As a priest, one of the things I tend to run into, when people are antipathic to the Christian faith, is the terrors inflicted on them from those claiming to hold it. Beyond physical beatings in extremist controlled locations, the social and emotional abuse; verbal harassment, dictated life choices, etcetera, left heartbreaking emotional and mental scars on those who had escaped it. Families torn apart by homophobia wrapped in a bible excuse, or "pro-life Christian" threats made to women who just found they had to terminate a pregnancy lest they die with their already dead foetus.
I've had more arguments with those crazy street preachers than I have those who have been scared from the cross. Each time, they felt they were doing "good work", and had support from their church community, blissfully and wilfully ignorant that they were burning more ground than gaining in terms of evangelism. They resented the idea that another Christian ("like them") would or could question that screaming at gay people that they'll burn in hell was perhaps not the correct way of going about things.
I am also a feminist. I believe passionately that women should be treated on equal grounds to men, that the ideas of chauvinism and sexism belong in the past like the practice of executing babies to make crops grow. Domestic violence is the area of charity I apply myself to, as much as I am able. The seeming collapse of the movement is troubling to me, as without active protection, people can easily fall back into the mindset of the 'weaker' sex.
Bearing that in mind; there's a video I saw a while back, written by a group of women, cis and trans alike, that was a series of critical questions that they asked openly about the movement. They didn't attack the movement, nor once say "feminism is bad". They asked objective questions like "what do you qualify as 'equality', and by what metric do you measure it by?" I will often take discourse with people who disagree with me, or things I stand by, so to better understand those things, youtube videos likewise.
The commentary was peppered with people who had leapt in to defend the concept of feminism, armed with vitriol and animosity to Stormfront degrees of passionate hatred. Threats, supplications that they hoped the women "got raped and beaten daily so that they would know what it was like to live in a world without feminism", inclusive. Men and women alike were doing this, by the way, of varying skin colours if that is important somehow.
I guarantee you, not one of those people felt that they were being extreme. Not one of those people felt they were the 'crazy feminist' types. And each of them was supporting one another, reassuring the rest that what they were doing was the correct thing to do. The bilious cultlike reaction would have turned me from being a feminist if I wasn't stubbornly dedicated to the aims of it.
That wasn't the only example; just the fastest to come to mind, and unfortunately I'm comfortable with not remembering the title as it's not hard to find many more such cases. That is the front paint of feminism to many people who are new to the movement, or who are unfamiliar with the movement. That extremism wasn't closeted away in a backwater feminist compound that the term "feminazi" would elict. It was, like those terrible evangelical hellfire preachers, in the open and aired for all to see, and triggered by anything even remotely suggesting that feminists may be less than perfect.
Now, feminism, like any other movement, is comprised of individuals. Like a church, we can't police those who claim to be a member - Duggart thinks he's a Christian, after all. We remember the bad long after we've forgotten the good, and the quiet, sane feminists and Christians alike just do their thing, mind their own business, and pay no support or homage to those who ruin life for others. We're invisible, unless the topics come up in conversation, or unless there's a need to do something because of our beliefs and ideals.
Like the benefits of modern medicine, feminism's struggle has faded into history and is overlooked by those who benefit from it, from the invisible actions of those who just want to get things done for the betterment of all. That invisibility means that girls and boys are growing up without hearing about the way women were treated. Polio is a myth to modern kids, as much as laws that governed the length and materials one might use to beat their wife before it was considered abuse. Diphtheria is a myth in the western world, as much as how Saudi women might be executed for the horrible act of being raped by drunken men.
This is how people are raised without knowing about feminism. It's invisible. The benefit - general levels of equality - are a complacent comfort that distances us from the need for vigilance.
Like with those preachers, however, there's also a reverberating silence oftentimes from those who are in popular positions within the movement. The Pope doesn't condemn hellfire evangelicals. Writers for Jezebel don't criticise the people calling hashtag-killallmen. In western societies, silence from authority implies support - look how many rednecks call for the "head of Islam" to condemn Daesh. Silence from mainstream feminists gives the impression to newcomers that those extremists are perfectly acceptable, according to the mainstream.
