Though the general popularity of professional wrestling might not be the same as in the Golden age or in Attitude era, professional wrestling is still alive. When Cody Rhodes and Young Bucks organized the independent wrestling event "All In", the tickets were sold out in 30 minutes(they sold about 11000 tickets), which led to the foundation of All Elite Wrestling(AEW). AEW’s first Pay-Per-View event Double or Nothing was another sold out show(also sold out under 30 minutes), and their August event All Out(sequel to All In) sold out in 15 minutes. This event is planned to be held at the same arena for All In, so that would be another 10000 tickets sold out within 15 minutes. So the interest in professional wrestling was not dead.
As of 2019, there are various professional wrestling promotions with different styles. New Japan Pro Wrestling presents their show to be more sports-like or, to some fans, manga-like style. Progress Wrestling in Britain promotes themselves as British strong style wrestling( punk rock), or wrestling for grown ups. Pro Wrestling Eve, women’s wrestling company in Britain, presents themselves as feminist punk-rock promotion. DDT wrestling in Japan is well known for their often comedic style of wrestling. And there are many, many more promotions. Each wrestling company specializes in different flavor of wrestling, presenting more variety than before.
It would be interesting to see how the professional wrestling industry transformed over the past 20 years. What triggered this changes? How did the companies grow? What were the challenges? How do they differ from WWE? And how would this history similar or different from different art forms such as comics?
Whilst I have absolutely no interest in wrestling, I appreciate that there are those who enjoy it. I don't have much to add to this topic suggestion, other than a memory of watching my grandfather watching wrestling on 'the telly' back in the early 1970s, on ITV's 'World of Sport'. The bout was between Giant Haystacks and someone whose stage name presently slips my mind. Even to the young teen I was back then, it was so obviously staged that it was very nearly comical and I recall my grandfather becoming quite irate when I told him it was all fake! I don't doubt there were many such staged bouts - like pantomime only with a lot more grunting and showmanship! It was strangely fascinating to see just how caught up in the moment the audience became - screaming and yelling at whichever competitor they had bet on, when he failed to live up to their expectations. I wonder, were there ever such obviously staged shows in American wrestling? Anyway, I think you have an interesting topic suggestion and it's one I would never have thought of in a million years (excuse the hyperbole). – Amyus4 years ago
Resident Evil 7 was a fresh shock for many fans. Many were pleased with the overall quality of the game, and the returning to more horror-centric design instead of action-oriented gameplay gave fans hope that the franchise would rise again after the previous games which were considered blunders by many. With the recent release of Resident Evil: RE2, the fans preferring the old-school Resident Evil once again find hope in the series’ direction. In what ways does Resident Evil franchise learn from their past criticisms and rejuvenate its strengths?
I don't think it's entirely true that they've learned from all of their mistakes. One of the more frequent criticisms of the RE2make is that they axed a sizable chunk of enemy types. The bosses are also the kind you'd expect from an action game, considering they require you to hit a specific tiny spot on the enemy if you want to do any damage, and they can take hundreds of bullets to kill. And Mr. X is more of a dangerous nuisance than a terrifying adversary, unlike Nemesis and Lisa Trevor. That said, Capcom has probably learned that making Resident Evil an action series based of the success of RE4 was a mistake, following the failure of RE6. The general removal of quick-time-events outside of self-defense item use was probably a good idea, but not so with the removal of the ability to shake off enemies by rapid stick/button mashing. I think RE2make is a step in the right direction beyond 7, but it still falls back on bad habits in certain respects. I think there is definitely a lot to discuss here – LaPlant04 years ago
I agree with LaPlant0. While RE7 was definitely a masterpiece of horror storytelling (the first 30 mins were amazing!) I found that the RE2 remake was lacking in a lot of what made the original such a great game, including ditching the fixed camera for a player-controlled camera. I think part of what made a lot of 90s horror games great (RE1 and 2, Silent Hill 2 and 4) was the limited and sometimes altered perspective of the game camera. RE7 captured a little of that by using tricks with a first-person perspective, which, as I recall, is somewhat unique to 7, but the RE2 remake felt far too action oriented, like the somewhat cheesy RE games released in the 00s. – Samir M Soni3 years ago
With the release of Devilman: Crybaby, many anime fans in the west were exposed to the shocking story of Devilman saga. While Devilman was known to be the classic that inspired many dark-themed manga and anime works, the series was mostly unavailable for the wider audience. Those who knew about the original story felt the same shock in different style, but many new fans were exposed to the brutal scenes and plots of Devilman.
