This blog is about Anime, Music and Video Games. I write reviews, analytical articles and some casual observations. I intend to instill good taste among the shit taste plebs. I also occasionally write about other topics that interest me.
I am a writer and promoting my awesome book here, ask me about it.
Yesterday I wrote an article about songs that made it on one side of Atlantic but somehow failed on the other. I made some conclusions, but time was limited and could not say all I wanted to. Overnight I thought about it again and decided that is not enough and even somewhat misleading. More has to be said to make the differences between Americans and the rest of the World clearer. Just saying what is popular and what isn't will not do much without analysing the reasons why this or that song worked or did not work either side of Atlantic.
I will begin with Hang Up by Madonna, normally her songs are popular on both sides of the pond, but this one is a clear outlier, being hot in Europe but ignored in the US. So, it cannot be explained with lack of exposure and such, something in the song repealed American viewers but not European ones.
After some pondering I concluded that is probably has something to do with feminism and objectifying women. Half of the music video shows Madonna shakes her ass on camera. In America being politically correct and morally upright matters a lot so such explicit exploitation of female body probably offended American sentiments and song failed in the US.
In Europe and Australia however, people find nothing wrong with objectifying females, those who do find it offensive are told to drink beer until they no longer think so. So, Hang Up did not offended anyone and song was a hit.
Now for the Before He Cheats by Carrie Underwood (did I remember her name correctly). This one is simple actually. Why would anyone find it acceptable when anyone vandalises your car and other belongings for any reason? Here world is united that such behavior is unacceptable and ignores the song that endorses it. As a non-American it more puzzling for me why Americans like this song?
Generally, Europe and the world, has a lot less tolerance towards wild female behavior. What is OK in the US will get women arrested or deported elsewhere, even in stereotypically wild countries like Australia, that actually not that wild at all. More details below.
American runner up was Higher by Creed. Here European stereotypes actually explain it. Europeans are much less religious that Americans so a religion inspired rock will not do well in Europe. Difference in Creed's popularity on different sides of the Atlantic proves that.
On the other hand, Imagine by John Lennon, anti-war British song, did poorly in the US because his vision of better world without war included no religion.
Another outlying song was Can't Get You Out of My Head by Kylie Minogue. Americans normally like Australian things but this song somehow was unpopular in the US despite being liked elsewhere across the globe. The reason for that is that in the US this song somehow got associated with gay culture despite the song not having any homosexual references in lyrics and is about heterosexual love.
In general, certain songs in the US somehow become so called gay anthems, despite nothing in their lyrics or artists suggest anything homosexual at all. That is part of American tendency towards identity politics/signalling. A lot of rather boring songs, that get no traction elsewhere, somehow become popular in the US because they become identity anthem of one or the other group. The rest of the world does not do that and instead listen to what sounds nice. That will also explain why Europop does poorly in the US as that too gets associated with gay culture.
A final note, while Europeans fooling around, pretending to be Americans in their music videos, Americans do it IRL, pretending to be Australians and by Australians, I mean Steve Irvin. Recently an American women got deported from Australia for kidnapping a Wombat's baby and filming it on camera. She probably imagined herself to be next Steve Irvin and thought it will be OK to do something like that in his country of origin. Turned out it was not. Just cause Steve Irvin did it does not mean its legal. Even if he did it, he followed certain rules and precautions, it was a show on camera, not a reality show.
Fundamentally however it's also a stereotype driven behavior where Americans assume that all Aussies are like Steve Irvin and wrestle with crocks daily. Most Australians will hardly touch any wildlife other than very peaceful Koalas, who are local favorites. It's because wildlife here sometimes dangerous that we do not touch them, just in case to be safe.
I will live it at that at least for now, maybe I will think of more to add later. I analysed some of the songs, but not all of them. So, I recommend watching full videos, linked in the very beginning of the article. I will link them again here: one and two. You will be able to see for yourself what works and what not.
In several of my articles, particularly those about communism, Russia and the West I used to write on how different American stereotypes about Russia are compared to the actual Russia as well as the other way around. What people choose to believe is far from reality.
Turns out I am not alone on that. I recently watched a video, comparing popularity of different songs in the US compare to the rest of the world. First, they made a list of most "American" songs: songs that were popular in the US but were not popular elsewhere. They followed by a second video about songs that were popular outside the US but somehow never managed to win Americans.