I don't begrudge those who spurn Christianity thanks to the acts of hatred, bigotry, and spite by those who claim to wear the cloth. I don't begrudge those who spurn feminism thanks to the acts of hatred, bigotry, and spite by those who claim to wear the colours. I do feel the pang from both, however.
Which is why I keep in touch with friends and associates who are actively anti-Christian, whether through other faiths or atheism. They don't feel the need to "burn the Qu'ran and hate gays". It's why I keep in touch with friends and associates who claim they are anti-feminists. They don't feel the need to "burn their bra and hate men".
That's the image feminism has now, thanks to the acts of a hateful, greedy, prominent few. "It's okay to hate people if you say you're one of us." We remember the bad, long after we've forgotten the good.
If we've never seen the forest of feminism for the trees of conventional equality, we especially remember the face of angry extremists as the poster child for the movement. People who will roast you over a public fire for daring to challenge that perhaps money and effort should go to helping people, rather than someone's already-flush patreon. Equality is no longer synonymous with the public impression of feminism, and yelling at those who feel that is only going to make it worse. Tell that gay couple that God will hate them, that'll convince them that they're wrong, yeah.
The threat to feminism isn't antifeminists, they've always been there, and feminism has prevailed successively for generations now. The threat is from within. The threat is from sometimes well-meaning, sometimes vindictive, sometimes profiteering people who find no outspoken resistance when they start getting louder, and that threat is present because like with those burned by Christian hate, those turned on by feminists can communicate, and they can form communities, and hold up their scars and warn others still to stay away, and by their very deserved indignation scratch equal rights back a decade or two.
So, my response, after all the rambling done so far, is simple, and it's the same response I give my fellow Christians. "Challenge the extremists, and drive them back". It is not okay to kill or commit violence against someone for their gender or sexuality, whether they are men or women, straight or gay. It is not okay to lie, to people nor to the public, in order to gain political or monetary benefit, whether this be that Planned Parenthood is selling baby parts or that you're paid less for stand-up comedy because you're a woman. It is not okay to overlook people harassing others, whether it's a mob at a mosque or a flock on a forum.
The price of our invisibility is, in fact, invisibility. We can't afford to be "silent, good feminists" any more than I can afford being a "silent, good Christian". All it does is empower those who use the movement or faith to excuse the abuse of others.
It's time to stand up and present yourself, with all your flaws. It'll cost you friends, who will see you as an extremist thanks to their experiences, or as an antifeminist for daring to challenge the slowly souring status-quo. It'll lead you to challenge from strangers, and at times being demonised in the media, and it'll have people lie about you to further their own aims. It's a role that'll lead to anguish, drama, and pain.
But we're used to that. Feminism has been fighting hatred for nearly two hundred years. It's time to join the fight.
Tuesday, 6 September 2016
Monday, 9 May 2016
Disclaimer, 2016/05/09
Yes. I'm following Kevin Folta's blog.
I am following it because he tends to be on the pulse for innovations and developments in biotechnology fields, which I am interested in.
No, I'm not working for Monsanto.
No, I would not be offended if Monsanto offered me a position.
Yes, I would disclose if Monsanto offered me a position.
I am following it because he tends to be on the pulse for innovations and developments in biotechnology fields, which I am interested in.
No, I'm not working for Monsanto.
No, I would not be offended if Monsanto offered me a position.
Yes, I would disclose if Monsanto offered me a position.
Sunday, 8 May 2016
A renaître concept for interaction.
People are not limited to a single thought or idea
A growing sentiment today seems to be the concept of "Affo Quid Sum": "I speak what I am". People let loose all their thoughts, consequences be damned, and freedom of speech is a wonderful thing, as this wellsprings creative realisations we haven't seen before, as a species.
Problem is, people are identifying too much with their opinions, and this is leading to a breakdown in social interaction.
The mindset seems to give the impression that to like what they have said is to like them, and thus to dislike what they have said is to dislike them, the person. It's a pretty dark, self-depreciating way of looking at yourself to my view, but the phrase "you do you" applies well here.
