DPxDC Prompt: Wrong Number Jazz edition
Based on this amazing post I saw
"Danny, it's been a week. Sam said you took the phone with this number. Everything alright?"
"Please. It's been a month now. I just want to know if you are alive."
"I won't look for you. I know I promised. But you promised to check in."
"The funeral was today. They didn't attend, forgot what day it was."
"I miss you."
Jason came back from a Outlaw out-of-the-grid mission finding messages from an Unknown number. A quick check gave him a name and address, and also news about a missing little brother. The more he searched the fishier it all looked.
Good thing he didn't unpack his things yet.
2K notes
·
View notes
the IGN article has already been addressed by several users, but imo the points of critique raised by others were still often misinterpreted, or ignored entirely.
— so i’d like to talk about it.
beforehand, it is important to mention that it remains everyone’s respective responsibility to curate their own online experience. you shouldn’t purposefully expose yourself to topics that cause you distress or trigger you. however, general discussion should always be valid and welcomed. you have every right to voice your opinion on the matter and to be upset about this. please don’t feel guilty about venting and expressing your emotional response.
we also need to differentiate this specific interview from the fandom’s overall treatment and interpretation of gale. several of the posts i’ve seen on the subject tend to derail into the latter, without addressing the valid points many have raised or glossing over them entirely. this isn’t about the usual “haha gale eats shoes” joke or whatever new meme fandom comes up with. this is solely about the developer’s treatment of gale, the character, and about a specific, internal bias that has been prevalent throughout the entirety of the game, as well as their social media. this particular interview merely adding to the amalgamation of points mentioned.
yes, it is certainly unrealistic to expect larian to address every single companion in detail and to touch on every nuance possible, in an interview that broadly focuses on the game’s narrative and gameplay. there are, however, specific character sections. each companion received a headline that was reflective of their overall character archetype or provided quick insight into their development.
Karlach: 'The Labrador of the Party'
Lae'zel: 'She's So Young'
Halsin: 'A Creative Risk'
Shadowheart: 'The Jason Bourne'
Wyll: 'We Lost a Little Bit of Narrative Room'
Astarion: 'Much of What He Does Is Out of Fear'
Minthara: 'It's Not a Redemption Arc...But She's Got a Lot of Love'
and last but not least:
Gale: 'The Guy Who Starts Off Annoying Everyone'
what followed was a brief discussion about their respective storylines, each being addressed with a certain level of respect, empathy, and consideration. except for gale. all that was mentioned in regard to his character was the narrative impact of gale’s suicide. talking about the overall logistics of this ending, the visuals of the cutscene, and how, to them, his sacrifice felt like the right ending and how in many ways, it is.
Chrystal Ding, Lead Writer: On a very human level, you have the guy who starts off annoying everyone, he's constantly asking you to give him your most treasured possessions to eat, otherwise he's in trouble, and at the end, he gives himself for the world.
Sven Vincke, Founder: And he had the choice already once before where he wasn't ready for it. So it's a very powerful ending, and it comes in different permutations.
gale is the character who is initially annoying companions and players alike. he is verbose, enthusiastic and has a tendency to break out in long-winded rants. he repeatedly asks for your assistance, to help him manage his condition. to spare himself and his surroundings from an untimely, explosive death, he must consume items that you’ve carefully collected. gale is, essentially, a liability. a ticking time bomb. he already had the option to have his life be a meaningful sacrifice, but he wasn’t ready to die yet. now, that the party has reached the end, he has another chance to give himself up for the world.
short after, gale’s section of the interview quickly diverts into a more general discussion about the difficulties of playing as a wizard and other classes.
larian claiming that there is a universal “right ending” in a game with many branching paths and choices very much contradicts the definition of a role-playing game. where it is solely in the player’s hands to decide what direction to take and what outcome they deem to be the right one. moreover, it is important to remember that the interviewees weren’t just any developers, but consisted of two lead writers and larian’s founder himself. some of them industry veterans who are, to an extent, pr-trained. we all know that fandom often sees statements from developers synonymous with word of god. as such, the implications and impact are truly unfortunate.
if larian was referring the SA survivor and stated that “the right ending” for him was to return him to enslavement or to hand him over to the gur. that for all the death and misery he (involuntarily) assisted, his sacrifice would at least grand them a slither of justice.