To make this objective, the organisers used the archival charts of the most popular song from the US and a selection of other countries. They aimed to find songs that topped the charts on one side of the Atlantic but ignored across the pond. Watch the full video on details. Before revealing the results, they offered a range of Youtubers from different countries to make a guess on what songs would top the charts.
The results did not confirm any stereotypes that people assume of the US and Europe. Before looking at data, youtubers speculated that songs acclaiming America, eagle screaming, gun blazing, like Born in the USA would become US only hits. That turned out not to be the case, the song did not even make top 10.
Most of the America only songs were rather quiet and timid even. They had rather simple melodies and lyrics about either about love or various identity issues peculiar to American life. As a European I never heard any of them. That said most of them sound too bland to appeal to me and I think other Europeans are of the same opinion.
Another distinct feature was presence of several Australian artists, that Australians themselves are not familiar with. I say that as a person who lived in Australia for two decades. Clearly Americans have some peculiar interest in Australia for some reason.
The overall winner however Carrie Underwood with Before He Cheats. Outside of the US most remember her as someone who sand on Trump's inauguration. That was also the first time I heard of her and immediately forget about her afterwards.
More surprises however came from songs that were loved by the world but ignored by Americans. A lot of it was so called Europop, German Boney M had most songs across several charts but, as far as I can remember, have not topped any of them. However, there were many songs from prominent American singers, including Hang Up by Madonna and Shut Up by Black Eyed Peas. Even King of Pop himself, Elvis Presley, managed to appear in one of the charts.
However, even among Europop, clearly America themed songs, such as Barbie Girl, somehow won hearts of Europeans but not Americans themselves. What happened to the stereotype of snobbish Europeans, turning noses away from anything American.
Here winner was Hung Up by Madonna. Isn't that as American as you can get? Al least in Europe we think that Madonna is like essence of Americanness. That nice unique melodic jingle makes it so memorable.
So, what can we take from all that aside from the fact that this disproves all the stereotypes?
Despite the stereotype of being eagle screaming, gun touting, Americans are actually very fond of simple quiet songs, sang by equally simple and plain people. If you look at these songs a little deeper, you can notice that many of these singers seems struggle singing, as if it's something they are not too comfortable talking about or something that holds a lot of meaning for them personally.
Combine this with rather plain melodies and it's clear that these songs are lyrics driven. It's the meaning behind these lyrics that make them popular in the US. Kind of like Kino and Victor Tsoi is for Russia. For Americans music is first of all a song and melody is secondary.
However, this meaning is lost to people outside of the US as culture and life differences makes it impossible to relate to what they sing about.
In contrast global favorites tend to have catchy melodies and memorable performance. You can hardly find a single song where melody have nothing memorable about it. If melody is not memorable it is not going to be remembered, as simple as that. Words and lyrics come secondary and often have to complement the melody rather than the other way around. Often lyrics have few easy to hear and remember phrases that get stuck in the brain and make people remember the song.
Europe and the world speak variety different languages. Words that make sense to some do not make any sense to others. However, a good catchy melody can be understood no matter what language you speak.
Another surprising thing is the fact that global favorites a lot stronger scream America than American own favorites. Americans themselves shy away from their Americanness while Europeans find playing Americacans to be the thing to do.
Almost like a quote from a Gothic King of Dark Ages: "Wealthy Goth plays Roman, poor Roman plays Goth." That means wealthy members of Gothic people liked adopt many aspects of Roman culture and tried to be as Roman as possible. In contrast poor Romans imitated Goth instead.
In our modern world lefty Americans adopt faux European culture to look fancy and sophisticated in the eyes of their American peers. In contrast European bands do not hesitate to sing in English, adopt American stereotypes and pretend they are Americans in their music videos. In both cases the stereotypes they imitate are far from reality of what each side of Atlantic is like. Europeans are not culturally left; Americans are not what they look like in Rednex music videos.
Another thing that stands out is that global favorites are more explicit that American ones. That not only applies to singer's appearance, but also to the lyrics and overall feel. Americans perhaps have certain reverence towards love, relationship, identity and some other things, not something the rest of the world feels the same about. When it comes to American songs that somehow missed out in American charts but made it globally, it is likely that they crossed certain taboos that exist in American society and thus were taken down. The rest of the world do not share these taboos however and embraced these songs instead.
Finally, another thing that world appreciate more than Americans is humor, particularly irony. Most of Europop is subtly ironic. These are songs that make you laugh, not touch your heart. That is how world loves it. That also means that creative music videos and overall interesting performance is important for the success of the whole.