What it leads to, however, is hypersensitivity to criticism. You're not criticising their words, you're criticising them. They take it as you criticising the person, which then means they take it as an attack. Of course the appropriate response to an attack is to defend oneself. But here's my novel idea for some.
What if someone can dislike a person's actions, comments, or intentions without that reflecting on the whole person? What if your interpretation of hostility is a mistake, taking fatigue, frustration, poor social skills, or cultural differences as "aggression"? What if, heaven forbid, you've read something wrong, or they see something you can't? What if people disagreeing with you is not "hate"?
So, here's my suggestion. Don't block people, attack people, or take offence to people not agreeing with you, or questioning what you say, or even having daft opinions no-one sane would consider (from your view, of course), and instead reserve your protection for those cases where people are actually attacking you. Scary concept, huh?
That said, I have no naivety that this is going to make people want to block me for suggesting it. Go ahead, if that's what you feel is an appropriate response to the concept that the world isn't as bad as you might feel.
After all, you do you.
Saturday, 7 May 2016
"How does it feel to share company with"
When I was first asked this, it was from an aggressive account responding to my position about enhanced crops vaccines. The tweet was amongst a few that were pointing out my frequenting the Facebook group "We Love GMOs and Vaccines"
I honestly didn't know how to respond, mostly because I had not heard the name before. It's not too surprising; Neidenbach is a middle school teacher in the USA. My social and professional circles overlap only in our mutual interest in science - it'd be like me asking why a Baptist missionary hasn't heard of the Reverend Doctor John Brown; the only common thing between them is that they both work in the same field (in that example, religion).
For context, someone had taken offence to my saying that vaccines are not scary or evil, and searched for me on other social media sites in order to find who I am, what I do, and why I would care to promote something they disagree with. Their first thought was that I, a vaccine and agriscience proponent, should not associate on a facebook group for those interests. Their friends leapt in to support them, praising them and generally trying to tell me I was a bad person, attacking my character as they went.
Now not knowing who Neidenbach was, their comment made me pause. Were they some kind of psychopath like the "Doctor Death" scandal of rural Queensland? A Nazi scientist? A pharmaceutical executive caught in a corruption scandal? Google didn't help - turns out there are a lot of paediatricians, podiatrists, and engineers with that name, and it turns out that Neidenbach really is just a middle school teacher trying to help people to understand science. My questing wasn't going to go any further, as after that the person launched into attacks about vaccines, and when I didn't fold to their onslaught, they blocked me, and I moved on with life - though I didn't forget the encounter.
More recently, I questioned some people claiming that the Australian celebrity "Waleed Aly" had orchestrated legal attacks on people because reasons reasons something Islam. During the exchange, various Islamophobic people jumped in to try and belittle me for being skeptical of the claims. Before leaving them to pat one another on the back, I was struck by the similarities - if someone says something person X does not like, try to chase them off the topic.
Immunology, agricultural science, bioscience, horticultural science, and climate science are all familiar with this, the opposition's core primarily comprised of people who profit from fear and ignorance of these fields. It's also been growing as a tactic and tool for political extremists - something video gamers, refugee advocates, and equal rights advocates have been facing to increasing degrees, primarily lead by people who profit from fear and ignorance of these topics.
Notice the common point there? Any group or movement can have people who spoil it for everyone, and corruption is a thing that we humans love to do with everything, from beliefs to sciences and all things between. In all endeavours, it is knowledge that allows these people to be stopped - and ignorance that allows them to thrive. Ignorance makes what they say seem reasonable, and their lies sound plausible.
Which is why the rise of ignorance in politics has been frightening. Every time this has occurred, people have taken advantage of fear to their advantage - and if the people were lucky, they were only fleeced of their belongings or money. More commonly, the unchecked rise of hate and corruption caused rights to disappear, and lives to be lost. The ignorant amongst them, who only hours or days before had been celebrating that someone with power listened to them and protected their ignorance and fear.
