Star Wars Movies

 

Today, I will discuss all the main “episodes” of Star Wars. Naturally spoilers ahead:

Episode 4 - A New Hope (1977):

For an “action movie”, there isn’t a lot of action here, and the action we see is quite goofy for the most part. And that’s great. I quite enjoy the rusty futuristic aesthetic. Also, James Earl Jones’s performance as Darth Wader is nothing short of brilliant. I find it kinda weird that Luke Skywalker takes the murder of his family a little too easily, especially after he also loses Obi-Wan; this all makes it somewhat difficult to emotionally resonate with his arc. Yet still, it is a quite pleasant, easily-digestible look to a different era in movies and science fantasy[1].

Episode 5 - The Empire Strikes Back (1980):

This movie has a lot of Darth Vader in it, so naturally it’s very good. Yoda’s scenes are also enjoyable. The AT-AT machines are quite funny, as if the Empire designed them to be as vulnerable as possible, but Han Solo is a hit-and-miss character to me. Cocky charming guys are usually not that interesting, in particular, his creepy advances towards Leia are cringeworthy. Overall it is still an iconic film, making Star Wars the franchise we know today, perhaps more so than A New Hope.

Episode 6 - Return of Jedi (1983):

In isolation, the ending of the movie is very powerful. Palpatine is excellent, so is the moral struggle between Luke and Darth Wader, crowned with a tastefully bittersweet ending. However, I don’t buy Luke’s personality shift; probably because there is too much action in this movie, there isn’t the time to show his resolution growing organically, and his “don’t fight hate with hate” thesis has a shaky foundation, since the first time we see him is his epic takedown of the fat creepy alien who is into human women for some reason. Neither do we see Luke coming to terms with the dead Stormtroopers. This movie is one of the iconic examples of redemption being granted only to a select few villains, usually ones with the worst crimes. Does the movie mean to say Darth Vader is inherently deserving of redemption because he was “good before” or due to his status as a father? Unlikely. Rather, we ought to think of action and character scenes separately; characters simply don’t “fight with hate” when the swelling orchestra music is playing. This makes it very difficult to take the movie seriously, This is the very thing video games are often criticized for: “The game indulges the player in senseless violence only occasionally reminding that violence is bad”, as the usual complaint goes. Except of course, not only are games a young medium that is still exploring what “narrative” and “gameplay” mean in the first place, movies don’t have the structural limitations of games. It’s strange that the response when these issues are brought up is often “it’s a movie.” No, my issue isn’t that I wouldn’t personally forgive Darth Vader, rather, I don’t know enough about Luke as a character as to why he does it and I don’t know what “dark side” is. I’m not asking the movie to explain to me how the Death Star functions, I just want it to deliver the themes it sets up. And the rest of the movie is mediocre. The Ewoks on the other hand are the second best thing in the film after Palpatine. It’s still worth watching to finish the trilogy, but this film in particular is a strong argument that Star Wars works best as simple adventures.

Episode 1 - The Phantom Menace(1999):

Nowadays, most mainstream movies and shows (Disney, Marvel etc.) are in a weird place. They are obviously aimed for children, but are also overly self-conscious about looking childish. TPM provides a breath of fresh air by being openly and proudly a kids movie. A kid protagonist that builds his own robot, wins a deadly race and defeats a space armada by his own, colorful backgrounds, copious usage of slapstick, funny droid enemies, lots of goofy aliens and the whole princess rescue part that’s just impossible to watch without a chuckle.

The movie also rejects the dichotomy of “being childish” and “serious themes”. For such a lighthearted movie, the action truly feels dangerous at times. It has such a bittersweet ending too. Anakin is deprived of his father figure, left with an institution that clearly is unable to understand him, vulnerable to the influence of Palpatine and Obi-wan is forced to grow into a role he is clearly not ready for. We see a clearly flawed side of the Jedi. Even Qui-gon, despite his progressive outlook is quite passive against the slavery all around him on the Tatooine. This is a very strong setup for a trilogy.