This difference in music tastes that disprove rather than affirmed the stereotypes that people often repeat about Americans and the Europeans. Its Europeans who pretend they are eagle screaming, gun blazing, haystack fucking Americans. Americans instead pretend to be lefty leaning, accepting, politically correct Europeans. That is how world is.
As a bonus I will link some of the faux American music videos by European bands, Barbie Girl by Danish Aqua, Cotton Eye Joe by Swedish Rednex and America by German Rammstein. I am not sure if they were released in the US or not. Perhaps some might consider them offensive to American feelings. In a sense that they are watch me do stupid like an American. That is why they kept them in Europe. On the other hand, maybe European irony is subtle enough to avoid offending Americans, I wonder really. Watch these and judge for yourself.
There is more text below after these videos.
In Depth Analysis
Yesterday I left it at that, but overnight I thought about it again and decided that is not enough. Just saying what is popular and what isn't will not do much without analysing the reasons why this or that song worked or did not work either side of Atlantic.
I will begin with Hang Up by Madonna, normally her songs are popular on both sides of the pond, but this one is a clear outlier, being hot in Europe but ignored in the US. So, it cannot be explained with lack of exposure and such, something in the song repealed American viewers but not European ones.
After some pondering I concluded that is probably has something to do with feminism and objectifying women. Half of the music video shows Madonna shakes her ass on camera. In America being politically correct and morally upright matters a lot so such explicit exploitation of female body probably offended American sentiments and song failed in the US.
In Europe and Australia however, people find nothing wrong with objectifying females, those who do find it offensive are told to drink beer until they no longer think so. So, Hang Up did not offended anyone and song was a hit.
Now for the Before He Cheats by Carrie Underwood (did I remember her name correctly). This one is simple actually. Why would anyone find it acceptable when anyone vandalises your car and other belongings for any reason? Here world is united that such behavior is unacceptable and ignores the song that endorses it. As a non-American it more puzzling for me why Americans like this song?
Generally, Europe and the world, has a lot less tolerance towards wild female behavior. What is OK in the US will get women arrested or deported elsewhere, even in stereotypically wild countries like Australia, that actually not that wild at all. More details below.
American runner up was Higher by Creed. Here European stereotypes actually explain it. Europeans are much less religious that Americans so a religion inspired rock will not do well in Europe. Difference in Creed's popularity on different sides of the Atlantic proves that.
On the other hand, Imagine by John Lennon, anti-war British song, did poorly in the US because his vision of better world without war included no religion.
Another outlying song was Can't Get You Out of My Head by Kylie Minogue. Americans normally like Australian things but this song somehow was unpopular in the US despite being liked elsewhere across the globe. The reason for that is that in the US this song somehow got associated with gay culture despite the song not having any homosexual references in lyrics and is about heterosexual love.
In general, certain songs in the US somehow become so called gay anthems, despite nothing in their lyrics or artists suggest anything homosexual at all. That is part of American tendency towards identity politics/signalling. A lot of rather boring songs, that get no traction elsewhere, somehow become popular in the US because they become identity anthem of one or the other group. The rest of the world does not do that and instead listen to what sounds nice. That will also explain why Europop does poorly in the US as that too gets associated with gay culture.
A final note, while Europeans fooling around, pretending to be Americans in their music videos, Americans do it IRL, pretending to be Australians and by Australians, I mean Steve Irvin. Recently an American women got deported from Australia for kidnapping a Wombat's baby and filming it on camera. She probably imagined herself to be next Steve Irvin and thought it will be OK to do something like that in his country of origin. Turned out it was not. Just cause Steve Irvin did it does not mean its legal. Even if he did it, he followed certain rules and precautions, it was a show on camera, not a reality show.
Fundamentally however it's also a stereotype driven behavior where Americans assume that all Aussies are like Steve Irvin and wrestle with crocks daily. Most Australians will hardly touch any wildlife other than very peaceful Koalas, who are local favorites. It's because wildlife here sometimes dangerous that we do not touch them, just in case to be safe.
I will live it at that at least for now, maybe I will think of more to add later. I analysed some of the songs, but not all of them. So, I recommend watching full videos, linked in the very beginning of the article. I will link them again here: one and two. You will be able to see for yourself what works and what not.
Recently I have been watching the walkthroughs for older Assassin's Creed titles. Back in the days I played all of the older ones including Revelations but stopped short on third installment.
Since the beginning of the series, AC evolved from the original idea into a never-ending franchise with many installments. That evolution however was not well received by the old fans, many of whom grew from praising this series high to despising everything about it. To see an example of that, watch Yahtzee's reviews of the original and compare them to later installment.