It would be worthwhile to examine the impact of Devilman on the popular works and how they shaped the genres dealing with dark and grotesque fantasies.
Let me start with the situation that brought this topic to my mind. In the interview in 2016(Jump Ryu, vol.1), Akira Toriyama, the creator of Dragon Ball, commented that the show’s hero Son Goku does not feel any friendship towards other characters, including Krillin. This caused some controversy among the fans who saw this interview, because many thought that Goku and Krillin were the best friends; after all, Goku’s anger exploded on Krillin’s first death, and it was Krillin’s death that triggered Goku’s transformation to Super Saiyan. Does that mean the death of someone, whom he had no strong feelings for, made him angry enough to transform? Did he vow revenge for those he felt no friendship? The some fans were outraged, and some found Toriyama’s comments ridiculous, because that was far from what they read in the text, and this new information did not clear any questions they had.
Toriyama’s comments caused few controversies in the past, due to how contradictory it sounded to the readers, and also the fact that he was often forgetful of his own creations. Some even questioned the validity of his comments on Dragon Ball.
But there are other creators whose comments outside the completed text that sometimes clarifies few points. Take Tolkien’s defense of Frodo. When a fan wrote to him that Frodo does not deserve to be a hero because he had succumbed to the Ring’s seduction in the end, Tolkien explained that though Frodo could not bring himself to destroy the One Ring, his sufferings and humility up to that point deserve highest honor. In this case, the author’s comments clarified his intentions to the readers.
So this got me thinking: how should the readers treat the creator’s comments when reading the text? How critical should the readers be when considering the comments made by the creators? What analysis should be made when it seems to contradict the readings?
What you're describing here is, in literary theory, typically known as "Intentional Fallacy" (coined by Wimsatt & Beardsley in their famous essay of that name). It essentially argues that the text is an autonomous object which must be capable of standing on its own without the need for extratextual evidence to guide interpretation. Whatever the author intended it to mean should be made evident simply by reading the text on its own merits, and if that intention can only be made known by the author's extratextual commentary, then s/he has failed to convey that meaning in the text itself. This opens the floodgates for equally valid interpretations that differ dramatically from (and potentially contradict) the author's initial intent, so long as it can be argued on a basis of purely textual evidence. Though many critics follow this practice as gospel, more conventional wisdom typically dictates a middle course, in which authorial intent is treated as a litmus test which the text must pass before those statements can be accepted as valid sources of interpretation. – ProtoCanon6 years ago
ProtoCanon's comment is very good, but I disagree with this statement: "Though many critics follow this practice as gospel..." I don't think most literary critics today would follow Wimsatt and Beardsley's view that anything "external" to the text itself should be ignored. Critics today tend to see a text as very open, as something that is best understood by understanding the issues surrounding the text: significant historical events, significant events in the life of the author, patterns of reception by readers, and so on. They generally don't set a firm boundary around what is and what is not "the text." Today's critics would likely agree with Wimsatt and Beardsley, though, that the work of the critic must involve a lot more than simply repeating what the author said about the author's own work. – JamesBKelley5 years ago
Every professor I've had said this: Once you put your work out in the world, it is out of your hands. Anyone can interpret it anyway, whether you intended it to be that way or not. The reader's interpretation with the text is part of their experience and conversation. The author can say what they intended, but that does not mean it's definite. – as18335 years ago
Humans cannot help but attract to each other like magnets to share personal experiences, et cetera and then from these smaller or larger human groups, they repel like magnets to share and reshape the new knowledge they have accumulated. The pattern of accumulation and dissemination of information from one book or person to many others crosses the boundaries of time and space to advance our civilisations. – RipperWriter5 years ago
So far, Samurai Jack’s Season 5 has been receiving positive responses. Despite it becoming darker in tone, the show contained the balance between seriousness and humor. Its transition to Adult Swim allowed more freedom in terms of subject matters, especially with violence. But the show retained the feel of the old seasons though it became darker. Jack killed a person for the first time, and he suffers from guilt and hallucinations. But despite the shift in tone, the audience can still feel that this is Samurai Jack they used to know and love.