TPM also has the best action scenes in any Star Wars movie by a good margin. The podracing sequence is so exhilarating that I cannot watch it sitting down. Darth Maul’s duel is simply excellent. All pieces fit perfectly the music, the environment, the choreography and the straightforwardly menacing villain. The best part is, the movie knows how to make the action breathe. It feels very close to ANH in this respect. A large part of this film allows us to feel the mood and the scenery; such as with the often-maligned trade deal scene. It’s quite energetic but never overwhelming, nothing overstays its welcome.

This is the best Star Wars movie. Of course, it has some Certified Lucas Moments like Midiclorians, Jar-Jar Binks’ Jamaican accent and star-crossed romance between Padme and Anakin; but honestly, the original trilogy is also guilty of similar sins. Maybe because I saw this movie in 2020 it made me feel a vibe that I have never found in another movie, again in much the same way as ANH, but even stronger. I highly recommend this film to anyone who wants to have a jolly time.

Episode 2 - Attack of the Clones(2002):

This movie fails at its responsibilities. We should have seen the both the fire-forged-brotherhood and communication problems between Anakin and Obi Wan, the ways Palpatine is corrupting Anakin and the conflict between surrogate fathers. The movie should have also explored the flaws of Jedi philosophy: Anakin slaughters an entire village of desert aliens and the council doesn’t take any action. What am I supposed to think about the Jedi here? If we keep the previous movie in mind they come off as detached, immoral and incompetent glorified cops. However, I am not sure that the movie thinks the slaughter of an entire village is that big of a deal; like we ought to agree with the fantastic racism towards the aliens, after all we saw them as nothing more than stereotypical violent barbarians in ANH. We only get the vague “ dark side” stuff, here it’s even more confusing than it is in RoJ. I would say Anakin is already “dark” enough to be put down, or at least be deprived of his sword or something, but the movie insists he is being gradually corrupted. The great setup of The Phantom Menace is thoroughly wasted. We only see the glimpses of what could have been: like the infamous “I don’t like sand” scene. That’s a brilliant portrayal of an emotionally stunted teenager, the movie should have focused on that.

Instead we get action scenes. Lots of action scenes. One after another So… many… action ...scenes! At least the car chase and the fight with the bounty hunter is fun to watch, even though the surrounding plot isn’t that exciting. But the latter half of the movie is completely off the rails.

Oh my god Darth Saruman and Yoda are fighting, woah look at the coughing robot with the multiple lightsabers, wow big alien animals, pew-pew-pew clone battles. We are never allowed to absorb anything; the movie constantly wants to be bigger, cooler, more explosive. And the worst part is, the film loudly makes it clear that the war is meaningless: Palpatine is no longer a merely shadowy figure, we are supposed to solemnly watch him to gain power but also clap at the very battles he is causing in order to do so. Darth Saruman doesn’t matter, droids don’t matter, the bounty hunter especially doesn’t matter.

This is a film without a coherent language, mostly a collage of “epic” scenes. It’s perfectly skippable.

Episode 3 - Revenge of the Sith(2005):

This movie’s main weakness is that it tries to build upon AotC. A lot of scenes that should have been legendary feels slightly off because of the shaky foundation: such as Anakin’s confrontation of Palpatine or the Obi Wan vs. Anakin fight. The confusing language strikes again when Anakin kills Saruman, we are probably supposed to think it as an escalation of Anakin’s darkness, but it cannot be that, he did worse in the previous movie to people not responsible for an interstellar war.

The movie’s plot additions aren’t that strong either. The whole Padme plot is a bit messy. Anakin should have become a Sith because he shares the worldview of Palpatine and should have lost Padme because of his lust for power. The desperation angle weakens this, it makes it so that Anakin is more or less duped into being Darth Vader, it comes off as hilarious rather than tragic: “He said he would save Padme for realsies, but he didn’t, NOOOOOOOO”

That being said, RotS is still worth watching. The action scenes have good tension, Christopher Lee’s talents aren’t wasted this time. The movie feels appropriately suffocating, as if it itself is falling into the dark side. And of course, Ian McDiarmic completely owns every scene he is in. The film is quite enjoyable in isolated movements, at the very least it feels like George Lucas directed the movie as he exactly wanted, for better or worse, which is quite interesting in its own way.