As one of the older fans who heard about the series in 2006 and played it in 2007, I well remember what it was back then and what Ubisoft have promised us then. So can easily tell just how different the outcome was compared to what was promised. So, I decided to write down the story of the game as it was intended then compared to what it became.
Assassin's Creed known as a historical series, but that is only part of the picture, mere surface really. Original plot was much more ambitions that that: it intended to have an equal stand both in history and in modern world, bridging them together into rather ambition tale. A tale that could be called a conspiracy theory, if authors would not disclaim any claims to veracity and put in disclaimer that the story is work of fiction with no claim to historical accuracy. Nonetheless early AC games we very curious "what if" story, by filling the gaps in historical facts with a rather creative narrative, that leaves you wonder if that is what indeed have happened?
The starting point of the story was the Holy Grail. Back in Medieval times during Crusades there were talks about Holy Grail in the Holy Land, that ostensively has supernatural properties. There was even Arthurian legend about Sir Lancelot and the Holy Grail. Inspired by these stories, some crusaders even intended to find this Holy Grail, as they fought Muslims for control of the Holy Land. As Middle Age ended, the idea of Holy Grail with supernatural powers was dismissed as mere superstition and stories about it were relegated to the realm of fiction.
Assassin's Creed decided to speculate on that. What if a small group of Knights Templar indeed found a Holy Grail in the Holy Land and the device indeed possessed supernatural powers? The historical part of the game begins the moment where a certain assassin, Altair ibn la Ahud, interferes with the templars and steals the Grail for his order.
To top it up the contemporary part of the game begins with a secretive but very powerful corporation Abstergo, not only claiming to be the successor of the crusader era Knights Templar, but also that Holy Grail was not only real but was found by their members in the past. However, the above-mentioned Altair not only stole it from them but also assassinated everyone who knew been there when the grail was discovered. Believing that no man should wield the kind of power, grail has Altair hid it somewhere and then died. Ever since Templars searched for that, but all for naught.
However, as time passed and technology developed, Templars managed to create a device that can access genetic memories of people. With such a device they can find a descendant of that Altair, use the system on them to find out where Altair hid the grail and then go there to retrieve it. That is where Desmond, a kidnapped bartender and a descendant of Altair comes in. Abstergo kidnapped him to find out where Altair hid the grail.
However, when they started to use the genetic memory reader, animus, it glitched and refused to show the desired memory. After some tweaking, the engineer in charge, Vidic, figured they should instead access the memory, chronologically closest to the part where Altair hid the grail and gradually go from there towards the desired part. As Desmond re-lives memories of Altair from many hundreds of years ago, events in contemporary world around him developing in their own pace.
Just when in the past Altair defeated the last templar, but before he could hide the grail. A member of contemporary successor to crusader era Assassins, who works undercover as Vidic's assistant, managers to break Desmond out of Abstergo and they disappear into the night as game leaves us wait for sequel for answers.
Back then the game was meant to be a trilogy, second part was meant to be about uncovering the nature of the grail, and the last part was meant to be set in the contemporary world, where modern assassins and templars continue their hidden war for the grail and fate of the world.
Stakes are high as grail indeed has seamlessly supernatural power. When Al-Muallim used it, all but Altair were driven into submission and even Altair had hard time fighting powers of grail. If templars get their hands on that, they will be able deprive the world of free will and control it at whim.
This over-the-top complex story is what got people interested in seeing the series through to the end where all the secrets and plot twists will be revealed.
Alas that were not to come. Second part was split into three games, or a game and two expansions. Third was re-imagined as another historical installment, this time set in Revolutionary War America. After that Assassin Creed was anything where protagonist wears a hood over their head. Original fans were felt betrayed by the company who in the name of corporate greed decided to stretch the franchise into infinite and deny them the conclusion to the original plot about the grail.
There were changes to the game world itself. Originally the conflict over grail was a secret hidden war, that few people were fully aware of. No one wanted to make knowledge of the grail public. That served two purposes. One is to give the story plausible believability, sure the creators could not prove it really happened as depicted in the game, but neither you can really prove with 100% certainty it did not happen. Only few people knew, and they did not tell their secrets to outsiders. Their secrets died with them.