So it comes as no surprise that people who speak out to educate others garner hatred. We humans love the idea that you can protect yourself from hepatitis by eating a slightly more expensive but otherwise entirely normal food. We love the idea that we're doing the right things to promote an equal society. We love the idea that our lifestyle habits won't cost millions of people their lives and homes. We love that we can make a stand against Big Industry-X (agriculture, medicine, etc) and prevent them from poisoning us and our loved ones. We love the neat boxes we can put those people who look different or talk different or have different hobbies. Who wouldn't angrily defend what they love? I won't ask anyone to not defend their interests. I will, however, ask people to assess those interests.
"Check your fire", if you will, before you shoot the messenger.
As I said at the start of this, when I was asked about associating long ago, I didn't know who this "Neidenbach" was, so I had pause. Since then, I've seen the work he does, the fight he takes to help people learn, and the sheer spiteful animosity that he garners for threatening an industry of fear. Even if we don't always agree, he backs up what he says with science, and bases his stances on reason.
So, if I were asked that same challenge today, about Neidenbach or anyone who promotes honesty despite adversity, I'd have a better response.
"How do you feel sharing company with Neidenbach"?
For context, someone had taken offence to my saying that vaccines are not scary or evil, and searched for me on other social media sites in order to find who I am, what I do, and why I would care to promote something they disagree with. Their first thought was that I, a vaccine and agriscience proponent, should not associate on a facebook group for those interests. Their friends leapt in to support them, praising them and generally trying to tell me I was a bad person, attacking my character as they went.
Now not knowing who Neidenbach was, their comment made me pause. Were they some kind of psychopath like the "Doctor Death" scandal of rural Queensland? A Nazi scientist? A pharmaceutical executive caught in a corruption scandal? Google didn't help - turns out there are a lot of paediatricians, podiatrists, and engineers with that name, and it turns out that Neidenbach really is just a middle school teacher trying to help people to understand science. My questing wasn't going to go any further, as after that the person launched into attacks about vaccines, and when I didn't fold to their onslaught, they blocked me, and I moved on with life - though I didn't forget the encounter.
More recently, I questioned some people claiming that the Australian celebrity "Waleed Aly" had orchestrated legal attacks on people because reasons reasons something Islam. During the exchange, various Islamophobic people jumped in to try and belittle me for being skeptical of the claims. Before leaving them to pat one another on the back, I was struck by the similarities - if someone says something person X does not like, try to chase them off the topic.
Immunology, agricultural science, bioscience, horticultural science, and climate science are all familiar with this, the opposition's core primarily comprised of people who profit from fear and ignorance of these fields. It's also been growing as a tactic and tool for political extremists - something video gamers, refugee advocates, and equal rights advocates have been facing to increasing degrees, primarily lead by people who profit from fear and ignorance of these topics.
Notice the common point there? Any group or movement can have people who spoil it for everyone, and corruption is a thing that we humans love to do with everything, from beliefs to sciences and all things between. In all endeavours, it is knowledge that allows these people to be stopped - and ignorance that allows them to thrive. Ignorance makes what they say seem reasonable, and their lies sound plausible.Which is why the rise of ignorance in politics has been frightening. Every time this has occurred, people have taken advantage of fear to their advantage - and if the people were lucky, they were only fleeced of their belongings or money. More commonly, the unchecked rise of hate and corruption caused rights to disappear, and lives to be lost. The ignorant amongst them, who only hours or days before had been celebrating that someone with power listened to them and protected their ignorance and fear.
So it comes as no surprise that people who speak out to educate others garner hatred. We humans love the idea that you can protect yourself from hepatitis by eating a slightly more expensive but otherwise entirely normal food. We love the idea that we're doing the right things to promote an equal society. We love the idea that our lifestyle habits won't cost millions of people their lives and homes. We love that we can make a stand against Big Industry-X (agriculture, medicine, etc) and prevent them from poisoning us and our loved ones. We love the neat boxes we can put those people who look different or talk different or have different hobbies. Who wouldn't angrily defend what they love? I won't ask anyone to not defend their interests. I will, however, ask people to assess those interests.
"Check your fire", if you will, before you shoot the messenger.
- If someone makes a claim, check it. Priests would once caution that Satan uses silken words, and in modern times we know how con artists work: "Honey catches more flies than vinegar", and "The bigger the lie, the more convincing it sounds". Remember that a story is not worth as much as a study, and a study is not worth as much as a study tested by competitors who want to find the flaws - we call this "peer review", and scientists welcome it. If someone gets aggressive for questioning them or their claim, then chances are that they don't want you to find the flaws in their story.
