our planet and what it has to offer, as opposed to the parasitic relationship we have with it, today. I guess, it's hard to make a high-profile adaptation of it, because this entire aforementioned appeal can be alienating and off-putting for many folks out there and how much we are accustomed to modern day convenience, as unfeasible and unsustainable as it might be.

I wish Solarpunk gains traction because it offers a very optimistic and hopeful future, whether or not it is realistic is another question, I feel we as a collective are in dire need of such hopeful takes (Sonic CD is a great solarpunk work, the good future, the gorgeous aesthetic and art direction)

I suppose, canonically, as GTA 5 hints, though there's not much detail to go around much with, the 'Revenge' Ending seems canonical? As in Kate gets killed, Roman survives, and as of the game's ending, still has a good relationship with Niko?

Whereas, in the Deal ending, Roman gets killed, Kate, while expressing sympathy, still doesn't patch up with Niko, leaving him all alone (aside from Little Jacob, Brucie, and maybe Dwayne and Packie too; they might be good hangout buddies, but none of them seem emotionally close with him, in Dwayne's case, it's Niko who increasingly gets annoyed with his doomerism after every single hangout, and seemingly came across like he wished to maintain emotional distance with him).

Which do you think is more consistent with the game's story and worldbuilding?

Personally, both are tragic and bleak, after whatever choice Niko ends up and deals with and bears the "tragically ironic" ramifications of them,

Revenge

In Revenge, on the "buildup" to attending Roman's wedding, Niko and Kate have a heart-to-heart conversation, and after all the bleakness and harshness the story so far had to offer, it seemed quite optimistic - Niko is promised that there'll be mostly positive things to look for in his life from this point on, overlook the past and how much it might have controlled him, start anew, and the game itself seems to tell the player to cultivate this attitude,

Until the shootout happens and she gets whacked in the crossfire. All that gentle buildup and hand-holding prior, was merely the game deceiving the player to remind how utterly bleak and nihilistic the world and Niko's story was.

Deal

With Deal, I can't remember Roman particularly giving such hopeful and heartfelt advice to him before the wedding. Niko attends the wedding alone with Kate not on his side, and Roman instead gets shot and killed in the cross-fire, dying on the day of his wedding and leaving his newly-wedded wife widowed with an unborn child.

I suppose, Deal doesn't seem as shocking to me, because, the deal Niko makes with Dmitri already seemed cynical and in-line with how the story was presented so far. Whereas, Revenge has a more "romanticized/idealized" path where Niko pays back for all the wrong he had endured, and the game leading us to think he will have a good future with Kate, only to whisk it away from us.

Which is more in-character with Niko?

I'm still conflicted, likewise, if Deal seems in line with Niko's personality, that said. It's consistent with the worldbuilding, I'd say, but would Niko truly agree to that?

On one hand, Niko is shown to be principled and vengeful (he was literally searching for the traitor for 10 years, I mean, with intense determination), so I really can't see him ever agree to having a deal with Dmitri, after all that he had done to him till that point in the story.

At the same time, Niko has no qualms killing people for money, as in he's willing to do anything as long as the price's right (as Darko points out rhetorically; we do see him at one point before, confessing to Roman on the phone, on how all this was taking a toll on him, after killing Ray Boccino, iirc?) And since it's meant to give him and Roman enough cash to secure a decent enough future away from all the world of crime, maybe he might have accepted the deal out of affection and concern for his cousin?

Final Thoughts and Analysis

I remember coming across one comment in YT in the Deal Ending video, where people felt even if it might not be canon (again, going off with that minor hint from 5), it tonally fits the game more. Has a poetic, Greek tragedy quality to it. Right down to the final fight with Dmitri at Happiness Island, taking place in stormy weather.

Roman is antithetical to Niko, in that he was meant to be the embodiment of the American Dream, as it's presented idealistically. A hard-working and honest immigrant who, despite his personal vices and troubles, did make something out of himself fair and square. As opposed to Niko, who, along with the game, is meant to be a deconstruction of it.

Roman's death can be interpreted as the game telling us that Dream is a lie, or it won't actually last long, even if it isn't. His death also might have snuffed out whatever little hopes and optimism Niko might have had; I wouldn't be surprised if he might have even killed himself after this out of sheer nihilism, PTSD, and depression (maybe Little Jacob being the good friend he is, might have helped him come out of it, somehow?).

Whereas in Revenge, the weather is quite sunny/pleasant, and there's even a bit of levity in the final mission as Roman and Lil Jacob, both accompany Niko, and give some sparse but comedic commentary at times.

Admittedly, Kate herself, at least for me, never came across as interesting or even likeable. I personally never cared for her as much as the player, as how Niko seemed to, their romance came out of nowhere, and their chemistry is not as good (I did genuinely like Michelle/Karen, prior to the reveal, and enjoyed hanging out with her, though I was too naive when I first XPed the story; upon re-watching vids online, it seems very obvious that she's a cop fishing for info from him, but ya, barely hung out with Kate),

While Niko looked very depressed and "done" in Revenge's ending too, I suppose he still had his cousin, and the ending was more of one final "harsh" lesson and karma for Niko and all his crimes, before letting him start an actual fresh, more optimistic life away from all that, as opposed to Deal, which seemed to imply crime and violence is all Niko is meant to do and live for.