JakeTomosLewis

To sexualise Sansa’s assault is a provocation. I think that the creative justification is to create this conflict of emotion that greater adds to the horror of the moment. GOT is deeply character based, and rape as a tool for character building is tragic, horrible, but cannot by shied away from. If one is to simply infer rape, and not depict it, you are not accurately reflecting the horror they are going through. That said, I believe you are correct in that a poorly conveyed rape scene, aka the Jaime one, is potentially damaging.

I agree that Jaime suffering no repercussions for his actions is abhorrent, though I like to think of it as a reflection of that character. I sometimes have to remind some of my fellow viewers when they cheer on Jaime, (who couldn’t?) that he pushed Bran from a window, raped his own sister and broke Ned Starks leg.

Jaime is a character so terribly charismatic, you are willing to look past these. One can infer this is what Cersei is doing. It could mean this is how it has been happening their entire lives.

TL;DR: Loved the article.

Dark souls is infamous for its difficulty, but defined and distinguished by its fairness. You can feel every movement, and the stamina bar which dictates how many actions you can consistently make holds you to account. This for me is what keeps me coming back even years after.

What further renders the ‘Miyazaki circle’ of games, ergo excluding DS2, is its level design. As the difficulty curves and arcs into that slope off of Ninja Warrior, a shortcut would emerge, granting a spurt of adrenaline and a contextualised sense of progress. This opposes DS2’s regular use of Bonfires as a legitimate albeit contextualised checkpoint is simply less exciting, and does little to help internalise an otherwise memorable area.

That said, I believe you are correct in that the community and the message system very much cements the series as a longterm commitment. Theres this sense of solidarity; he did it, so I’ll do it eventually.

Yet, if I may be so bold to say, the main quality of Dark Souls, the analytically converted story and artistic license by which it is told is simultaneously its downfall. The recent effort of Bloodborne is more coherent in its wider story, the original DS and DS2 bearing many inconsistencies in their vagaries. E.g. Where Dragons are immortal, yet somehow have descendants. Nitpicky yes, and could infer a more complex narrative. Yet the Souls formula does little to grant solidity to much fan theory, and easily brings out the cynic in all of us once noticed. Alas, for another argument.

I did enjoy this article, and thank you.

– Jake.

Loved the article, I hadn’t considered Lovecraftian influences beyond those games which market themselves as horror. In light of this, I might also point you to the Mass Effect series, in which Lovecraftian themes of insanity by proximity, an enemy of inhuman motivations are explored through the story’s impetus, the reapers, (which remain their defining characteristic if you do what I did and ignore the third one.)

Cosmic horror is indeed pervasive; gaming is an efficient medium to explore this sense of awe and powerlessness. I fear this is not fully utilised, and may be systemically impaired, whereby visually creating the horror of a great one is only ever effective where this sense of awe is retained. The idea that the god can be slain, and by given mechanics, lessens the horror experienced.

You are much more frightened of a boss when you don’t know its move set, and its potential danger is much greater. But this only substitutes the sense of awe, with survivalist in game logic. You don’t want to die because of progress loss, whereas a human doesn’t want to die for more obvious reasons. And more egregiously, you are allowed to re-attempt the boss, where all sense of horror is spent. So, I suppose I wanted to ask, do you think its possible to pay full homage to Lovecraft in this interactive medium?

A wonderful article, I enjoyed in particular how you contextualised and rationalised the existence of such an old and traditionally one dimensional hero. To fit the modern consumer however, is the question you have left us with, to do what Snyder could not, to make Superman more man than super.

I can add that one route has been explored far more than the other. Superman seems to be written if ever with character as a villain. The idea that perfect and infallible morality exists quite comfortably moves into totalitarianism, e.g injustice gods among us and a few offshoots in the comic sphere (don’t cite me on that mind you).

The second and more elusive path is to play it straight, but with flare. The character of Batman for example is most effectively explored by the situations and villains he faces; Joker constantly makes a mockery of his efforts, designed to instil doubt or abhorrent clarity in the mind of the audience. The Penguin is Bruce Wayne, but less fortunate. Superman has Lex Luthor, a man so bent on ruining superman because he is the easy answer. A terrorist threat? No matter, the US has a living god.

My answer would be it is too difficult, particularly in one films sitting, to take this second route without eventually devolving into the first.

My favourite line from Kill Bill Volume Two ( paraphrased); “Clarke Kent is weak, he is unsure of himself, he is cowardly. Clarke Kent is Superman’s critique of the whole human race.” A film that follows through on this phrase could be the breakthrough Superman needs, for it is indisputably relatable to hold contempt for the weak.