The Downfall of Bhaalspawn (contains possible SJW discussions)

anonymous asked:
The original Pokemon games are actually a technical marvel when you think about it. Game Freak had to get extremely creative to utilize the limited resources of a gameboy cartridge.

That might be true, except for a new notable things you’re leaving out.

ONE: It was Game Freak’s decision to make the Pokemon games for the Game Boy of all things when they much roomier and more powerful NES and SNES were both on the market at the time. Game Freak imposed that limitation on itself.

TWO: Many of the more ridiculous, mutated glitches in the Pokemon games happens as a result of the game’s refusal to just flat out crash, so it just continues running with garbage data in it’s memory for as long as it possibly can rather than just freezing like most games.

THREE: A lot of these game-corrupting glitches are extremely easy for children to perform without online aid, which means the engine itself is barely holding itself together with masking tape and spit.

FOUR: Most of these glitches are next to impossible to replicate in Yellow Version, along with Gold and Silver which make use of the same engine and the same restrictions, indicating that they were fixable. And the original Pokemon games in the west are based off the Japanese Blue Version, which was ALREADY a bug-fix release.

The fact is, the original Pokemon games are a nightmarish, Frankenstein’s Monster of juggled programming code. That’s simply a fact. A fun piece of trivia that serves as to why nobody makes games in Assembly anymore.

kirbyss44 asked:
But Pokemon being on the Gameboy was good thing, it wouldn’t be the success it is today if it was on a NES or SNES.

I think literally every other mega-franchise in video games would like a word with you.

anonymous asked:
What do you think about the criticism that Breath of the Wild is a good game, but a terrible “Zelda” game?

Generally all that means is that Breath of the Wild is missing all the traditional Zelda features like Heart Pieces, Temples, the “Green Tunic”, traditional dungeon design, traditional boss design, you get the idea.

The problem with that sentiment is that at it’s core, Zelda is a series that’s supposed to be about adventure. And a rigid, unchanging formula kills adventure. Getting the same heart pieces from the same sidequests at the same temples in the same tunic every single time might be comfortable for fans who want to wrap themselves womb-like in a bubble of nostalgia, but it makes for drab, boring game design.

Others who make this complaint simply point to the story being terrible because it’s just “Link wakes up, go and kill Ganon.”

This complaint largely forgets (or refuses to acknowledge) that The Legend of Zelda has the single worst story in the history of video games, one that goes through the same “prove your worth” prophecy garbage every single time and flat out removing it from Breath of the Wild was a good decision overall that the rest of the series should adopt.

The fact of the matter is that there’s a reason the most fondly remembered games (Majora’s Mask and Wind Waker) are the ones that throw the established story out the window, while the more divisive games (Twilight Princess and Skyward Sword) are the ones that cling to the formula like glue.

Breath of the Wild is extremely similar to the original Zelda on the NES and gets back to what made the series so successful.

Honestly, I would call something like Ocarina of TIme or Skyward Sword a terrible “Zelda” game because they rigidly stick you to a linear formula and demand that you pay attention to their crappy stories.

jackinabox18 asked:
What’re your thoughts on the “not all all white people” or “not all men” arguments?

The argument is actually “Not me.”

The irony is if you’re making that argument, it’s definitely you.

anonymous asked:
I’ve never understood that argument since if someone means “all” they’d have said all.

Defensive and fragile people seem to need that spelled out for them.

Actually they don’t, they just demand that their ego be stroked.

manwiththemetalarm asked:
Ten bucks says the anon is either Josh or that Thunder-whatever guy. In any case, it’s funny watching you take the piss out of Private Buffoon, it’s nice to see shitheads suffer consequences for their actions, and even funnier when they try to but their head against a wall in an attempt to make it IMMEDIATELY STOP.

potootrashheap asked:
Whenever someone starts giving you bullshit or triesb to defend josh it makes me think of that one scene from the Brendon Frazier George of the jungle movie where the guide goes ‘This is the part where we throw our heads back and laugh’

anonymous asked:
I’ve heard some people say that SU focuses too much on Pearl and Rose, but how is having a main character a bad thing?

Pearl and Rose aren’t the main characters. Steven Universe has an ensemble cast of Steven, Pearl, Garnet and Amethyst. They ARE the main characters. The rest are secondary or supporting characters.