It would be worthwhile to examine how the Season 5 of Samurai Jack retained its essence despite the change in the mood. For example, how does the violence in Season 5 compare to the old seasons? Was there a precursor to Jack’s dilemma in the old episodes? How effective was the transition?
I think it would also be interesting to contrast the shift in narrative between the previous seasons and season 5. We can see the maturation of the shows content and also of the protagonist. Jack is not the same person, but is the same hero/samurai, which represents a moral/warrior code that is alien to the futuristic settings at the beginning of the series. I think it would be a really interesting topic to write on especially with the introduction of Ashi, and her role as a foil to Jack. – JConn136 years ago
It would be interesting to look at how Genndy Tartakovsky's other work after the original Samurai Jack series affected how the new season took shape. Whether it made the progress more understandable, or like I think, made it even more surprising! – Marcus Dean6 years ago
Hyper Light Drifter’s game experience is inspired by the developer’s heart disease and his fear of meeting death at any moment. Death is constantly looming throughout the game as the protagonist continues to cough up blood. Players empathize with the fragile hero and the creator effectively shares his struggle
How effective is this channeling of personal fear in Hyper Light Drifter, and what other examples are in other games?
The title and article do not correspond. I suggest you either remove art from the title--the simpler revision--or include art in your topic. As it stands there is no aesthetic representation in your topic, though there are an infinite number of examples to choose from if you decide to include one, or more. – danielle5777 years ago
The skepticism towards Politics is nearly as old as history of political system. Various literature throughout the history, including the Attic Comedy of Aristophanes, satirize the political systems and the prominent rulers.
In many ways, Aristophanes can still appeal to the modern audiences thanks to his unforgiving wits and humor against the leading politicians like Cleon. Comparing Aristophanes to the modern satirists such as stand-up comedians or cartoonists could help us understand which aspect of politics changed or remained the same since the ancient Athens.
For example, One thing to note is that Aristophanes frequently used ridiculous characters and exaggerated personalities to make this point. Has this been changed much? Does Aristophanes’ model lose its charm to the modern audiences?
Compare and analyze the characters, the comic elements, and the message of Arisophanes to the modern comedy(such as the Simpsons, South Park, etc) and others.
I really like the idea of comparing really old stuff to really contemporary stuff. Maybe it would be better to approach this as a comparative essay between, say, two well selected works, one from antiquity and one contemporary? Rather than a history, which just puts way to much on the writer's plate. – TKing7 years ago
This could be a great topic for someone knowledgeable. Maybe you could help by listing some of the connections you want to make with today's satirists. – Munjeera7 years ago
I think it would work really well comparing Atistophanes with a modern satire (I wouldn't worry about the distance in time you're covering, just state you're taking two examples and not attempting to track everything in between). Politics/satire is one of those things that never changes over a thousand years, so depending on your modern source I'd imagine that in core content and method there is little in way of 'advancement'. Perhaps a history of satire/explanation of two dominant schools Horatian and Juvenalian would be a good place to start your article (and help articulate your own direction in analysis). Other interesting areas to explore may be the production of these satires/risk posed in publishing or performing, popularity of approaches/reception to a particular style then and now, etc. I'm sure you'll have a lot to say when you get narrowed down to examples, especially with the current media circus in American politics which is almost satirising itself!!
It reminds me how the writers of the British Tv series The Thick of It, in response to calls for them to do a referendum special, said that they wouldn't/couldn't because the political game playing and internal chaos they used to satirise is now fully exposed and playing out in front of us. – JamieMadden7 years ago
Ridiculous? Exaggerated? "Wag the Dog" is all of that and more. It's real "purty." – Tigey7 years ago
Resident Evil Remake and Resident Evil Zero were remastered recently. Resident Evil was considered the historically significant game which led to the immense popularity of zombie horror, and survival horror as whole. But is it still effective? Does Resident Evil’s formula still deliver tension and scare as it used to? If so, what does it say about the horror game genres of today? What can the current horror games learn from Resident Evil Remake’s strengths and weaknesses?
