I would like to know about the most cynical sci-fi writers about political progress.
To quote, Larry Niven, "Niven's Law: No cause is so noble that it won't attract fuggheads."
Everyone was impressed that Brok figured out that something is wrong with the fake Tyr who turned out to be Odin in God of War Ragnarok.
It's actually reasonable when you think about it.
Remember what Mimir said in the beginning about Odin? "If, he tells you snow is white, he's lying." Many found it funny but what did it mean?
In real-life, hypocrites do the same. They use the truth to manipulate. And then they try to gaslight you when the truth is no longer convenient by telling you snow is not there. And they play mind games with you through gaslighting you. In short they weaponise the truth through half-truths.
That's exactly Odin's favourite manipulation method.
Brok on the other hand is the complete opposite of Odin.
He is a crude dwarvish guy without any pretensions or pleasantries in how he talks to others. He doesn't bother with flattery. He just tells it as it's.
That's why he could sense something was wrong with the fake Tyr.
He is a no-nonsense straightforward type of thinker.
Bless his soul.
If, you want a good ending, just do like Pagan Min says.
Stay here. Enjoy the Crab Rangoon. Don't move! He will be right back.
That's the only possible good ending.
At first I play the Golden Path Campaign. And then I restart the game right after finishing everything just to play the secret ending.
I like to think all this Golden Path stuff was only Ajay daydreaming before Pagan Min comes back.
Many fantasy fans especially in the isekai genre find it funny that the mages of a kingdom would summon a teen boy but it actually makes sense to do so.
​
Let's think in the shoes of the king and the noblemen of a kingdom.
​
Firsthand no need to worry about competency. A summoned person is a gifted one with magic and endowments without much efforts. Any man whether a teen boy or an adult man would be good enough. It's not like you need to train him in mind and martial arts or whatever. Simply no sense in worrying about the age so long as he's grown enough.
​
Now you see. It's actually better to summon a teen boy rather than an adult man for our kingdom.
​
If, I myself was summoned, I would stick around to gather enough information, before I make my own judgements, instead of trusting what a group of medieval aristocratic hereditary nobility has to say.
​
Teen boys are much easier to indoctrinate. Adult men ask too many questions. That's why military recruiters prefer high school graduates. They know teen boys are good enough for indoctrination by propaganda and so easily impressionable to convince of anything.
​
It's better to summon a hot-headed teen boy with delusions of grandeur about becoming a pure-hearted hero rather than a cold-thinking adult man. Any mature man would be sceptical. He would gather information. He would start asking questions. And we can't have that.
​
That's why teen boys are the most suited ones for summoning magic rituals.
Just like, the title says, the redemption of Kratos in God of War Ragnarök is a realistic masterpiece within gaming.
​
What, I really like about Kratos' redemption, is how Kratos redeemed himself without becoming an idealistic white knight following some maxim saying never kill or likewise.
​
I mean seriously. Too many stories transform their protagonist into a knight in white armour. That's a lazy way to redeem your protagonist.
​
Kratos still struggled with killing but he stopped when he could.
​
When, Kratos defeated Heimdall, he offered mercy, on the condition that Heimdall leave his son alone, but Heimdall was too prideful to stop, so Kratos killed him.
​
When, Kratos defeated Thors, he again offered mercy, on the condition that Thors choose to do better, which Thors agreed to, but then Odin killed his own son.
​
When, Kratos defeated Odin, he still offered mercy, as Atreus begged Odin to stop, but Odin was too prideful and too far gone to ever stop, so Atreus did what needed to be done by taking Odin's soul.
​
Kratos never became a knight in white armour but he did choose to be better!
​
That's why his redemption was so great. He couldn't solve everything without violence. He still choose to attempt peaceful solutions first.
​
That's very realistic. We can actually try doing the same choices in real-life but we usually choose not to.
​
Story-writers need to take lessons from Sony's Santa Monica Studio about how to write a truly great redemption story.
Just like, the title says, I want suggestions of sci-fi novels and other written works with an enlightened monarchy, where the monarch or the autocrat is actually competent instead of being an idiot.
To be honest I really think Anthem did have a lot of potential though a very wasted one.
A story about a world abandoned by its gods. A gameplay with exosuits capable of extraordinary feats. This game had a lot of brilliant concepts to use for us.
The problem is that such game required a lot of effort, investing, and commitment, but we all are ought to know better than to expect such conduct from EA.
Anyway doesn't matter anymore. The game's servers are already dead. The lessons of its failure are all that's left for us now.
Just like, the title says, I like to have suggestions of action-adventure games with blades like whip blades and chain blades instead of swords. Traditional swords are very boring. Blades like whip blades and chain blades are much cooler.
For example, many of us already know about the famous games of Castlevania and God of War franchises.
The Steward can still preserve democracy. I mean factionalism is a problem for sure. The city is always going to struggle with conflict at first. But then again it's not that hard to preserve democracy.
My Steward managed to preserve democracy with ease through a couple of democratic reforms. Most importantly this reform called, one man, one vote. The Steward is the man. And he has the vote.
Firsthand, let's make it clear. Realpolitik is opposite to ideals. Under ideals, people cooperate towards some common good. Under realpolitik, people don't cooperate unless forced to cooperate under an authority figure. Realpolitik logic always assumes existence of monarchical figures or oligarchic factions. That's the founding basics of realpolitik. Hopefully cleared it out.
Here're some examples. The Realpolitik Series obviously. The Supreme Ruler Series. And also Frostpunk 2.
Any suggestions of strategy realpolitik administration games?
Firsthand, let's make it clear. Realpolitik is opposite to ideals. Under ideals, people cooperate towards some common good. Under realpolitik, people don't cooperate unless forced to cooperate under an authority figure. Realpolitik logic always assumes existence of monarchical figures or oligarchic factions. That's the founding basics of realpolitik. Hopefully cleared it out.
Here're some examples. The Realpolitik Series obviously. The Supreme Ruler Series. And also Frostpunk 2.
For clarification, side levels are levels within linear video games like old video games, where one can play extra levels unrelated to main story after campaign's end, which are sincerely much better than making life-empty open world video games.
I mean yeah in short it means that you finish the game's campaign and that you get to play more additional levels having nothing to do with the main story without exploring an open world.
There're too many life-empty open worlds in the gaming industry. They shouldn't have bothered with having an open world for most open world games. They should just reuse this model of gaming.
What's interesting about the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars is that they seem very similar to the way geopolitics worked in the First and Second World Wars in general. This period's new regimes were ones generally present during wartime but not lasting ones. That's why I don't really think the Europa Universalis series can truly do this period any justice in portraying it.
I think a Hearts of Iron style game or at least a mod is the only way to truly portray this period in the right way.
What do you all think?
For real. I have no idea how this is even a debate. Sabal is objectively much better than Amita.
Yeah. I know. A patriarchy with religious fanatics allowing men to marry little girls sucks very hard.
This is the Far Cry series. Everyone obviously sucks. Listen to what Pagan Min say. Stay here. Enjoy the crab rangoon. Don't move. He'll be right back.
Still I don't think turning Kyrat into a nacro-state with child labour is much better than a fanatical religious patriarchy. And killing Bhadra made me really despise Amita so much.
That's why I preferred to side with Sabal against Amita when looking at all the downsides. I did spare Amita because I believe that at heart she's not really a bad person just that she can't be trusted with power. That's my viewpoint about it.
And obviously I killed Sabal after it because how couldn't I when he wanted to make Bhadra get married to an old man? Perhaps to himself though he didn't confirm it. Wasn't taking any chances.