What Steven Universe has been doing is hyper-focusing on Pearl and her relationship with Rose. It’s clear that these are Sugar’s favorite characters, judging by how much screentime they both get.

This is #6 on Starlight Glimmer’s Cock Up Cascade: The author’s clear favorite character is hogging the spotlight.

Hyper-focusing on one or two characters is an ensemble cast is a gamble because it’s not a guarantee that the character you choose to fixate on is one that the audience is going to like. Especially if the character they actually like (in SU’s case: Garnet) gets completely shafted in the process.

Pearl is probably the single most hated main character among Steven Universe’s fanbase because she’s completely dangerous and unstable and the show never puts her into a position where she has to reign in her destructive impulses. She’s always portrayed as someone to feel sorry for.

Steven Universe has a fanbase that is exceptionally touchy to this sort of thing, and it’s no surprise that as Pearl becomes increasingly more selfish, greed-driven and abusive that people hate her more and more. The fact that the show never once confronts these things and only ever coddles Pearl exacerbates this issue.

By contrast, Garnet is the only person in the main cast who has her shit together. She’s responsible, authoritative, and encouraging. And in the first few seasons she had the best dynamic with Steven (and it was evident that Garnet was Steven’s favorite Mom). The fandom loved Garnet as well. So with this information, Sugar decided that the best course of action was to cut Garnet’s dialogue and prune her personality of everything that wasn’t related to Fusion.

A similar problem happened with Little Witch Academia: Someone on the writing team decided that less Sucy was a good idea, and for some reason they were not immediately fired.

My best guess is that Sugar looked at all the Season 1 praise that Pearl was getting for being a complex character dealing with trauma and decided that was what she was going to focus on, and seemingly failed to realize that the praise for Pearl’s design was coming from people who saw “PTSD” and immediately concluded “good character” without thinking about whether or not this was actually good design, because Pearl’s abusive tendencies stretch all the way back to Season 1 and was seemingly unnoticed in the early season hype of “OMG SO MUCH DRAMA BEST SHOW.”

Rose has a similar problem in that Sugar can never seem to make up her mind about what kind of character Rose is supposed to be and seems to be trying to write explanations that retroactively justify all the previous moments of Rose being a contradictory moron and doesn’t seem to realize that storytelling doesn’t work that way. Writing an explanation for previous bad episodes doesn’t make those episodes suddenly good. Only an idiot will believe that.

Sugar’s mistake wasn’t hyper-focusing itself, it was hyper-focusing on characters that nobody liked to the detriment of the ones people DID like.

anonymous asked:
Going off the previous ask, what would happen if the show did hyper focus on the more likeable characters like Garnet and Peridot?

There’s a good chance that people would eventually get tired of them, as hyper-focusing ultimately leads to exhaustion. This is the second problem: Very few people are content to have the same thing over and over in perpetuity.

anonymous asked:
Rose is morally grey tho

No she’s not. Rose’s morals are clear and distinct. She wants Earth left alone, and doesn’t care about the Diamond Authority beyond that.

It’s the problem with the Grey Jedi. A lot of people think they’re amazing because they’re the middle-ground, striking a “balance” within the Force. But if you actually pay attention and stop naval-gazing for five seconds you’ll notice the common theme of the Grey Jedi is that they do nothing. They hide while the Galaxy continues to wage war because they’re lazy cowards, more intent on preserving their idea of themselves as “not choosing a side” than anything else.

That is effectively what Rose is. She’s a Grey Jedi, hiding like a coward while the galaxy burns down around her. She’s The Bendu. What a lot of people believe to be a morally grey character is actually someone who flits back and forth between the common Black and White morality, but at their very core is either Black or White.

For example: Bismuth was not a morally grey character. She’s a Morally White character because she embodies the same ideals that Rose and by extension Steven claimed to hold. It’s just that she was willing to kill Morally Black (fuck that language sounds bad) characters to achieve those goals.

Being willing to kill the bad guys or being an “extremist” doesn’t make you Morally Grey. Only an idiot would believe tha-oh wait.