Well, that depends. Are you asking if it could scare somebody who played through the original, or somebody who is either new to the franchise or that particular entry? I think that the answer depends on who you are trying to scare. If you are trying to scare somebody who played the original, then no because they already played the game and know when the scares are supposed to happen and what they are supposed to be. However, if you are trying to scare somebody who has never played the original, then yes it would more than likely still manage to deliver the intended scare. Maybe this requires a bit more of an in depth look. – Aarogree7 years ago
In my experience, Resident Evil 4 was the last successful game in the RE franchise. This was largely because of the developers' new approach to gameplay and its emphasis on storyline. All titles that followed after were not as successful, because they did not build much further on this new formula. However, Resident Evil as a franchise set the standard for many of its contemporaries and developers that came later. Atmosphere and environment were always major factors. Resident Evil 4's new camera angle (as opposed to the traditional fixed angle), which followed directly behind the protagonist, allowed for the player to appreciate the environment more wholesomely and assume a more immersive role in the game. This new approach can easily be traced to more recent titles like the 'Dead Space' series and 'The Evil Within'. One aspect of Resident Evil 5 that substantially hurt its "horror factor" was introducing a multiplayer option. This significantly diluted the feeling of isolation and desperation that contributed to Resident Evil's success as a horror game. – DoultonSchweizer7 years ago
It is tempting to write a historical fiction from the point of view from the famous figures of the era. Many fictions wrote Napoleon, Elizabeth I, or Alexander the Great as the protagonists with their own voices. However, this poses danger of simplifying/glorifying/vilifying the figures and bend the historical details. For example, the author writing Napoleon as the heroic figure might purposefully ignore his atrocities in Haiti or other blunders, or even try to glorify his vices.
Some authors find it restricting to write on well-known figure so they create new characters or take on lesser known characters. Hitoshi Iwaaki, the manga artist who created The Parasite, had Eumenes, Alexander the Great’s secretary, as the main character of his historical comics "Historie". This provides more liberty for the author but may not attract readers’ attention or place himself in dangerous paradox by making supposedly "obscure" figures too good – if such a significant person had lived, why did historians fail to recognize them?
But which type of protagonist can provide more entertainment? What would be the good model to follow?
Which type of protagonist can provide more entertainment: famous, infamous, or non-famous? Which would be the best model to follow?
It is the author's responsibility to be very diligent about their research and fact checking in either case. Period. At that point, I think it mainly depends on what point the author is trying to get across. Maybe they want to justify or show a different side of a famous person in which case it may make more sense to use the famous person. But if they want a little bit more freedom, then yes it'd make more sense to use someone less famous. And if the writer isn't really concerned with history as much as the characters, maybe they don't really care about the facts and therefore need to toe a line between being believable and interesting. – Tatijana7 years ago
This is interesting! Comparing the portrayal of famous historical figures could be helpful for this topic; you could look at how widely they vary. I imagine that major historical figures may attract a wider audience, but I think that the fact that it's "fiction" would have to be taken into account. I imagine that each interpretation on the facts is entirely different from another.
The interesting thing about an original character would be that we don't know the outcome; there is a sense of mystery as a reader as to the character's fate, whereas we go in knowing the fate of a historical figure. In that sense, I think you could make an argument for both types of historical novel being the best model. – laurakej7 years ago
Sengoku era, or Warring State Period of Japan, was the period of chaos before the foundation of Edo Bakufu. The constant chaos led to the lack of official historical record(ones produced by government), occasional brutality, poor lives of peasants, and many tales of heroism at the same time. In fact, some of the historical figures from this period appear in Japanese pop culture occasionally, especially Oda Nobunaga, who was voted as the most popular historical figure by Japanese. Considering this massive influence on pop culture, it would be interesting to observe the major figures in this period of Japanese history and see how their influences still manifest.
One thing to maybe look at is the impact certain historical figures had during the Sengoku Era i.e. the battles they took part in, the significance of the battle, etc.
For example, one could look at the Battle of Okehazama and how that battle cemented Nobunaga's legacy in Japan. – Xperimance7 years ago
To be exact, what kind of historical figure attract writers and audiences’ attention? There are plenty of historical figures out there with interesting life stories, but only portion make into history books, some into novels, and few into movies. What would be the standard? For example, has there been a movie about Alexander Graham Bell and his invention of telephone? If there was, how many were there and how recent were they? Compare that to the life of Napoleon, or Elizabeth I. It may seem apparent that war heroes make into movies more than others, but even then there seem to be striking differences in the attention they receive. This could lead to the study of what type of individual people consider to be "hero", and examine the psyche of the society.