Second is to allow more complexity to the world around you. Your few named targets know everything about the grail, assassins and are wary about you coming after them. Their uninitiated subordinates have no idea what their boss got so worked up over, so they fulfill their orders with certain degree of indifference and carelessness. Sometimes even very high-ranking figures have no idea. Closer to the end of the game one of the last templars pleads for protection from assassins to Richard I Lionheart of England. Altair instead asks Richard to reconsider. Richard has no idea what is going on, but decides to allow a duel between two, much to the charging of Robert.
That continues into the second part as well. After you help Lorenzo Medici to take control of Florence and sideline rival Pazzi family, guards of Florence became unusually friendly to you. However, when Savonarola takes power, they become hostile instead. Only select few are aware that assassins or templars even exist. For most ordinary people they do not exist. So, guards behave one way when your friends are in power and the other way when they are not. They neither know, nor care about secret war between assassins and templars.
A small detail that makes the world of the game much more complex and realistic even. Maybe Lorenzo Medici indeed was member of some secret society like Freemasons, maybe not. Even if he was a member he will not tell anyone uninitiated to the secret society. That theoretical possibly of all or at least some of that being true gives this story its unique appeal.
Just a couple of expansions later, in Revelations, templars and assassins fight openly on the streets of Constantinople, their flags are everywhere, by now it's no longer a speculative fiction but an alternative history. Also, ibn la Ahad from Altair's name means 'son of no one' in Revelations they instead showing him talking about his father, clearly scriptwriters were not familiar with the original plot. There is no more subtlety that made early AC games so compelling.
That said second part continues to give us more information about the grail, now called Apple of Eden for some reason, may be because its spherical. Now it's a device from an ancient humanoid civilization that lived before humans and completely died out before humas could build their civilization.
Revelations was the last game I played. It was already too far from what got me interested originally. I considered playing third part but never got to it. Instead of being completely set in contemporary times, it offers yet another historical setting and a protagonist that could hardly be a descendant of Altair. The original premise is we access generic memories of Altair's descendants. That is what Animus does. The game felt too far from the original concept to make much sense.
Games that went after third were all over the place, a pirate adventure in 4th that is hardly even AC at all. So does Desmond find the grail, does he defeat templars? When are the answers to the main plot coming? By now AC is just a brand that Ubisoft labels on anything to increase sales. Too sad, it could have been different.
Sure, I only know part of the picture as I did not play of watch the walkthroughs of later games, but time is short and even if there are some answers in footnote, it still proves the point that the game lost its original vision and was turned into a cash cow for Ubisoft.
I took some time to think on what I should put as a conclusion to this article. I guess a conclusion of the original story would be very desirable to get one day.
However, there is a bigger issue here as well. The one that is present in many games these days: disparity in story, in narrative and in overall feel of the game. When new scriptwriters mess up the plot, the game world falls apart and it's no longer the same game anymore. That is what killed modern WoW, that is what killed AC and many other titles.
Why developers do that? Did original creators simply quit the studio, and some sort of replacement had to be found? Even if that was the case, why not find someone who actually understands the plot? If original creators did not quit, then why they were not involved with the plot? Internal politics? Still, it feels strange, so strange that by now even a explanation that someone used the Apple of Eden from the game to take control of the studio will sound plausible. I do hope one day we will find the answer for this mystery.
Aside from that we, at least I, want to see games recapture the middle 2000s atmosphere that made them so compelling and appealing. What was lost since that time? Why was it lost? What can we do to make videogames great again?
Overall Rating 7.2 out of 10 - a rather simple arthouse type show.
I can recommend watching
This one is another of these unconventional shows with weird art and almost no dialogues, much like recently reviewed Angel Egg. That like alone might convince some to watch it and others to ignore it instead.
I am quite an expert at interpreting series of vague scenes with almost no dialogue into complex and profound stories.
Unlike Angel Egg, that had plenty of complex themes that took me a very long article to explain, this one is rather light on themes. All this show is about is showing metaphors for romance and sex in rapid progression. It can be called an allegory of sex. Over the course of 20 or so minutes the show compares sex with chase, with storm, with wild ride, with transformation, with intertwined sprouts and so on.
There are nominally only two characters, but in actuality there are several more. Others play out the metaphors of this show. A devilish male jinn/demon chases after pure and innocent female fairy. Before we can see if he can catch her, scene transforms into something else. He has rather pronounced and wicked eyes and face with pronounced features. Later this jinni advises the prince on how to sex properly. In contrast to jinn, fairy is light and most of her features are blurred and nigh invisible. The most pronounced part of her body is her curvy butt.