- If someone says that studies cannot be trusted, follow the money. Research scientists don't pocket forty thousand dollars per session to come and speak on the topic - rather, they spend any money they can get on lab equipment, chemicals, and other things they need for their craft. When someone says "They just want to make money off of you, buy my book/ticket/etc and see", the key part is "buy my".
- If someone can only defend their argument by attacking the people who counter them, then chances are that their opponents are correct - especially if they start lying to do so. If people around you do that, consider that it's time for a change of beliefs. Frustration can make people make mistakes, but beware those who hurt others. Even if they claim it's "for the greater good", or "for a good cause", they're still hurting others for disagreeing with them.
- If you don't understand a controversial topic, then get information from both sides. Use the above tips as broad guidelines, though in today's world both sides might even be guilty of the above. You are obviously welcome to support any side you wish - but my interest is that you remember that those who lie to, take advantage of, or hurt others will do it to anyone, including those who help them.
As I said at the start of this, when I was asked about associating long ago, I didn't know who this "Neidenbach" was, so I had pause. Since then, I've seen the work he does, the fight he takes to help people learn, and the sheer spiteful animosity that he garners for threatening an industry of fear. Even if we don't always agree, he backs up what he says with science, and bases his stances on reason.
So, if I were asked that same challenge today, about Neidenbach or anyone who promotes honesty despite adversity, I'd have a better response.
"Honoured."
Keep up the good work, people, and thank you.
Friday, 6 May 2016
Regarding my avatar
I've given some thought to this of late, as it has come up a few times now. Primarily, my avatar - the term for that "cat's eye" image that is everywhere I write - is mentioned before other social media types block me for warning that people can misuse a movement as a form of corruption.
One has not (thank you, Sean!), which has actually assisted to carry their argument some weight - after all, if they're actually talking to me, rather than at me, it's my time to take what they say on board and listen as I usually like to.
Thus; my consideration.
The primary purpose that is purported for why I should change it, is that people are mistaking me for an "alt-right" anonymous account, and thus reacting more aggressively than if I say, used a photograph of myself.
The primary reasons that contend why I use it and should continue to do so are;
So, let's take a quick look at the typical alt-right account; in this instance, let's reference https://twitter.com/Ricky_Vaughn99. Trump supporter, "American nationalist. Free speech activist. MIT-certified Top 150 2016 Election Influencer."
Amongst his 27.9K followers (at the time of this analysis), only 37 are people that I, in turn, communicate with. But more amusing is this:
https://twitter.com/Ricky_Vaughn99/followers
The majority of his followers are not "anonymous" accounts. In fact, most are photographs. Some are photographs of Trump, some are "egg" accounts. But far outweighing both, are the photographs.
Now, the reason that I bring up Vaughn is that he's who was referenced in recent discussions, in fact a certain user (I won't reference as it would be rude with his having blocked me) thought I was one of his followers for criticising his commentary that sounded convincingly like a call for violence. NB: I condemn all violence, and calling for peacefulness is hardly an "alt-right" trait.
So, given that my avatar does not, in fact, look like a standard-cut "alt-right" account, I must in turn wonder what gives people that impression to call it of me?
A simple answer could be that, in the absence of being capable of provoking the rage he had been hoping for, a mildly popular narcissist sought to justify his retaliation to my call for peace by simply making up a fallacious connection, lest he be confronted with the reality that he was, in fact, wrong.
I could also be incorrect in that impression, but that is certainly what I am given image of here.
Given that such would increase risk for others by even a minor amount, has no real reason, and is a comfortable habit I have maintained for fourteen years, I don't see any reason to want to do so.
But I said I would give it input, and should there be more valid reasons to do so, I will be happy to reappraise again.
One has not (thank you, Sean!), which has actually assisted to carry their argument some weight - after all, if they're actually talking to me, rather than at me, it's my time to take what they say on board and listen as I usually like to.
Thus; my consideration.
Should I use a different avatar for portraying myself on social media such as Twitter?
