|
Pwnstar posted:Do people who love the Condederate flag and display it proudly actually believe its about "heritage not hate" or is that just one of those white people excuses? I think the whole thing America has with its flag is weird and creepy enough but thats not as weird as the Confederate thing. Basically, yeah. Confederate flag fetishization is a dogwhistle racist stance, and no amount of rationalization can actually rationalize using a literal flag in support of slavery for economic growth. "Heritage not hate" is a common stance of people supporting Southern Culture, mostly to create a romanticized version of Southernisms which reclaims racist symbols. It has never worked, and has always been purported by racists anyway, so who really cares
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 10:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 19:12 |
|
|
Please note that in South Carolina, at this very moment, all other flags at the state capital EXCEPT the confederate flag have been lowered.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 10:29
|
|
|
The redneck revolution has started?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 11:07
|
|
|
Pwnstar posted:Do people who love the Condederate flag and display it proudly actually believe its about "heritage not hate" or is that just one of those white people excuses? I think the whole thing America has with its flag is weird and creepy enough but thats not as weird as the Confederate thing. It's conceivable that someone raised in that culture could see it as a symbol of their heritage and not of racism. It's just that those people would also have a high probability of being racist because they were raised by people who see the Confederate Flag as a symbol of their culture.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 13:38
|
|
|
The thing about the Confederate flag is that it is only a symbol, and as a symbol it can mean different things to different people. Southern Pride, "remember the war," "remember the white supremacy." The trouble is that, as a symbol, it doesn't belong just to the person who hangs up the flag--it belongs to everyone who sees it. The individual who displays it could have the most innocent intentions in the world, but no matter what their personal interpretation may be, the flag still means "racism" to some of the people who view it, and therefore that is what the individual is communicating whether they intend to or not. It's sort of like how the swastika has many valid interpretations in East and Central Asia, but here in the United States there is only one overriding meaning.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 15:40
|
|
|
PhazonLink posted:Seems like a 1st Am. issue that's easy to win. You'd think so, except the case was about an organization forcing the state to produce the license plate, not whether or not someone can display the flag in general.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
Kangra posted:Well, you see, the Negro and the Hiberno-Ibernian naturally have their heads tilted upward, in a show of deference to... Speaking of stupid racial concepts, I'm reminded of a poem by Daniel Defoe talking about ridiculous it is for Englishmen to claim that they're of pure English blood when the English come from so many different groups, like the Scots, Romans, Normans, Angles, etc. It's called the True Born Englishmen for anyone who's curious.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
Bobbin Threadbare posted:The individual who displays it could have the most innocent intentions in the world, but no matter what their personal interpretation may be, the flag still means "racism" to some of the people who view it, and therefore that is what the individual is communicating whether they intend to or not. I get what you're saying, but I don't think it is necessarily fair to say that this is a reaction of the viewer. I'm not arguing that symbols have intrinsic meaning, but in this particular case, I think it could be argued that any of the possible reasons to revere the Confederate Flag can be directly tied to something bad. I honestly don't know every excuse they offer, as I don't personally deal with these people very often, but these are the ones I could think of / could find. States Rights? Yes, the states right to allow people to own other human beings on the basis of being considered racially inferior, a concept we now generally find to be antiquated and abhorrent. (Also, side note: what about the 'states rights" of the free states to enact their own laws, such as abolishing slavery within their own borders, which was basically rescinded by the Fugitive Slave Act? Why aren't you complaining of those state's rights being trampled too?) The economy? Yes, the agrarian economy that was staged on the backs of African slaves who could not participate in any of the prosperity this economy afforded whites. The noble cause of the confederacy? Yes, the honorable cause of violent rebellion due to an inability to resist the growing and understandable moral outrage towards the deplorable and dehumanizing practice of slavery. To which southern parties initially responded by not simply excusing it as practical or necessary, but actually had the temerity to declare it morally righteous. Remembering the brave fight against the better industrialized north? Yes, the north, which was probably more industrialized because they had decided to stop subjugating an entire race of people into