Episode 7 - The Force Awakens(2015)

This movie feels a bit too safe, too interested in re-capturing the magic of the originals. Whoops, the empire is back again. Perhaps this republic thing needs to be reconsidered after all! It sure is helpless against power-hungry leaders and it’s weird that the second rebellion is again led by a princess. But the movie is adamant that the Republic is the ideal to strive for, and won’t elaborate further. Also, the First Order is so obviously made in the image of Nazis that it’s boring, especially because they are still a stand-in for shapeless totalitarianism, not an honest exploration of fascism, not to mention we know the bad guys are designed to look cool. No, this is another Star Wars movie that begins in a desert and ends in blowing ships, nothing too interesting happens. It doesn’t help that Snoke is just hot air, neither threatening nor goofy.

It is not all bad however. Most new characters like Rey and Finn are quite fine. Adam Driver has a puppy face and I also enjoyed that the film is at least willing to wave old characters goodbye. It’s not too offensive nor creative, but it is good enough to develop original ideas upon it.

Episode 8 - The Last Jedi(2017)

This movie is filled with original ideas: We have a tired, defeated and very human Luke Skywalker; a conflict between good guys that goes beyond “recklessness vs timidity”, discussions on heroism, a villain who repeatedly rejects redemption, a smashed Darth Vader helmet, a new understanding of Force and Yoda’s ghost destroying the old and last Jedi temple. The movie directly confronts the failure of Jedi and finally materializes on what the “dark side” is. It’s not an abstract concept of temptation, it is naked lust for power, which has always made more sense for me. It helps that the movie is just solid all around. There is still a bit too much action, but at least it is well-paced and creates a coherent, easy-to-follow story. It doesn’t have scenes that are particularly explosive, but it doesn’t have weird stuff either, it is a good movie in a much more balanced, modern way. It ends in such a way that gives way to endless possibility. Old Star Wars is old Star Wars. New Star Wars can be anything it wants.

Episode 9 - The Rise of Skywalker(2019)

And it chose to throw that all away in the name of nostalgia anyway…

It’s truly incredible that the movie is so thoroughly dedicated to the sole goal of turning the franchise into an endless nostalgia treadmill, it curses all wisdom of storytelling, any shred of consistency, the older movies it wants to imitate and the future stories of Star Wars. We can go through the many, many flaws of this movie, but I am not inspired to do so: Because not only won’t I say anything too different from what’s already been told in many long analysis videos, the movie is not even inspiring enough to lambaste it. It boldly does not care, and laughs at the audience if they dare to do so. It is one of the worst movies I have ever seen, period.

Conclusions

If you only know Star Wars from cultural osmosis like I did for a long time, are the movies worth watching? Attack of the Clones is kind of empty and Rise of the Skywalker is hot garbage, but otherwise at its best, Star Wars can be profound, and at least usually interesting in its failures. I don’t care about it as a fictional world but it has proven itself to be a trustworthy vehicle for fun adventures; as long as it doesn’t worship itself too much.

Let’s end this by ranking the movies. Ranking media is a little silly, because even media that is not fun to experience can be fun intellectually, and even bad entries contribute something to overall experience. But my Star Wars take wouldn’t feel complete otherwise, so here it goes:

Episode 1 > 8 > 5 > 4 > 3 > 6 > 7 >>>>>>> 2 >>>>>>>>> 9

Notes

[1]: Science fiction makes commentary on technology and scientific development and has one foot in contemporary scientific knowledge. Science fantasy has no aspirations to be plausible, the technology is completely replaceable with magic, and often these stories have some type of magic alongside technology. It’s not really a genre on it’s own, but rather, an aesthetic theme for fantasy stories.