The primary purpose that is purported for why I should change it, is that people are mistaking me for an "alt-right" anonymous account, and thus reacting more aggressively than if I say, used a photograph of myself.
The primary reasons that contend why I use it and should continue to do so are;
- It offers a (thin, admittedly) veneer of anonymity to protect others
- Domestic violence work
- Carer role - I connect up other accounts through the social media du jour of my preference; twitter.
- This same icon is on all my other platforms; it was on tumblr before I closed my account, it's on Steam, Origin, UPlay, science journal entries, my phonebook, Raptr, etc. While not a trademark or official stamp, it is a "thumbprint" of sorts, and helps to make things seem more personal for me.
- It's an icon I have used since 2002 as a form of avatar originally on old chatMUD and forums.
- Prior to bringing it into line with my other accounts, I used a photo of Io (the moon of Jupiter) because it was interesting.
- These people are reacting to my appearance, not my comment
- That these people feel my image gives them "justification" to profess hate or rage
- The belief that alt-right accounts use images analogous to my avatar.
So, let's take a quick look at the typical alt-right account; in this instance, let's reference https://twitter.com/Ricky_Vaughn99. Trump supporter, "American nationalist. Free speech activist. MIT-certified Top 150 2016 Election Influencer."
Amongst his 27.9K followers (at the time of this analysis), only 37 are people that I, in turn, communicate with. But more amusing is this:
https://twitter.com/Ricky_Vaughn99/followers
The majority of his followers are not "anonymous" accounts. In fact, most are photographs. Some are photographs of Trump, some are "egg" accounts. But far outweighing both, are the photographs.
Now, the reason that I bring up Vaughn is that he's who was referenced in recent discussions, in fact a certain user (I won't reference as it would be rude with his having blocked me) thought I was one of his followers for criticising his commentary that sounded convincingly like a call for violence. NB: I condemn all violence, and calling for peacefulness is hardly an "alt-right" trait.
So, given that my avatar does not, in fact, look like a standard-cut "alt-right" account, I must in turn wonder what gives people that impression to call it of me?
A simple answer could be that, in the absence of being capable of provoking the rage he had been hoping for, a mildly popular narcissist sought to justify his retaliation to my call for peace by simply making up a fallacious connection, lest he be confronted with the reality that he was, in fact, wrong.
I could also be incorrect in that impression, but that is certainly what I am given image of here.
Conclusion: Should I replace my avatar with a photograph?
No.Given that such would increase risk for others by even a minor amount, has no real reason, and is a comfortable habit I have maintained for fourteen years, I don't see any reason to want to do so.
But I said I would give it input, and should there be more valid reasons to do so, I will be happy to reappraise again.
Bonus round: "Your header image-"
It's a photo of Earth. Earth is likewise not a symbol for nationalist "alt-right" accounts. Those that weren't blank were predominantly national flags, images of Trump, or abstracts. I don't think I'll change my image any time soon based on that argument - even if my counter is purely "I like space photos".Review - Gnomoria
What do you get when you cross a giant honey badger with a gnome?
We can try to find that out as Irreverend Opinions looks at Gnomoria.
---
The Blurb
Simple and sweet, a town-management game where you can't directly control your subjects. Lead a small band of adventurous gnomes into the founding of a new colony, and defend them not only against starvation, but also hostile goblin raiders and hungry beasts!
The Good
Simple and fun once you get the hang of it, with a basic 'dig and build' approach to the world controls. Randomized terrain and gnome stats make this a slight blend into roguelike, which has both ups and downs. The in-game orchestra sound track is quite nice, and the game sounds are decent quality for a beta.
The combat is not difficult to understand; you can give instructions to your gnomes on how to conduct themselves in battle (I favor a kamikaze rush), and the enemies present a bit of variety in tactics as well; animals will run if hurt, and goblins will happily test your defenses.
The Bad
Poor graphics* and terrible default sound track. There's not very much to do (still early access at time of writing), and so the game can be very slow after a while. Strong learning curve with no starting instructions, and at time of writing resources can be difficult to get together for items needed for the game. Few explanations and warnings for events makes some facets of the game a bit challenging. The pathing AI can be a bit funny.