brutal unpaid servitude and realized that you can just get industrial machines to do it (John Henry notwithstanding). Southern Nationalism? Yes, the nation that was founded for the express purpose of continuing to enslave human beings, so much so that the practice is enshrined in its constitution. The nation whose purpose was expressed as: "the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition." This nation that you do not live in anymore, because it does not exist anymore. The nation that you are free to revere only because the country in which you now reside, the victors in this conflict, is magnanimous enough to allow you to do so. (Side note: if you revere nations because they are gone, then I assume you hold the native nations that were destroyed to build this country in equal esteem?) Please don't misunderstand me: everyone should have the right to revere the Flag of the Confederacy is they want to. This is a free country and I will defend their right to do things I may disagree with. But don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining. If you revere the confederacy, you are going to have to work very hard to convince me that you are not also revering slavery and racism.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 00:24
|
|
|
Magnetic North posted:I get what you're saying, but I don't think it is necessarily fair to say that this is a reaction of the viewer. I'm not arguing that symbols have intrinsic meaning, but in this particular case, I think it could be argued that any of the possible reasons to revere the Confederate Flag can be directly tied to something bad. I honestly don't know every excuse they offer, as I don't personally deal with these people very often, but these are the ones I could think of / could find. Honestly, you could do what you've done here and apply it to a lot of other symbols. Why would you salute the American flag, for instance? You're honoring the nation that made a bloody mess of Vietnam and Iraq, the nation that oppressed the Philippines and did frankly unspeakable things to Native Americans, the nation that imported slaves from Africa and placated slave owners for eighty years after its founding, the nation that marginalized Latin Americans, African Americans, and women throughout most of its history and still struggles with inequality issues to this day. Are you saying you're proud of this history when you salute the American flag (or whatever nation you live in; everyone's got dirty laundry)? Or why do people go to Renaissance fairs and dress up like knights and nobles? They were oppressive, nepotistic, inbred autocrats who actively punished any attempt by the peasants and serfs to gain any sort of equality or representation. The Confederate flag has a more immediate link to the ideas of slavery and racism, and that's why it's such a sore spot, but it's entirely possible and even quite common to divorce symbols from their negative implications. Or vice versa, like with the swastika. Even the Christian cross depicts a gruesome method of torture and execution but represents a noble sacrifice. When you take up a symbol, you don't have to say "I support everything this symbol has ever represented." You just have to accept that other people might think that you do.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 01:12
|
|
|
Bobbin Threadbare posted:Honestly, you could do what you've done here and apply it to a lot of other symbols. Yes, you can do this. But does the American flag represent only those atrocities? Do they all represent the same problem with America? Is there nothing to love about America that is untarnished by those ills? I think it's fair to say no. You could say you love the flag because of WWI and killing Nazis and oorah, or because of The Interstate Highway System and The American Dream and white picket fences and 2.3 kids, or because of For The People, By The People (which now includes corporations for some reason), or whatever. In contrast, for this particular symbol, I would posit that there is precious little that the Flag of the Confederacy represents that is not directly connected to slavery and racism, if anything. It is a symbol that paints a very narrow stroke. Now, this is partially an artifact of the fact that the Confederacy lasted only four years, or that it was unrecognized by any foreign power, and because history is written by the victors. It's not that one simply can negatively interpret the flag. It's that I believe that if you are honest and informed, one cannot avoid negatively interpreting the flag. Perhaps that is close-minded of me. Also, I mean, guys, c'mon, just get Don't Tread On Me flags, and we're all good. Make the background red if you have to, add some stars, go hog wild.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 02:04
|
|
|
This topic makes me think of "The Appropriation of Cultures" which has a fantastic reading on an episode of Selected Shorts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 04:29
|
|
|