Jinn and fairy eventually make prince and princess to re-enact their own play with each other. Something that ostensively leads towards a very exciting sex. Finally, the show ends like it all was a princess's dream and did not really happen.
There is a fair bit of nudity in this show, but since it's so abstractly drawn, it hardly works as porn.
Art and character design is rather usual fantasy Arab theme, typical of Alladin, Prince of Persia and other western stereotypical depiction of middle east. It tries to be as beautiful and enchanting as Prince of Persia 2008 but falls somewhat short, partly because it's a decade older.
Overall, it's a usual type of an unconventional arthouse style show. It nothing too special or deep, but it's enjoyable enough to watch. I can recommend watching.
Overall Rating 7.5 out of 10 - A rare OVA that actually brings the best out of the original.
I recommend watching
I do not always review OVAs. One or two extra episodes often just stuff too boring to put in main show, so it's released as extra to entice people to by DVDs or spend extra in other way. Rarely they do try to enhance the original, like in Kanokon OVA, but end up failing. However, in case this show, the OVA is clearly a win.
When I was writing review for original Mondaiji-tachi I said that best things about it are female sexual exploitation and unconventional character of main protagonists. However, it later gets bogged down in themes like poverty, backbreaking work and childcare that plague late 2010s anime. Now in this OVA fixes it by removing all that bogged show down and only keeping the good parts.
Here we have plenty of females in sexy compromising poses, dressed in sexy clothes. They got, molested by tentacles, covered in sticky liquids, get their cloth destroyed and many more. However, that is not all, we also have Izayoi being OP, like he plays warlock in WoW.
If there is something that perhaps lacking is that we have not seen that snake molesting all the female characters.
Overall, this is possibly the best OVA I have seen, and I think the only one I rated higher than the original show. I can recommend watching.
Watching another isekai anime I could not help to notice a repeated use of the title, called "floor guardian". Even good takes on the videogame genre such as Overlord series do that, many others copy that.
However, what a floor guardian even is, if you look at world of Warcraft for example, you will not find one in the entire game. Most likely this is part of player jargon and used in lieu of boss, possibly something culturally acceptable and meaningful for a Japanese person.
Boss is a term used by players a lot, but it is never used by a game itself or in game characters. Reason for disparity is due to different objectives for communication between players and between NPCs in game.
Players need to communicate fast and precise. The game is fast paced, and any delay can be costly. There is no time to nitpick on titles of each individual character, a simple precise term that denote their role in game is needed. That is why players use terms such as: boss, trash, loot, CC, DPS, tank, healer buff, nerf and so on. These are technical terms that sum up much more complex actual names for spells, characters and other game aspects as well as denote their role in game. Refer to OMGWTFBBQ article (net rather than my blog) for the full list of abbreviations used by players.
On the other hand, NPCs in game and the game plot has to tell the story and immerse players in the world. To do that each character is given elaborate name, sometimes title and a role in the organisation they are part of. No real-life organisation would have a floor guardian and no person referred as boss has this written down on their business card. The game imitates reality so by extension it has none either. Instead, each NPC has a certain role in one or the other in game organisation. These range from royal and even divine titles to humble farmhands and shop keeper assistants. Each character is someone in the big world the game designers want to portray.
Broadly speaking both forms of communications are equally important for the whole experience. Player's jargon is needed to actually play and communicate with fellow players. The story language on the other hand allows you to feel that it's not just a game with game pieces, but a living breathing world, full of all sorts of people.
Any fiction is just as good as how well it can suspend our disbelief that its real. Yes, underneath the hood it's all numbers and game mechanics, they are important to master the game, but they are not why people play in the first place. People play because they find the world game set in compelling. Yes, it is a fictional fully made-up world, but if its likable and believable enough then people will keep coming back to it.
That is why what happens in this world is important. A one careless plot twist that does not fit the established world or characters and this whole illusion of the world falls apart.
That is why good actors train themselves to actually believe they are who they play in the movie. That way they can act like it really happens and viewers looking at them could believe it too. They cry like their own wife and child died in front of them, then bash villain like they a person who killed their loved ones.
A bad actor does half-hearted act that breaks the illusion and expose the 4th wall, allowing audience to realise it's all an act, no one died and there are cameras and director on the other side.
Characters calling themselves floor guardian is that kind of breach of 4th wall act. If you look on WoW lore, every dungeon boss has actual title and role, they are, chef wizards, lead engineers, cannoneers, fighting instructors, captains, inquisitors, lords, even school headmasters and so on. Behind every title there is a story and a role they play in their organisation story wise. Same with characters talking about game rules and game mechanics. Phrases such as gift game or geass scrolls are all such artificial concepts that expose them as mere game mechanics.