This article is written thanks to my dearest Patrons, namely: Acelin, Effy, Laura Watson, MasterofCubes, Makkovar, Morgan, Olympia, Otakundead, Sasha. Also thanks to Alex(@jyhadscientist on Twitter) for his perfect editing work

Operating System Myths

 

There are two pernicious myths about operating systems: First, Linux (1) is difficult to use for casual users. Second, Windows operating systems are easy to use for a casual user. What is “a casual user”? Here, it refers to a user who engages with the computer mainly via applications in order to surf the web, watch movies, play games, check emails, make spreadsheets etc. and doesn’t really tinker with the computer unless necessary. They don’t do anything too intricate or specialized.

1. Linux is actually quite easy:

First of all, it’s free. When you just need something to get your system running, Linux is the easiest option you can get, far easier than pirating Windows. Ubuntu for example, installs really fast and without causing any trouble, with helpful instructions on its website. If your computer is not really powerful, Linux has lightweight distributions too. More importantly, you control what you want to install.

Linux’ arcane reputation comes from “the terminal”(2) but really, a casual user can totally have all the functionality they need without ever opening a terminal nowadays. However, using the terminal is not that difficult either, mainly because a casual user doesn’t need to have in depth knowledge. When you want to do something, you search the Web and get the exact lines of code you need to enter. After using this function for a little while, you might discover that the terminal is quite useful and even easier to use than a graphic interface in some cases!

Linux has a huge list of open-source software for all kind of utilities, once again open-source software is actually more beneficial to a casual user than a professional one; because community oversight brings more security and functionality as well as nothing beating the ease of using software without having to deal with any DRM.

You can still even use a lot of Windows software! Some of them are natively available to Linux, but even those that aren’t have workarounds now. In particular, Linux has come a long way in terms of running Windows games. For example, a lot of Steam games will run perfectly fine with an easy to enable add-on, lots of others become playable with a little tweaking and, and even the number of native ports is growing.

When I switched to Ubuntu, among the first things I have discovered is how fast file transfer is. For years I have thought that it was about the USB cable or my external hard-drive… no, the hardware can be very fast actually, with the correct software. Also searching files work now. There are probably lots of small quality of life things that make everything easier that are too minor to notice.

Lastly, if a casual user wants to dig deeper, the Linux environment is just more welcoming. It usually takes much less effort to achieve complicated tasks on Linux than on Windows thanks to the baked in accessibility.

2. Windows is not easy to use!

Promoting Linux is fine and good, but it is especially important to debunk this widely-spread talking point, because it is not only free advertisement and anti open-software propaganda, but also actively lets Microsoft get away with worse and worse software. This needs to be stressed, because while Microsoft’s output has always had inconsistent quality, nowadays it is getting more and more actively hostile to the users:

Installing Windows at all can be pain: You have very little control over what it is actually installing and Windows loves to install bloat (3) on your computer. Also, get ready to download lots of updates, whether you want to or not!

Seriously, Windows updates have been quite atrocious for a long time now. They are not just security fixes, often “improvements'' on apps you are probably not using, sometimes changes to settings on your computers, and can leave a big chunk of files behind (for restoration in theory, but made meaningless by the frequency of updates). Windows has a history for introducing all kinds of (sometimes fatal) bugs. Most importantly, updates have been mandatory for years, until Microsoft finally allowed users to decline updates(but only until the next supported build). Despite what tech companies might tell you, willingly giving up the control of your systems is not casual, it’s being a consooomer.

Deleting non-system apps and files should be a pretty casual affair. But Windows 10 is rather picky about it. Say, I want to delete Cortana, but I can’t. There is probably a way, but users need to do research and make potentially dangerous changes to their system just because the OS arbitrarily makes things difficult.

Windows was never that great at deletions in general. A lot of software have separate files across many directories, sometimes not everything is deleted and there is lots of residue in the Registry Editor. The reason there are so many different clean-up software available is that casual users would prefer things to be actually deleted when they press delete!

Windows loves to invade your privacy nowadays. Thankfully, you can disable (hopefully all) data-mining stuff, but the fact that it enables those without asking is at all so infuriating. It preys on the casual user’s naivety.

Security was always kind of an issue. While it is quite better compared to the heyday of anti-virus software, you can never be sure what the newest version of Windows will bring. Of course, compromises on user control is in of itself, a security problem.