i think its important to bring up a few things for one the cross wasnt used a symbol for Christianity for about 200 years after its formation and its use wasnt particularly wide spread for about another 200 before that the Ichthys was used primarily it wasnt something that early christians were comfortable using it and in fact they wouldnt write the word and used a different symbol the Staurogram. Also at least for the symbols already mentioned that have changed their meanings the new meanings have been vastly different from their originals where as with the confederate flag it hasnt really been removed from the original use of the flag. Another issue is that most of the examples used before have been changed by parties prosecuted by the symbol in some way which is pretty different from the use of the confederate flag which is still being used by the same people/groups of people seen as the same which just further strengthens the link to its original meaning. Also the confederate flag is pretty complex when compared to other symbols its not as if it could really be in reference to anything but the confederation it would be much closer to changing the meaning of motto than that of a simple geometric symbol such as the swastika. As far as i am concerned there is no reason that the confederate flag couldnt be used as a symbol of peace and hope in the future but at least as far as i am concerned it is too soon and the cultural climate especially in the south is certainly not in a position to change and that's how you need to view it form a cultural perspective one person on their own cant change the meaning of something it has to be agreed upon by a large enough amount of the population to truly work, i would say the same for the swastika i could easily see in a couple of hundred years when the atrocities of the nazis and WW2 in general are less close to home that people might start to pick it up for different uses. just as a disclaimer this is from the outside perspective of who doesnt live in America and hasnt visited any of the southern states (excluding florida) so things may not be as bad (or could be much worse) than what i have seen and heard.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 06:18
|
|
|
Magnetic North posted:Yes, you can do this. But does the American flag represent only those atrocities? Do they all represent the same problem with America? Is there nothing to love about America that is untarnished by those ills? I think it's fair to say no. You could say you love the flag because of WWI and killing Nazis and oorah, or because of The Interstate Highway System and The American Dream and white picket fences and 2.3 kids, or because of For The People, By The People (which now includes corporations for some reason), or whatever. In contrast, for this particular symbol, I would posit that there is precious little that the Flag of the Confederacy represents that is not directly connected to slavery and racism, if anything. It is a symbol that paints a very narrow stroke. Now, this is partially an artifact of the fact that the Confederacy lasted only four years, or that it was unrecognized by any foreign power, and because history is written by the victors. This is one of those situations where two people agree, but there's a very minor point which you are arguing past each other on. The gist is, symbols are meaningless. They only carry a definition when you apply one to it. You have a very clear definition of the confederate flag, for instance, and many people agree with that definition and consider display of the flag to be simultaneously racist and ignorant. Bobbin isn't invalidating that definition, he's just pointing out that you can make a symbol mean anything with enough widespread agreement, and attempting to do something like, say, call the display of the Confederate Flag to mean "heritage not hate" is within the individual rights of a person to do. The consequences are through deserved social ridicule and ostracization. A person can easily make the Heritage Not Hate argument of they have a strong sentimental link to southern history, and being "well-informed and honest" about its history is great for contextualizing its use in history, but ultimately your view of a symbol is not a logical argument. If your daddy flew the stars and bars on his pickup and you learned about the war of northern aggression, you are still informed and honest about your views, they are just (IMO) lovely and wrong. Bias and sentimental attachment to a romanticized civil war goes a long way. I mean, put simply, your opposition to the Confederate flag is about as based in logic as an average Redneck's support. You both have reasoning behind your opinions on the flag, but your overall like or dislike is still an emotional reaction, not a rational decision. Even with a thousand good points in support of the Confederate Flag, I still think it's too tainted and should be never shown again. Same goes for the people who fly it, they just think that whole "symbol of the seceded-government which attempted to overthrow a nation based on a federal government infringing on a state's right to legislate a man as literal property" isn't that big a deal. There's no factual argument to be had there
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 06:48
|
|
|
Bobbin Threadbare posted:Honestly, you could do what you've done here and apply it to a lot of other symbols. Why would you salute the American flag, for instance? You're honoring the nation that made a bloody mess of Vietnam and Iraq, the nation that oppressed the Philippines and did frankly unspeakable things to Native Americans, the nation that imported slaves from Africa and placated slave owners for eighty years after its founding, the nation that marginalized Latin Americans, African Americans, and women throughout most of its history and still struggles with inequality issues to this day. Are you saying you're proud of this history when you salute the American flag (or whatever nation you live in; everyone's got dirty laundry)?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 09:28