Absolutely this examination could lead to an exploration of the "psyche of the society" on the whole - you could even explore the considerations of the individual and how it relates to that of society for this topic (and many others in general). As for what makes the standard of what sorts of historical figures we tend to utilize for historical fiction, I think that you're on the right track. I would consider examining the personal lives of several specific characters (Freddy Mercury, Abraham Lincoln, TE Lawrence etc) as well as their renowned accomplishments. For Mercury, how his personal life influenced his music and made him such an endearing figure. For Lincoln, how his politics were effected (I'd even explore why he was fictionalized into a vampire hunter, as that is completely incongruous with the widely known President). For Lawrence, how his exposure to a different culture affected his decisions and why we would be intrigued by this (perhaps from a desire to escape from our own realities). There's definitely more that you can do with this subject, I think it's going to be a fun one to think on! – 50caliburlexicon7 years ago
Horror is one of few genres which the imagination can compensate for the lack of styles. For example, Howard Phillips Lovecraft may not have the best writer in terms of techniques, but his imagination made him the master of modern horror. Similarly, James Herbert’s The Rats was criticized for its overt violence and writings, but the image of man-eating rats turned it into a memorable horror classics.
On the contrary, some horror stories may have stylized writing, but it does not deliver the gut punch people are expecting.
Also, when you examine the history of horror movies, many "classics" were regarded as pure garbages by the critiques but endured such attacks. In many cases, the imaginations of horror movies later inspired many talented writers and led to the blooming of quality works.
So I was wondering, what makes a great "horror" literature/movie/etc? It is a simple question but hard to answer. What makes certain horror more memorable and enduring? For example, Richard Marsh’s The Beetle was said to be as popular as Dracula, but now it remains as one of forgotten works.
So what makes horror survive and prosper?
I think it's drastically different when it comes to horror literature and horror movies. A movie can be really horrifying merely because it's extremely gory and distorted and have really dark music going on the background - it does not necessarily have to be anything meaningful. However, since you only read a book by your eyes, all the horror has to be delivered by words, which is much harder. A writer has to know how to manipulate words to convey the horror to his/her readers. In addition, I think many people watch horror movies just for the excitement while the people who read horror books look for more than just the excitement. – JamesZhan95928 years ago
I may write on this topic; I want to write about Poe and Lovecraft and the horror genre in literature so this topic might fit well with that. I think a good horror story has to tap into our fears: fear of death, fear of the unknown, fear of pain, etc. In the original "Halloween" movie, which seems tame today in terms of sex and violence, one of the creepiest aspects of Michael Meyers is that we don't know why he is the way he is. There's no explanation for his behavior. – S.A. Takacs8 years ago
I appreciate this topic, nice one. Horror way back when Mary Shelley was doing work, was much different than what we have now. Saying that, the horror genre is pretty subjective. That said, many find Frankenstein to be a horror, many prefer to analyze it as a piece of science fiction. Even looking at the short story called "The Machine Stops", a piece written early 1900s describing the lives of people run by machines with nothing but buttons and screens (back when screens were just dream, crazy huh?), could be considered a horror when read- a horror of a possible future. So saying all of that, there isn't really a defined set of outlines for the horror genre, and so that's what brings us to the modern day movies, where there aren't really reoccuring guidelines that I can notice after each modern day horror film. A great horror plays on the fears that we all have, fear will always exist and thats why the horror genre exists- whether its a literal monster or a dystopia. – Arian8 years ago
This is a great topic. I think one way you could pump up this article, is perhaps adding several notes on the biology of the human psyche when exposed to horror, and the adrenaline thats released (many scholars have written on this). Also perhaps, examining what was considered scary in the 1940's, as opposed to which horror genre survives and thrives the most in 2015. Great idea, would love to read once its published. – Valeria Sharivker8 years ago
This is a good topic, and something I think about a lot. One interesting way to approach this may be looking at the way gore films seem to have become a larger point of focus in recent years, as suspense-centered films (like anything made by Hitchcock) have seemed to be made less often. Is this one of the ways horror is keeping up with audiences? Giving them something new? If so, what's the next stage? – KTPopielarz8 years ago
It is a recurring argument that video game cheapens the death of characters due to its replayable nature. I remember watching the Youtube video of the cutscene of the major supporting character’s death from GTA4, and read the comment which jokingly said that the main character should have taken the bullet because he would have revived at the hospital. Death in video games are often avoidable, or a penalty. In many cases, dead characters can be revived with a special mean.