* 8-bit, might be your thing.
The Ugly
There isn't any. Nice game, still in beta.
Suggestions
An in-game recipe book would be nice (even if such was populated only by things you had discovered and 'theorized'). A gnomish flavour to menus would be good, perhaps naming the weaponsmith a swordificationator or something. More in-game notices that a gnome has just dug himself onto a cliff that he can't get down from and is at risk of starvation would be something I'd like to see.
The Summary
7/10, 8/10 if 8-bit graphics are your thing. Capable of standing up there with casual strategy sims for hours.
---
If you liked this review or want to see more recommended games, be sure to follow our curator group: Follow Original Curator Group
This review is hosted for archival and backup purposes; the original can be found on Steam.
We can try to find that out as Irreverend Opinions looks at Gnomoria.
---
The Blurb
Simple and sweet, a town-management game where you can't directly control your subjects. Lead a small band of adventurous gnomes into the founding of a new colony, and defend them not only against starvation, but also hostile goblin raiders and hungry beasts!
The Good
Simple and fun once you get the hang of it, with a basic 'dig and build' approach to the world controls. Randomized terrain and gnome stats make this a slight blend into roguelike, which has both ups and downs. The in-game orchestra sound track is quite nice, and the game sounds are decent quality for a beta.
The combat is not difficult to understand; you can give instructions to your gnomes on how to conduct themselves in battle (I favor a kamikaze rush), and the enemies present a bit of variety in tactics as well; animals will run if hurt, and goblins will happily test your defenses.
The Bad
Poor graphics* and terrible default sound track. There's not very much to do (still early access at time of writing), and so the game can be very slow after a while. Strong learning curve with no starting instructions, and at time of writing resources can be difficult to get together for items needed for the game. Few explanations and warnings for events makes some facets of the game a bit challenging. The pathing AI can be a bit funny.
* 8-bit, might be your thing.
The Ugly
There isn't any. Nice game, still in beta.
Suggestions
An in-game recipe book would be nice (even if such was populated only by things you had discovered and 'theorized'). A gnomish flavour to menus would be good, perhaps naming the weaponsmith a swordificationator or something. More in-game notices that a gnome has just dug himself onto a cliff that he can't get down from and is at risk of starvation would be something I'd like to see.
The Summary
7/10, 8/10 if 8-bit graphics are your thing. Capable of standing up there with casual strategy sims for hours.
---
If you liked this review or want to see more recommended games, be sure to follow our curator group: Follow Original Curator Group
This review is hosted for archival and backup purposes; the original can be found on Steam.
Review - The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind
You awake, prisoner?
Because Irreverend Opinions is about to enter the province of Morrowind.
---
The Blurb
A staggering quest of epic proportions, you begin as a vision-touched prisoner aboard a boat, sent from the capital of imperial Tamriel to the remote, swamp-and-desert island of Morrowind. An incredible journey of discovery, betrayal, deicide, vengeance, and conquest spreads out from there.
Open world game with heavy RPG elements and storyline.
The Good
Very well-polished game with the old "Daggerfall" Kirkbride lore touch, which is to say "you can drown in the world's content". The plot is sublime, with hours of invested time needed to complete it, with epic proportions matched only by juggernauts of the gaming industry. The engine allows for an incredible amount of flexibility and freedom - you can spend time to become any kind of character you would desire, and there are multiple paths to get to the final plot.
Detail is given to pretty much everything in the game, and if you are a curious explorer, you can get lost in the environment. Despite the outdated graphics by today's standards, the sheer level of content is overwhelming, and sets a standard that is sadly unmet since. The musical score matches the scale of the setting, and fans of the game will instantly recognise the strains of Morrowind's soundtrack - along with the pang of longing that it will bring.
Bethesda kept to it's normal tradition of making the game extremely moddable, and even supported the game well past the three expansions they released for it; more quests and equipment has been released officially simply to enhance the game that little bit more, and if you wish to mod it further with extra content, the Nexus holds a lot of quality content.