|
|
|
Pwnstar posted:Do people who love the Condederate flag and display it proudly actually believe its about "heritage not hate" or is that just one of those white people excuses? I think the whole thing America has with its flag is weird and creepy enough but thats not as weird as the Confederate thing. As a member of an old southern family, I can confirm that's how we generally see it. It's a pride thing - you'll often see it attached to the expression, "American by birth, Southern by the grace of God." to give it some context. And even I didn't see the problem with it until I learned that it's pretty historically inaccurate, if the point is celebrating "Confederate" heritage. It's more or less just a symbol of a culture - one that can be pretty drat racist, but also represents not necessarily negative things like community, religion, and delicious fried chicken. Now is this community strongly entrenched in cultural divisions that have existed since before the Civil War, and often implicitly racist? Yes. But a redneck putting a flag on his bumper sticker isn't thinking "gently caress black people!" when he puts it there. He's thinking "gently caress yeah, us!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 16:53
|
|
|
NejD posted:i think its important to bring up a few things for one the cross wasnt used a symbol for Christianity for about 200 years after its formation and its use wasnt particularly wide spread for about another 200 before that the Ichthys was used primarily it wasnt something that early christians were comfortable using it and in fact they wouldnt write the word and used a different symbol the Staurogram. Also at least for the symbols already mentioned that have changed their meanings the new meanings have been vastly different from their originals where as with the confederate flag it hasnt really been removed from the original use of the flag. I'll be that guy and leave this here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJSZcxXe7IQ Just thinking of John.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
Looks like the entire BioShock franchise just went on sale for 75% or more.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
Except for the still absurdly priced DLC.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
anilEhilated posted:Except for the still absurdly priced DLC. Actually, it's not part of the BioShock bundle but the DLC is half off and the Season Pass bundle is 70% off.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
What''s most interesting about Comstock's role in the Columbia Cult is that the people follow him because of his ability to predict the future, which makes him more of an oracle than a prophet. It puts me in mind of things like the prosperity gospel, where in God shows his favor on people in this life so that they don't have to worry about whether they're saved or damned when they die. It removes the need for faith since the better off you are the more God loves you. Perhaps the reason that enemies are so monomaniacal is because Comstock has bought their devotion because he can show that he knows what's going on so the white residents of Columbia go along because they just assume it's for the best, and it's not like they're disadvantaged by Columbia's racist policies.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2015 20:38
|
|
|
    I have since remembered that they are called "cargo hooks." Please don't feel a need to correct me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 14:09
|
|
|
Poor ol' Tesla... you start out so strong in the scientific world, but years and a few failures (and obstruction due to personal politics) later, you're just a lonely old man, and the only ones who'll listen are birds.  Still, really interesting corner, Bobbin.Back to the game, I've always loved Comstock's initial introduction with the big face and the stentorian voice and weird effects; it's very Wizard of Oz like (and that's not the only such reference in this game, either). Also liked the point you made about prophets, and how Comstock isn't that different from Biblical prophets in manner...It reminds me of Darren Aronofsky's Noah; it was a movie that a lot of people didn't really know what to do with but I kinda dug, and one of the reasons why was that it portrays Prophets in the manner of the Bible, and not in the modern sanitized way: as these terrible, dangerous individuals who are exposed to a universal force that speaks to them in interperetive, and often violent, imagery and dreams, and who are left more than a little crazy by the experience. Such beings were met by others not only with wonder, but with fear, due to the monumental change they inevitably brought, and you didn't know if that change would be an uplifting of society, or your kids dying in horrible ways. Or both. (It was usually both.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 15:26
|
|
|
One of the things I always wonder about is what Tesla would have been like if he had access to modern psychological care. His older brother's death haunted him throughout his childhood, he always had various minor issues like OCD, and he pretty much starting going full crazy after his lab burned down along with most of the stuff he was working on (which would have been a terrible shock to anyone, let alone a dude already close to the edge) If he only had help working through all these problems, he might have kept contributing to humanity instead of turning into, well, the infamous madman... I think the Comstock's introduction scene gets a lot better once you know who he really is - it gives all his comments about Booker a bit more punch.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 15:33