But there are games that make deaths significant through several means. The most recurring example would be the story branch, where a character’s death decides the story route the gamer can take. A death of a character will consolidate the plot into certain route, so the gamer will have to be wary of the consequences.
There are other games with different approach to make deaths meaningful.
For example, the death in XCOM means that your effort and investment on a soldier have been wasted, and this becomes financial and strategic setback. The elite soldier takes series of combat experiences and upgrades, and they cannot be mass produced. In addition to this, there is no way to revive the soldier so the gamer have to be extremely careful with the characters.
In Fire Emblem, each character is given unique personality and look, plus unique stats. Similar to XCOM, the death of a character is a strategic trouble, but Fire Emblem goes one step further by creating emotional attachment. The characters become friends with each other, and in some games get married. They may have a child, who fight along with them in the battle. In this case, the death of a character is more than a casualty – it’s a tragedy. Your one mistake can cause the death of someone’s friend/lover/parent. After you get to know each character, their death feels heavier.
I am wondering if there are other cases of significant deaths in games. Are the deaths considered mere penalty, or emotional experience? I think this could be a good study of human psychology regarding how we treat deaths
One should also include the reasoning behind chaperoning death. Games have always been a safe place to explore everyday problems, teaching strategy and giving people experience outside of tall world consequences and life and death situations. This is a good thing but so is making death mean something when games start having so many extra lives to no consequences, death actually has become a game mechanic more than the definitive punishment of starting the game over that it used to.
– fchery8 years ago
In Heavy Rain you play as 4 different characters, who are all capable of dying and staying dead. It is possible to complete the game with not a single character alive, which was just refreshing if nothing else and it does give the characters greater significance to the story. There is game mode introduced in the Arkham games (I can't remember if it was City or Origins) which can be unlocked where you can play through the storyline with only one life. This is such a challenge and I'm sure other games have similar features, too.
I really like how Shadow of Mordor dealt with character deaths and how it integrates the many deaths the player will inevitably have into the gameplay. The Nemesis system means that certain orc captains will remember you after they've killed you and they will gain in power when they do. It's a really clever system that will definitely be implemented in future games. – Jamie8 years ago
An excellent example would also be Mass Effect. At one point in the first game, you have to decide which of your team mates has to die and the decision means consequences, some unforeseen. What makes this a good example is because Mass Effect is a series that is based entirely off your own choices. – SpectreWriter8 years ago
It might be good to consider how some games attempt to weave in player deaths with the storyline, such as Bioshock: Infinite. In Infinite when you die there is no breaking of the third wall; you don't go to a different screen, but rather a different part of the game that effectively sends you back in time to a certain point (which actually makes sense with the plot later on). While it's really just the same as reloading from a save point, I appreciated that they made an attempt to explain how you can die and yet just keep coming back. – OddballGentleman8 years ago
To this day people feel heartbroken over the death of Aerith Gainsborough from Final Fantasy VII and are still trying to find a way to bring her back to life. It would be very interesting to see more games like this where major characters purposefully die and cannot be brought back by expected means like a phoenix down. Besides these one can also look at permadeath in Diablo 3 where dying not only makes lose all progress but you lose possibly weeks to months of effort to level your character. It would be good to look at these two sides of permadeath games and see why they are implemented story and gameplay wise. – tylerjt8 years ago
The new game Until Dawn would be a brilliant example of exploring the consequences of permanent character death. There are plenty of chances to kill off characters that have significant impacts on the rest of the game. It really puts pressure on your actions, and forces you to think far more carefully before you make each decision. It shows the full repercussions of character deaths, not only on the story, but on the characters as well - you can compare and contrast what happens depending on who dies and who lives. It creates a far more real experience that, I believe. – averywilliams8 years ago
Also, State of Decay possess an interesting option when it comes to the death of their characters. As you can continually change what character you are playing as at anytime, when who you are dies they stay dead and you continue on as a different character. But the character that died, might have had a certain skill or trait that was helpful to the group's survival and might change the way you play your game. – BlueJayy7 years ago
Recently, Nintendo announced that Fire Emblem Fates will have same sex marriage system(which was surprising considering Nintendo’s response to Tomodachi Life’s "same sex marriage"). Interesting thing I’ve noticed was that while the straight couples can have child (so basically an advantage in number), the same sex couples receive some sort of perk/bonus in battle. Another I’ve noticed that there is a restriction depending on the country the player chooses – one only supports male/male marriage, while the other supports female/female. There will be a story DLC where both same sex marriages are possible.