The Bad
The UI is often confusing and convoluted*, with bizarre choices for default keys (E to jump, space to interact) and there is often a lack of explanation for terms and controls. The melee interface is not intuitive, and for modern gamers will feel lacking for the effort you need to take.
Modern players will be more than slightly turned off by the very aged graphics*, and the sound effects are somewhat lacking*. The plot does not often leave much explanation for steps needing to be taken, which can leave confusion and frustration in it's wake. Almost everything in the wilderness wants to kill you.
As usual, Bethesda's game engine is less than stable; an official set of patches are available to counter this.
* Suggestions to alleviate this are listed below.
The Ugly
Cliff racers. The begging elf in Tribunal.
Suggestions
Players will likely want to download and install the unofficial patches, and the code patch, to stabilize the engine; then the Morrowind Sound & Graphics Overhaul to improve the quality of the UI, default sounds, and graphics somewhat. Following that, the official content patches add extra content, and the Tamriel Rebuilt project will add even more to the sandbox you have to roam in.
After all of that, if you care to do some more modding, the game world is, proverbially, your oyster.
The Summary
9/10 for this one, simply because the sheer amount of content and effort they put in overcomes a good portion of the poor graphics, the bugs, and poor UI choices they made.
---
If you liked this review or want to see more recommended games, be sure to follow our curator group: Follow Original Curator Group
This review is hosted for archival and backup purposes; the original can be found on Steam.
Because Irreverend Opinions is about to enter the province of Morrowind.
---
The Blurb
A staggering quest of epic proportions, you begin as a vision-touched prisoner aboard a boat, sent from the capital of imperial Tamriel to the remote, swamp-and-desert island of Morrowind. An incredible journey of discovery, betrayal, deicide, vengeance, and conquest spreads out from there.
Open world game with heavy RPG elements and storyline.
The Good
Very well-polished game with the old "Daggerfall" Kirkbride lore touch, which is to say "you can drown in the world's content". The plot is sublime, with hours of invested time needed to complete it, with epic proportions matched only by juggernauts of the gaming industry. The engine allows for an incredible amount of flexibility and freedom - you can spend time to become any kind of character you would desire, and there are multiple paths to get to the final plot.
Detail is given to pretty much everything in the game, and if you are a curious explorer, you can get lost in the environment. Despite the outdated graphics by today's standards, the sheer level of content is overwhelming, and sets a standard that is sadly unmet since. The musical score matches the scale of the setting, and fans of the game will instantly recognise the strains of Morrowind's soundtrack - along with the pang of longing that it will bring.
Bethesda kept to it's normal tradition of making the game extremely moddable, and even supported the game well past the three expansions they released for it; more quests and equipment has been released officially simply to enhance the game that little bit more, and if you wish to mod it further with extra content, the Nexus holds a lot of quality content.
The Bad
The UI is often confusing and convoluted*, with bizarre choices for default keys (E to jump, space to interact) and there is often a lack of explanation for terms and controls. The melee interface is not intuitive, and for modern gamers will feel lacking for the effort you need to take.
Modern players will be more than slightly turned off by the very aged graphics*, and the sound effects are somewhat lacking*. The plot does not often leave much explanation for steps needing to be taken, which can leave confusion and frustration in it's wake. Almost everything in the wilderness wants to kill you.
As usual, Bethesda's game engine is less than stable; an official set of patches are available to counter this.
* Suggestions to alleviate this are listed below.
The Ugly
Cliff racers. The begging elf in Tribunal.
Suggestions
Players will likely want to download and install the unofficial patches, and the code patch, to stabilize the engine; then the Morrowind Sound & Graphics Overhaul to improve the quality of the UI, default sounds, and graphics somewhat. Following that, the official content patches add extra content, and the Tamriel Rebuilt project will add even more to the sandbox you have to roam in.
After all of that, if you care to do some more modding, the game world is, proverbially, your oyster.
The Summary
9/10 for this one, simply because the sheer amount of content and effort they put in overcomes a good portion of the poor graphics, the bugs, and poor UI choices they made.
---
If you liked this review or want to see more recommended games, be sure to follow our curator group: Follow Original Curator Group
This review is hosted for archival and backup purposes; the original can be found on Steam.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)