|
|
|
 Tesla, he fell for the ol' Icarus trap; reached high and far, but eventually reached too high and too far.Tesla coils are still really cool, at least
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
White Coke posted:What''s most interesting about Comstock's role in the Columbia Cult is that the people follow him because of his ability to predict the future, which makes him more of an oracle than a prophet.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
Another neat thing about electricity is for the longest time people thought it was a kind of liquid. If I'm recalling correctly at the time of Ben Franklin there were debates about whether positive and negative charge was actually one single liquid flowing in two directions or two distinct liquids. That's why words like current and flow are attached to electricity and it probably explains why a lot of water similes are used to explain the physics to beginners.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 15:46
|
|
|
Uh... aren't all crooks bent?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 15:54
|
|
|
Speaking of Electricity, this is a neat discussion of Franklin's lightning conductors. And this is a brief story about Marconi. Turns out not only Tesla wound up getting into some weird science.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
Come to think of it, here's a story about lightning rods. Around the time Franklin was playing with kites and keys, a Czech priest named Prokop Diviš was spending way too much time writing about why God lets lightning strikes kill people. Apparently there was some sound physics behind it, but universities in Germany and Russia rejected the whole thing on account of it starting with Bible quotations. Undeterred by the lack of academic reaction, he decided to put theory into practice and in 1754 built a machina meteorologica - a contraption constisting mostly of crates full of metal spikes pointed skywards, the whole thing mounted on a 15 meter iron column, the idea being that the little protrusions will sap static electricty from the air and thus prevent lightning storms completely. Rest assured, it wasn't exactly effective at that; what it was, on the other hand, was a perfectly functioning lightning rod. Somewhat ironically, Diviš's meteorological machine was torn down and destroyed by local villagers in 1759 - in response to a drought obviously caused by the presence of this ungodly machine.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 17:59
|
|
|
Well at least Tesla hit the nail on the head with the future remark. Still pretty interesting to play the first Bioshock again to see how it compares with this. Any survival/horror aspects this series had are gone, but I think Bioshock 2 started that when they made you a walking tankbeast. resurgam40 posted:Also liked the point you made about prophets, and how Comstock isn't that different from Biblical prophets in manner...It reminds me of Darren Aronofsky's Noah; it was a movie that a lot of people didn't really know what to do with but I kinda dug, and one of the reasons why was that it portrays Prophets in the manner of the Bible, and not in the modern sanitized way: as these terrible, dangerous individuals who are exposed to a universal force that speaks to them in interperetive, and often violent, imagery and dreams, and who are left more than a little crazy by the experience. Such beings were met by others not only with wonder, but with fear, due to the monumental change they inevitably brought, and you didn't know if that change would be an uplifting of society, or your kids dying in horrible ways. Or both. (It was usually both.) I really like that idea. It reads like some sort of Elder Gods Lovecraft stuff, which may just boil down to applying logic to what it would really be like to speak to some greater, maybe-divine power. And I think Comstock has some awareness of these alternate realities, so in a sense he has his own seen-the-other-side sort of situation going. Old Testament prophets (at least a few, I believe) are also, like God, kind of assholes. They're authority figures so it makes some sense, especially given it's ancient times when they wrote some(?) of it, but it happens to be perfect for playing a villain in a video game like this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
AC has a few more advantages than what Bobbin mentioned in the video (the most prominent of which is that DC transmission and usage has the effect of significantly accelerating the corrosion of whatever metal carries the current, and therefore has to be much more protected from environmental effects than AC), and the motor advantage to AC is such that modern production electric cars that get DC from their batteries still use AC motors. A synchronous AC motor is also an electric generator.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
Edison was one hell of a showman. Admittedly in a very horrific way to mordern sensibilities. http://knowledgenuts.com/2013/10/19/edison-publicly-tortured-animals-to-discredit-ac-power/  The origin of the electric chair!