I thought this was an interesting way to depict the same sex marriage. It does differentiate it from the straight couple, and offers different bonus thus making it viable strategic option. I believe this is more advanced than the same sex marriage in Skyrim, which had virtually no difference between spouses.
What other ways can the game developers make to depict the same sex marriage in meaningful way?
I did not hear about this, but this makes me want the game so much more than I already want it, which I didn't think was possible. If only my Japanese was fluent, I wouldn't have to wait a year for the stupid international release :( Anyways, this topic might be a bit hard, but one thing to keep in mind would be to acknowledge a games genre. A game like Fable or Skyrim would be able to have expansive benefits with social meters based on same-sex marriage, which might be an interesting mechanic. Give access to certain social groups and missions as a part of a same-sex couple. – Austin8 years ago
I believe Elder Scrolls: Skyrim has done this too so you might talk about that too. Though a far as I know, there's no difference in that game whatever way you go. – SpectreWriter8 years ago
I doubt know about marriage but you can do all sorts of non traditional relationships in the jade empire. They really let people do what they were into in that one. – fchery8 years ago
Yes, you can same-sex marry in TES: Skyrim. Same-sex relationships are also possible in the Bioware games Mass Effect and Dragon Age. However, those games have been out for a while, and the same-sex marriage issue was debated at great length, particularly around the release of Dragon Age. If someone takes on this topic, it's vital to start with *thorough* online research to make sure the angle used is a new one, and not one that's been done to death already. – Monique8 years ago
After reading a review of The Classic Horror Stories: Lovecraft ((link) I realized that often this one crucial question is often neglected: How did Lovecraft, whose style and ideology were constantly criticized, outlasted other horror or SF writers, and came to be the master of modern horror?
My idea is that the originality of the world he created, as well as the dark and hopeless worldview appealed to the hidden pessimistic view of people’s mind, but normally such traits would put people off(just look at all the anime and other SF where the heroes vanquish the Lovecraftian monsters. Even the admirers seem to be sick of his pessimistic worldview). And his works can be quite difficult to read due to the floods of adjectives and adverbs.
So what does make Lovecraft such enduring writer?
Interesting, this would make a huge article!
I'm no Lovecraft expert, but I'd like to say that it's the fears and issues of his period that remained a constant theme in everyday things (politics, philosophy, writing), and since then, the cultural momentum of the his creations have become unstoppable. This has probably already been said in a smarter way because there are lots of smart people who have written about this (probably), but that was just my 2 cents. – Austin8 years ago
I think that it is his more academic work (his history of horror) that helps his work endure. He cornered the market on weird fiction and really tied it in to the primal feeling of horror that we experience when confronting the unknown. He is one of the first authors to let these other-worldly creatures "win" or at least maintain a position of power throughout human history. His works are both entertaining fiction but also a commentary on human psychology and the way fear has persisted throughout humanity's existence – DClarke8 years ago
As we return to classical literature (and other mediums) repeatedly, I believe it will be an interesting study to examine how adaptations change/rediscover/counters/etc the classical narratives
I completely agree, through my undergrad we have been returning to the countless classics. It is interesting to read them now as they often resonate as strongly if not more so now. The fact that interpretations change over time shows us there is no single point of interpreting these great books (or other mediums). What rich , at least to me, is how many other places we can take the text, beyond its desired meaning. – Coltrane938 years ago
And what is the deal with adding zombies to a classic novel (e.g., Pride and Prejudice and Zombies) and reselling it? #mustbewritten – Jeffrey MacCormack8 years ago