For example, NPCs in WoW do not say such things, they act like characters in screen are real people, experience real like sorrow or joy if someone dies or saved. In short act like real life people would in similar situation. Citizens of Darkshire is afraid undead or Worgen going to kill them all one of these days and then implore player to help them fend-off these threats off. They also ask you to contact every other Stormwind friendly locality and ask them to send help. All responses however are negative as they have too many problems of their own and could use some of Darkshire help if they can spare any.
That get you invested too as you realise that you are possibly the only one who stands between Darkshire and its obliteration at the hands of Worgen and undead. When you save them, they call give you gifts and promise to remember you, tell tales and celebrate your victories like in historical myth. You can become as immortalised as Momotaro, or Minamoto, or Till Eulenspiegel or Ivan Susanin or crusaders, name it. You saved them from a certain assured destruction, story wise that it. Yes, you will be remembered by fictional people, but still.
Yes, really game will not break if you do nothing and they will not die, but it's the illusion that they will that makes people love the world as much as they do and continue to play classic. This is one and quintessential thing that classic got right compared to modern WoW.
Generally High fantasy stories are like Lord of The Rings or cliche WWII movies. JRR Tolkien got the formula right in his books, that is why they are so loved by the fans.
In High Fantasy enemy is devil incarnate and trying to destroy everything and exterminate everyone; we either win or die. There could be variations on how exactly they plan to destroy everyone, or whether they honestly admit to their designs or believed so by their opponents. If they do not plan to destroy everything and kill everyone and can be trusted and negotiated reasonable terms with, then why all the struggle with fighting them to death. Let's just make a deal and have peace of our time, Neville Chamberlain style. It's the impossibility of compromise that makes all the struggle against the enemy necessary. When plot fails to deliver that impossibility of peace, it cheapens the whole experience.
It works in real life as well. Take even recent war between Russia and Ukraine. Russia called Ukrainians nazis and refuses to negotiate with them. Ukraine and Europe in turn consider Russia untrustworthy genocidal power who seeks to destroy Ukraine and Europe. It is not a situation where there can be trust in any agreement, not backed by something more concrete, like force and guarantees.
Originally WoW followed this formula faithfully. For as long as they continue to follow this formula, fans were happy.
In later expansion they started to deviate from it. NPCs started to admit that not much will change even if you do nothing. You no longer save them from assured destruction, just kill some mobs to earn some gear. Story progressively went somewhere else.
There are no antagonists to speak of. As I wrote in one of my previous articles about WoW, western stories are almost always antagonist driven. No antagonist is almost as good as no story.
Before enemy was deadly and good guys are completely hapless without you. You were the center of all efforts to win and save Azeroth, everyone else either supported you or relied on you. It was all about you. When Nietzsche talked about Will to Power, he meant this: the power to decide the future of the world.
After you end up being an accessory to the dodgy protagonists like Garrosh or Sylvanas and later even Shadowlands Jailer if I understand story correctly. It's no longer your show, it's their show and you are just an extra. You are no longer the power, they are, you are just around. You can have that IRL, as IRL most of us can affect nothing, why bother playing the game.
The reason to play games is to feel more powerful and influential than you really are. Games can give you what reality alas cannot. That fulfilment of Will to Power. When games and other entertainment stop giving you that, then why continue?
If it's not about you, everyone can be just as fine without you, then why play, why struggle, why invest into the game, what all these efforts will accomplish? Videogames were one of few opportunities for an average person to feel they are important and matter a lot. If you take that away than what remains? Crunching numbers until your numbers are bigger than their numbers?
It is the same with isekai or any other anime. In some anime, like Code Geass you feel that future of the world is at stake. You can feel invested.
Yet other shows make you feel discouraged instead, system is just too strong or stiff or inert, and you can never change it no matter what you try.
Back to the original topic. When writing about videogames, player jargon and game story narrative should stay distinct. Authors should not mix them as that breaks the whole thing apart. Instead, two distinct narratives should exist side by side, one describes the action from story point of view, and the other describe in in gamer's jargon terms.
To achieve that one way is to make one character speak in jargon and the other in story terms. One of the players, invested in story or narrator can give plot context of what is going on, while another experienced player will speak jargon instead.
As I was often writing in my articles, quality of writing has declined in all media, movies, anime, videogames. In this article I have describe how it declined exactly and how to fix it. Hopefully it will result in more and better stories across all media.