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
Tesla once built a death ray because he could. I love Tesla.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
The introduction of Comstock does seem better the second time around. The combat doesn't seem so bad here, either. Maybe it just takes a while. Excellent lecture and I liked that you showed Tesla's whole life story fairly and clearly. I never knew he was a ditch-digger. DC transmission is actually more efficient for long distances*, which is why it's used in a number of places in the modern grid. The biggest thing holding it back in the days of Edison was that the transformer is so much simpler than a similar DC conversion circuit — for either AC or DC you want to transmit at high voltages that would be far too dangerous to deliver to the home. *Technically I don't think anything was stated incorrectly in the lecture, although there was a slight conflation of voltage with power that might be confusing. My favorite named electrical unit is the Mho, which is just the reversal of Ohm's name. it's used for conductance, the inverse of resistance (what the Ohm measures), although I think the official SI unit is the identical Siemens, another eponym. Aside on pronunciation: the unit 'Farad' is usually pronounced exactly the same as the first part of Michael's name. Kangra fucked around with this message at 00:37 on Jun 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
Man, possessing the vending machines isn't worth it. You burned two-thirds of your salts for $8 at the 5 minute mark.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 00:24
|
|
|
oldskool posted:Man, possessing the vending machines isn't worth it. You burned two-thirds of your salts for $8 at the 5 minute mark. Every little bit helps, and salts are a renewable resource.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 00:44
|
|
|
my dad posted:I think the Comstock's introduction scene gets a lot better once you know who he really is - it gives all his comments about Booker a bit more punch. Really, because I think it makes much less sense. How does Comstock know Booker has amnesia? The only way I can figure is if the Luteces told him, but this whole thing is their secret plan to undermine him so why would they? Why is he talking about "bring us the girl and wipe away the debt" as though it's a thing happening now instead of when elizabeth was a baby? Why did he tell his soldiers to stand down, doesn't that run counter to his goals? If he's going to tell them to stand down so that he can give his speech, why make it so cryptic and play into what Booker thinks is going on instead of the reality of the situation? I get that he's in public so he can't be fully open about these things, but why not say something like "You think if you get the girl you'll wipe away your debt? That's not what's going on at all!" You know, something that could potentially demoralize Booker and make him consider ending his crusade (which is what Comstock allegedly wants and was attempting to do with this speech, right?)
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 00:52
|
|
|
bhlaab posted:Really, because I think it makes much less sense. How does Comstock know Booker has amnesia? The only way I can figure is if the Luteces told him, but this whole thing is their secret plan to undermine him so why would they? Why is he talking about "bring us the girl and wipe away the debt" as though it's a thing happening now instead of when elizabeth was a baby? Why did he tell his soldiers to stand down, doesn't that run counter to his goals? If he's going to tell them to stand down so that he can give his speech, why make it so cryptic and play into what Booker thinks is going on instead of the reality of the situation? I get that he's in public so he can't be fully open about these things, but why not say something like "You think if you get the girl you'll wipe away your debt? That's not what's going on at all!" You know, something that could potentially demoralize Booker and make him consider ending his crusade (which is what Comstock allegedly wants and was attempting to do with this speech, right?) He saw present Booker's backstory thanks to the whole looking through tears thing, so he knows Booker's mind is swiss cheese and he's been set upon Comstock by the Luteces. As for the rest, I guess he saw all that, too, although as an excuse for actions that's pretty lame. In his defense, though, Comstock does win in at least one reality following these events.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 01:11
|
|
|
The way I feel about it is that the mystery seems more annoying the first time around. Those problems are still there, but once you know that there are no sensible underpinnings, you can just take it as the winking foreshadowing it's meant to be. It really is difficult to tell a story well when you break causality, and BSI does not do that very well. But taking the story in all its ridiculousness, it's easier to accept it for the parts that do work, like just how crazy Comstock is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 01:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 19:12 |
|
|
I wonder if every instance of Comstock's prophecy is from viewing tears, or if he is supposed to be actually prophetic. I finished the game feeling like not every instance was adequately explained, but I didn't exactly take an inventory.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 01:20
|
|