astarion caused death, perpetuated racism, and now that you have handed him over to the gur hunter, he is offered a chance to give himself back to the world.
it is then deemed the right choice for him because it is the most narratively satisfying/impactful/powerful outcome in the context of the overall story. the majority of us would agree that such would be a rather tactless statement, no? not specifically for mentioning it in relation to astarion as a character or his influence on the narrative — he is fictional, after all, but because of the real-life implications and the very real stigma the affected face. we can't deny that it would be hurtful to irl victims. maybe we would even fault the writing altogether for such biases. after all, why should astarion be the only character whose redemption and healing are considered to be significantly less important in the grand scheme of things?
fiction functions as an abstraction and simulation of our social experience. we are supposed to get invested, to explore the meaning, examine the parallels, or maybe just to enjoy stories for the sole purpose of indulging in the occasional escapism. perhaps a way to temporarily forget about one’s limitations and the prejudices we face. in many ways, chronic pain/impairment, suicidal ideation, and autistic traits appear to be disorders & symptoms that are perhaps less relatable to some, and that they are maybe not as sympathetic to.
it truly would’ve been nice to see larian approach this interview with more professionalism. opting for a simple, diplomatic “actually, there is no right ending. the sheer variation in choices makes such a distinction impossible” would’ve more than sufficed.
this isn’t asking for larian to touch on every nuance possible, in an interview that largely resembled the flow of a regular conversation. it’s about asking for the same level of consideration and care that was granted to the rest of the companions. it’s about addressing gale’s particular brand of trauma with the same level of basic human decency. maybe we even could’ve received some new bits and pieces of insight on gale’s development, rather than the regurgitation of every shallow reddit/tiktok take we’ve seen up to this point. alas..
196 notes
·
View notes
Which OCs that are not yours do you most admire? What is it about that character that you find impressive or engaging?
This question is difficult. There's a lot of OCs I really enjoy, and I am terrified of forgetting some of them, so I won't name anyone specifically ... except for @petitfarron because that can't possibly be a surprise to anyone. I love RPing with him, and have had a lot of fun watching him get more confident in what makes Farron tick as time goes by.
In a general sense, what will leave me feeling impressed is when it's clear someone's put a lot of thought into their OC, even if their OC would not normally be my thing. I tend to value internal consistency when it comes to a character, so even though I am very much a 'gently bend the canon, if it must be bent at all' person myself, if the character that's shattered canon is still consistent within that person's version of the setting, I might not be super into it from a taste standpoint, but I will absolutely admire the work put into it, and be glad they're doing something that brings them such obvious joy.
Thank you for the ask!
7 notes
·
View notes
hmm i wonder what yall's opinion of this is but i'm not entirely sure of how i feel when it comes to gender selected/ gender variable ROs in IF games? like on one hand these games are very much geared towards wish fulfillment and personal fun (a good thing!) so choosing makes that easier, and it also makes it so that more underrepresented dynamics (like an all female RO cast for a lesbian character) are able to be played out, which are all very good.
but on the other hand i feel like it takes the teeth out of some of the character decisions? Adam and Nate wayhavenchronicles being a knight and sailor respectively is all well and fun, but Ava and Nat?? that's crazy. a woman knight and a woman sailor?? there's such an interesting story and implied history that would inform their personalities. Like yes, A is the same character no matter what, but a lot of character information is lost in that changeover (information that was probably unintentional but, yk). A butch knight who lives through 900 years of western history has a very different reasoning for being the way she is than a noble blond man lol.
like both are valid approaches to take, both serve their functions, and in certain settings the gender difference is not going to be an issue, but when it does have a real world historical basis it tends to take me out of it a bit lol. idk!
11 notes
·
View notes
Kirk calling their relationship suffering when Sam cams it the best thing that ever happened to her and the way Kirk is so sure they would have been married when all Sam ever dish was turn him down... the way that he assumes that all they can do is suffer from their love for each other and that it cannot bring joy to either of them.
Ugh.
Truly disgusting. Honestly, it's awful. He's as bad as the grandmother and in the same way, that same way that assumes that anything different, that anything society even remotely disagrees with, must be bad for the people involved and incomprehensible to the people around them.
It's the assumption that queer love cannot be real love, that queer joy cannot be real joy, that love is not love unless it is on their terms.
67 notes
·
View notes