Overall Rating 6.5 out of 10 - Rather unusual show with mixed good and bad aspects.
I recommend watching.
This show felt rather refreshing at first but gradually felt into usual problems so many other shows of this era suffer from.
It is an isekai but instead of usual adaptation to new world and struggle in the new world, it was several OP protagonists going wild and pushing boundaries of what was thought possible. Clearly stronger than what their hosts have anticipated, they each went on to break the game in their own way, especially Izayoi. Kill toughest demons and gods just because you can. A motivation not uncommon in actual gamers, watch Spiffing Brit videos if you want to see some of that.
Add to that cute looking Black Rabbit whose sexy revealing outfit gets frequently admired by Izayoi and Shiroyasha and you have a good show. Sweet, sweet female objectification and exploitation: they are just pretty dressed dolls and puppets for us to have fun with. Later they also added another cute girl, Leticia Draculea and they made her dress in maid outfit. Decent stuff all round.
Later however it gets worse. Leticia got almost no screen time after her ark. Black Rabbit suddenly stops being helpless damsel and fights Izayoi. The worst protagonist, Asuka, gets lots of screentime, but does not suffer in any of that, like she did in Leticia ark.
Character motivation somewhat changes too, or to be more precise drifts into less appealing zone. Instead of minmaxers (a type of gamer) they end up more of whatever goes: more chaos and action over more victory and loot, typical of actual gamers.
Game world, already rather convoluted with many overengineered complex rules and even complex mediation system over these rules. There are role and place for everything. Dispute between two corporations over the terms of multibillion contract is something to be mediated by qualified judges in a courtroom where examination of all the rules and terms as well as facts on the ground are needed. This is something a court can find a fair solution to. An invasion of semi-undead troupe who first infected everyone with uncurable disease and then try to use mediation and game rules to suspend the battle and prevent them from curing the disease is ludicrous instead. In what kind of real-life situation in will fly? Yet this show does that. For every complex plot that works and makes sense like in Code Geass, there are several dozens more that do not. This show is of latter type.
Finally, epilogue leaves to be desired as well. Instead of a grand victory, it's just watering of the barren land.
Overall, it is flawed but decent experience. I can recommend it.
Overall Rating 7.0 out of 10 - Nice show with thick late 90s early 2000s nostalgia
I recommend watching
It has been a while since I have reviewed anything. That is partly because this show is 49 episodes long, 4 seasons of most other shows.
I liked Macross 7 mostly for its very late 90s feel. The show really brings back the better of late 90s memories: fancy sleek looking gismos, imaginative drinks and outfits all as outlandish and surreal as possible - helps you forget the shit all around us in this post-crisis austerity era.
I could somewhat relate to the protagonist as well. Basara has very unconventional worldview and frequently clashes with everyone over it. In the end Basara always ends up being right. That is just like me: I am right but no one sees it my way yet.
On the other hand Basara's overly pacifist views are hardly that close to mine. That said in late 90s they made more sense that nowadays.
That said show has its drawbacks too. To begin with, its far too long. Instead of clear cut filler arks, they just stretched story very thin. There are several very repetitive episodes before something significant changes and then there are more repetitive episodes after that.
Story is somewhat interesting. There is now another alien race that survives by consuming life energy of humans. Their approach to addressing this problem gradually evolves as show progresses, making it interesting to follow.
Unlike the original Macross, here music has supernatural power that somehow stronger than weapons. In the original music had no supernatural fighting power but only appealed to enemy psychologically. Original Macross fleet convinced Zentradi to defect with better culture and way of life, kind of what EU does IRL and it works in both show and IRL. Compare to that Macross 7 does not try to showcase any clever use of soft power. Its a pure entertainment show.
Characters are somewhat OK. Best girl is the flower girl in a wide hat. She is a very devoted Basara fan who wants to give him flowers one day. The show consistently shows her struggle to get close to him. Basara's band, Fire Bomber, consists of quiet drummer Vefiddas who almost always drums on something, Rey who struggles to keep band together and patch differences between members and rather annoying Milene that complains all the time. Max, Milia and Exedore return from the original Macross. There are also stick up Gamlin and cocky Docker who is this Macross's Fokker. Enemies consist of Gepelnitch with a plan that gets revealed gradually, ugly guy Gigil who yells at people, Sivil that struggles to say basic words and Gabil who says beaty in every sentence.
Overall it is a solid experience and I can recommed, especially if you are nostalgic for the late 90s.