A truly morally grey character would be a character who is deliberately under-developed so that you never truly know their intentions. A character the protagonist allies with entirely because it is convenient to do so. That doesn’t exist in Steven Universe.

misanthropony asked:
Hey Lily, it’s me. I’m trying to get to you here in case you don’t get my emails. I was going through my comments for my The Last Jedi review, and one of my commenters told me one of your fans was telling you I was calling them a Nazi. They gave me a tumblr link leading to the discussion you had with them. You must know, I have NOT told anyone that they’re a Nazi. And I certainly didn’t support any comments harassing this anonymous over their comment on female representation.

They didn’t say you were calling them a Nazi, they said many of your fans were doing so in your own comments section and that you did nothing to remove them. I made observations entirely on the information I was given. If you HAVE done so since then, then feel free to ignore the following.

Letting a comments section go completely unfiltered reflects poorly on any creator. You clearly care about how you’re perceived, so I’m telling you the best way to control that. Delete the replies behaving like assholes, and ban the people who were responsible.

anonymous asked:
So funny story: Before you got the C&D, Josh had a video up about “defending himself” but it got hit with an uncharacteristic amount of backlash really quickly considering the audience he has, so he took it down.

Not surprising actually. Here’s a comment from the last Community Bullshit video talking about it.

Here’s the thing about the community as it is now. There are a lot of things wrong with it, petty and big, but I think a lot of creators only have power when it comes to blindly directing people. When there’s only a little information out, it’s easy for bigger creators (and I think the only reason he’s “bigger” than you is because he covers topics that are technically less niche) to tell people to attack. “This guy I like said this, there’s little to contradict it, and all I have to do is leave a five-second dislike and negative comment? K.” 

But when people actually have to think, I see there’s a lot more fence sitters than I first thought. Not because they had trouble “picking sides” but because they’re literally only on YouTube to be entertained, so stuff outside that entertainment goes over their heads. You sort of touched on that in your personality video. People don’t really care about the conflicts creators are embroiled in if they appear small. They don’t really have to think about the conflict unless it really starts blowing up. (See random comedian you like brushing off people who want autographs and random comedian you like turns out to be a rapist.) 

There is so much evidence against Josh now in this whole situation that people watching him actually have to think about they person they’re listening to. While I don’t think you’re going to be a flood of supporters any time soon, Josh has made so many blunders now, people are taking more time to actually think about what he’s saying and it’s context before going wild. I think the actually brony “community”, that is the people who make content and jump into conflicts like this (and are more likely to jump to Josh’s defense) , is much smaller than the people who actually watch MLP content (which includes kids, people just looking up stuff they like, etc.).

The fact is that it isn’t just me that’s been condemning Josh’s actions. JOsh has been met with a hailstorm of criticism for his bullshit over the last few months from all directions. Fans, detractors, friends and enemies alike have all been hammering it into him that he fucked up, but he’s too stubborn and lazy to just change his behavior.

So when he tried the usual stint of telling a sob story to his viewers, the people most engaged (and thus more likely to Like/Comment) didn’t coddle him like he wanted them to. And I honestly think that’s when he hastily rushed out a C&D. The times are simply too convenient.

I’ve heard through the grapevine that Josh got legal aid for writing the C&D, but he also referred to “That Creepy Reading” as “from Legal” in the email exchange between the both of us. And That Creepy Reading is aggressively biased against me. So I wouldn’t be surprised if Josh’s “legal aid” really was just some random guy on the internet. The fact that Josh’s links to cited Canadian law were the first google results for “Canada Defamation” that summarized the laws without even going into detail about what constitutes defamation supports that idea.

Based on the times I was given for this upload, they all coincide with too many events.

Video was uploaded around 3AM 

My inbox was filled with a deluge of death threats at around 3:30AM 

I get a notice that Ink Rose is throwing a tantrum about me at 4:30AM 

Josh’s C&D arrives in my inbox at 5:30AM 

That C&D had “Scare Tactic” written all over it.

According to a handful of legal professionals I spoke to, calling his bluff was the correct decision based on all of this information. I wouldn’t be surprised if Josh is just hoping that everyone will accept that legal suits take a long time to happen and that everyone will just forget about it and when he comes back from his hiatus nobody will remember this.

But Pepperidge Farm remembers.