@witchy-weve-monbebe okay but imagine a what if scenario where Frank, Joey, Peter and Sammy (I lowkey forgot what their actual names are 💀) escape and take Abigail with them
Frank 100% hated the fact that there was no money involved. That they all got screwed with and fuck it if he isn’t gonna stick it to Lazar and just take his kid. What does it matter at this point? (Let’s ignore that Lambert was there and called Lazar back)
Joey just wants to protect the girl despite her being a vampire and also because it’s another excuse to avoid going back to her son (not because she wants to but it’s like in the movie: she’s afraid she’s gonna be a shit mom)
Sammy of course joins for the ride just to see how it would play out and convinces Peter to join her in watching it all fall apart
Abigail is definitely an unwilling participant in terms to being a “hostage” but her attempts at killing them lower in intensity the more she spends time with them
(Also I think it’s be lowkey funny that Frank is the only one to really have beef with a 12 year old the more time they all spend together)
110 notes
·
View notes
Why do I tell people to play indie games?
K' so you may have seen that post I made a little while ago asking people reblog and put into the tags an indie game that they did NOT like.
I made that post because I wanted to hear about what indie games people had bad experiences with. There was another post I made saying "Tell me you don't play indie games without telling me you don't play indie games" in response to a ton of youtube videos saying modern video games are no longer fun. A lot of tags would say, "Well indie games can suck too!" This response was extremely silly to me and I wanted to know what games they could be talking about.
I didn't ask for it, but so many people starting explaining why they didn't like a certain game. So I decided to make a little pie chart with the reason people would give in the tags
There are some outliers not here. There were 5 tags saying a game offended them and some responses that were too specific to really count. Half of the posts also gave no explanations so I'm not going to act like this is representative of every response on that post.
Okay so what's the point? Why did I do this?
There's this one 30 minute video by Josh Strife Hayes that does a super good job showcasing all of the bad practices that happen with modern gaming. He talks about each issue thoroughly, but I'll list them here:
Microtransactions, Limited Progression, Invite Boosts, Premium Currency, Loyalty Programs, Selling Power, Battlepasses, and Selling Progression
He doesn't even mention other issues like games releasing in clearly unfinished states, games that are clearly chasing trends, and game developers being restricted by their publishers.
Why is this significant?
Well answer me this: Was there a single tag response in my post that complains about an indie game doing these things?
Say what you want about indie games, but I bet you didn't pay $60 and got psychologically manipulated to spend more on that game.
I bet you weren't getting manipulated by some free to play model to spend more money than you would on a normal game.
I bet the game actually released in a finished state and even if it did, the game clearly communicated it wasn't done.
Sure, you could give me examples of indie games that do have those bad practices, but I guarantee you that you cannot prove that most indie games do this.
So yeah, play indie games. Don't support corporate bullshit unless you know the game was made with the player's best interest in mind.
410 notes
·
View notes
Aziraphale: The Sword that Guards the Tree of Life
Looking where the furniture isn't
This post is dedicated to @meatballlady's excellent insistence that if we want to try to predict where season 3 will go, we need to look at where the furniture isn't. That is, what must have been there but wasn't shown?
For this one, my source material is going to be Genesis. That is, in no small part, because it does in fact fuck severely that Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett took the angel with the flaming sword and the serpent of Eden and made them kiss (@joycrispy, @ouidamforeman). It's also because Genesis, quite simply, exists, and it seems safe to assume that most everyone in Gaiman and Pratchett's intended audience has been exposed to at least its first few chapters dozens of times.
What does Genesis tell us about Aziraphale's purpose?
3:22 Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out with his hand, and take fruit also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”—
23 therefore the Lord God sent him out of the Garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken.
24 So He drove the man out; and at the east of the Garden of Eden He stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life.
@joycrispy's analysis above highlights Aziraphale's role as given in the last verse: as the angel chosen to wield the flaming sword, he was sent down after Adam and Eve were expelled to prevent them from returning. Instead, he chose to protect them by giving that sword away. His desire to protect humanity is indeed beautiful (@give-soup-please, @snek-eyes).
But wait, what came right before that? "And take fruit also from the tree of life...?"
2:9 Out of the ground the Lord God caused every tree to grow that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; the tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
That's right: What we see in the show is that Adam and Eve were sent out of Eden so that they'd have to deal with the rain and the animals and have to work for their food, but that was never the primary motivation. God planted two special trees, and after Eve and Adam ate from one of them, God was terrified at the prospect of them turning around and eating from the other. And thus, the Garden of Eden was made off-limits and set to be permanently guarded by an angel with a flaming sword.
So, the flaming sword.
Twice now, Aziraphale's sword has helped humanity survive complete and total destruction (@nottobehornyonthemain). The first time, he handed the sword to the first two humans, which protected not just them but the entirety of the human race via Adam and very pregnant Eve.
The second time, he let it be wielded by The Them, who used it to best the Four Horsepeople of the Apocalypse and save the billions of humans already alive as well as unborn generations.
Perhaps the flaming sword was only intended as a plot point in the first season. However, if its purpose were completed, it could have easily been destroyed. As a narrative piece, it could have broken dramatically at the end of the face-off against the Four Horsepeople. Or, Watsonianly, God could have chosen to break it Herself; after all, it was already used against its intended purpose twice, so why let it keep existing?
Instead, it's carefully taken away to... where? Heaven?
The place Aziraphale is now going?
Or at least a place where he could likely find a record showing where it's being stored?
Whether you call it "rule of threes" or "Chekhov's gun," I think it likely that Aziraphale will be getting his sword back in season 3. He probably doesn't want it (@createserenity, @ineffableigh, @doctorscienceknowsfandom), but he'll need it.
The question, then, is what would Aziraphale do with the flaming sword he was given to prevent humans from reaching the tree of life?
If we're looking at where the furniture isn't, the biggest stretch of an interpretation would be to say that the missing furniture is the tree of life. If anyone knows where Eden is, it would be Aziraphale, Guardian of the Eastern Gate. We know that both Heaven and Hell want to end humanity. The opening credits have humanity walking to their judgment after their deaths; what better way to prevent that than by preventing those deaths?
The most intense version of this theory says that the audience should be familiar with the story of the Garden of Eden and know damn well that there are two special trees there and that Aziraphale was put in place to guard the second one — the one humanity hasn't eaten from yet, the one that grants immortal life. That's where, if I were truly trying to swing for the hills by aiming at where the furniture isn't, I would ideally like to end this post. If that were the case, season 3 could even open with Aziraphale walking towards the Garden of Eden, sword in hand, but this time approaching it from the outside with the intention of tearing the wall down.
But, let's be honest, making individual people immortal doesn't feel like it would fit with the themes of Good Omens, nor with Neil Gaiman or Terry Pratchett's world views.
So, let's take the tree of life symbolically: Instead of the tree of life granting individual humans immortality, it could instead represent giving humanity immortality. In that case, the thing that's where the furniture isn't is Aziraphale's sword. You know, the sword that's already saved the human race from extinction twice now, with both times being because Aziraphale gave it away.
I suspect that the sword will wind up in Aziraphale's hands again in season 3. I also quite suspect that it won't be staying there. In the end, I expect it will once again be up to humanity to reach out their hand to take the apple from that second tree.
71 notes
·
View notes