u/whitedolphinn

I was always interested in this game growing up, but I never got around to playing it. It always seemed scary and I never fully knew what it was about.

The past 5 days or so, I've been playing it for 2+ hours every night, lights off, volume up, and I gotta say that I absolutely love this game. I'm on Interval 8 now, normal difficulty. Trying to put the pieces together about what's happening in the story has been a great time.

I enjoy the dialogue, the art style, and the villains. Also, I've seen the 80's spider-man cartoon already, so if you've got suggestions other than that that would be even better.

I have to be nerfed for it to even be considered fair

Just felt like it.

Maybe that's why we have all of these batshit crazy leaders nowadays. The inside of their brains can't properly or fully distinguish between the screen and real life

A Theory about Cults, and about how "Inverse" Cults may exist:

Maybe sometimes the *members* choose their leader, even without the "leader"'s consent or even knowledge. A cult leader could be a cult leader and not even know it. Could *not want* to be the cult leader, but the *members* won't allow the cult to end. I mean, it sounds ludicrous but is something like this possible? Because as far as I'm aware with cults: the Narrative, the idea, the story, takes precedent over *literally everything else in existence.* Every member's life, including the proposed "leader", is "sacrificed" so that the cult can keep going. The narrative. Perhaps sometimes people have no idea that they're even in a cult. Which would help the cult to operate. That's exactly how they would want all parties involved. Because then, you have lost that much more agency over your ability to gauge reality, and are that much less likely to escape the cult.

Perhaps cults can sometimes work from the inverse, instead of how they usually go down with the leader at the helm, like we hear and read about usually. What I mean is that maybe sometimes the *members choose their leader*, even without the "leader"'s consent or even knowledge. A cult leader could be a cult leader and not even know it. Could *not want* to be the cult leader, but the *members* won't allow the cult to end. I mean, it sounds ludicrous but is something like this possible? Because as far as I'm aware with cults: the Narrative, the idea, the story, takes precedent over *literally everything else in existence.* Every member's life, including the proposed "leader", are "sacrificed" so that the cult can keep going. The narrative. Perhaps sometimes people have no idea that they're even in a cult. Which would help the cult to operate. That's exactly how they would want all parties involved. Because then, you have lost that much more agency over your ability to gauge reality, and are that much less likely to escape the cult.

Edit- second attempt, possibly a formatting error last time.

Perhaps cults can sometimes work from the inverse, instead of how they usually go down with the leader at the helm, like we hear and read about usually. What I mean is that maybe sometimes the *members choose their leader*, even without the "leader"'s consent or even knowledge. A cult leader could be a cult leader and not even know it. Could *not want* to be the cult leader, but the *members* won't allow the cult to end. I mean, it sounds ludicrous but is something like this possible? Because as far as I'm aware with cults: the Narrative, the idea, the story, takes precedent over *literally everything else in existence.* Every member's life, including the proposed "leader", are "sacrificed" so that the cult can keep going. The narrative. Perhaps sometimes people have no idea that they're even in a cult. Which would help the cult to operate. That's exactly how they would want all parties involved. Because then, you have lost that much more agency over your ability to gauge reality, and are that much less likely to escape the cult.

Perhaps cults can sometimes work from the inverse, instead of how they usually go down with the leader at the helm, like we hear and read about usually. What I mean is that maybe sometimes the *members choose their leader*, even without the "leader"'s consent or even knowledge. A cult leader could be a cult leader and not even know it. Could *not want* to be the cult leader, but the *members* won't allow the cult to end. I mean, it sounds ludicrous but is something like this possible? Because as far as I'm aware with cults: the Narrative, the idea, the story, takes precedent over *literally everything else in existence.* Every member's life, including the proposed "leader", are "sacrificed" so that the cult can keep going. The narrative. Perhaps sometimes people have no idea that they're even in a cult. Which would help the cult to operate. That's exactly how they would want all parties involved. Because then, you have lost that much more agency over your ability to gauge reality, and are that much less likely to escape the cult.

Perhaps cults can sometimes work from the inverse, instead of how they usually go down with the leader at the helm, like we hear and read about usually. What I mean is that maybe sometimes the *members choose their leader*, even without the "leader"'s consent or even knowledge. A cult leader could be a cult leader and not even know it. Could *not want* to be a cult leader, but the *members* won't allow the cult to end. I mean, it sounds ludicrous but is something like this possible? Because as far as I'm aware with cults: the Narrative, the idea, the story, takes precedent over *literally everything else in existence.* Every member's life, including the proposed "leader", can be sacrificed and constantly sacrificed so that the cult can keep going. The idealistic Notions/Narrative(s)/Story. A lot of times, people have no idea that they're in a cult. And that's the point, that's how they operate. That's exactly how they want you. Because then you have lost that much more agency over your ability to gauge reality, and to ultimately leave and separate-individuate.

Introduction:

Cults have characteristics distinct from ordinary organizations and groups. Cults operate under unreality. A healthy groups' foundation always allows for *reality* to take precedence over whatever may happen. The members adjust *their* notions to fit reality. They don't (attempt to) adjust *reality* to fit their *notions*. The Notion here in this instance, is the "God" of the cult/religion. In cults, the foundation of the whole thing is based on a Narrative or a series of narratives. If you were to think of it like a Religion, The *Narrative itself* is the "God". All of the members and even the leader himself bow down to this Narrative. Quite literally they sacrifice themselves, their personhood, their whole identity in essence, in order to attempt to "fit in" to the narrative, and "make it true" so to speak. The Narrative is usually some grandiose, nice sounding, warm feeling thing that people *want* to believe in. They want to believe in it *so badly,* that they *force themselves* to believe it. They *make* themselves believe it, everything and everyone else be damned. And then they start to force *others* to do it. To do what *they* have done: self-sacrifice for the sake of some batshit insane grandiose idea. Something that contradicts reality so much in a way that it renders peace and order impossible, for whomever comes in even the slightest or most indirect contact with it. Thats why cults have to be nipped in the bud sooner rather than later, because they grow and spread.

Theory:

Cults can sometimes work from the bottom up, instead of the top down. What I mean, is that sometimes the *members choose their leader(s)*, even sometimes without the "leader"'s consent or even knowledge. A cult leader could be a cult leader and not even know it. Could *not want* to be a cult leader, but the *member* won't allow it. So cults can operate where the leader is in control and not the members, the *members* are in control and not the leader, they are *both* in control, or they're both *not* in control. It can theoretically be any which way of these 4 ways. The cult in its entirety is the danger. Because the Narrative, the idea, the story, takes precedent over *literally everything else in existence.* Every memebrs life, including the proposed "leader", is sacrifices for the idealistic Notions/Narrative(s)/Story.

Epilogue:

A lot of time, people have no idea that they're even in a cult. And that's the point, that's how they operate. That's exactly how they want you. Because then you have lost that much more agency over your ability to gauge reality, and to ultimately leave and separate-individuate.

How would you guys classify Creed? Or would you even?

Edit- Why are people so afraid to debate they just leave one comment and don't offer any reasoning....