Apart from increasing hostility and fatal errors, the worst thing about Windows is that it is not outright terrible, but just functional enough to make people get accustomed to a mediocre computer experience. There are just lots of small annoyances that most casual users probably think as normal:

• As I mentioned above, searching stuff is somewhat painful. Especially because the Start Menu search bar is rather useless.

• Naming files seems to be buggy, if a file name starts with an uppercase letter and I attempt to turn it to lowercase, it reverts back to the uppercase. Only changing the file name to something different first works.

• When I have an external memory drive plugged, if I do slightest modification on anything, the USB will refuse to be unplugged with the safe option.

• “Blue screen of death” shouldn’t have been so widespread. There is a good degree of improvement on stability, but again, all can go haywire in an update.

• Whenever the computer slows down to a crawl the Task Manager becomes near useless, because it doesn’t have priority over other programs. This has happened to me so many times, only resolving with a forced shutdown.

• Things like System Restore or hardware repair won’t work when you need it the most.

• Windows isn’t very good at explaining itself. Most of the time, you will get no clues as to why an error is occurring, various stuff like “fix the issue” or “search the problem” are rarely helpful, there aren’t many tips or directions beyond the most basic of the basics. This isn’t too much of a flaw in terms of OS design per se, but it shows that it doesn’t do much to deserve being called “user-friendly” either.

• Similarly, citing “gaming” as a positive for Windows is rather ironic because Microsoft’s forays into creating PC gaming environments have been disastrous: with first Games For Windows Live infesting games, now Microsoft Store proudly occupying The Start Menu. It has a host of problems, for example some games bought in the store run perform worse than the same game bought fromSteam. God forbid that a casual user might expect Microsoft software to perform well on Windows.

Windows Bad, So What?

While Windows can be quite bad on occasion, that’s not the main point. I am not writing this out of mere commitment to open software or disdain of Microsoft, though both are very valid stances. I am not writing this as a computer nerd who bashes everything she doesn’t use because she has fallen in love with her tools, either.

No, I am writing this because we need to stop giving free advertisement to Microsoft and making people stop fearing computers so much. Perhaps 10-20 years ago, concerns about Linux were understandable. Most people use Windows because it came with the laptops they have bought, it was their first OS, and used for years before even knowing any alternatives existed, and even when they heard about Linux, it looked like it’s own small world, it was often used on expensive workstations, there were so many distributions and modifications, you needed to know what you are doing, back then the internet wasn’t as widely available and there were not a lot of resources to support new users. Linux was used by programmers, by geeks, by server admins, it wasn’t for them. Besides, people have always been somewhat aware that Windows isn’t that great, but they thought they needed it. We all need Windows right?

The answer however is that no, we don’t. We don’t need Windows. While it is often just okay to use, It has never been the best at anything an OS does, and there are only a few true reasons to prefer Windows over a Linux distro.

• Wanting to use specific software that only works well on Windows.

• Developing software specifically for .NET, Win32, and similar environments.

• You are using a computer you have no say on it(e.g a workplace)

For any purpose you can think of, there is probably a specialized Linux distro. For most casual users, Linux can do anything they want, and more. Don’t heed endless nerd fights about distros, just use a mainstream one like Mint or Ubuntu, and you will be fine.

I don’t even recommend dual-partitioning your computer to keep Windows. Even if you can find a free version (4), I advise against keeping it, because the business model which Windows is developed for is becoming more hostile to users, especially casual users. You can be never too sure that an update won’t blow up your computer.

If you can, avoid Windows. Support free, open software. There has been never a better time for it.

...

(1) Linux is actually the name of the kernel used in the GNU Linux family of operating systems, but y’know, everyone knows what you mean when you say Linux.

(2) In the past, computers were used by typing text commands. Today, this can be achieved with Command Prompt on Windows and Bash on Linux. While Windows and Mac greatly de-emphasized command-line interface in favor of a graphical one, in late 1990s Linux was used for professional tasks, so the users both favored the power of the commands and didn’t want the computers to slow down by GUI. Although many distros have nice GUIs today, Linux can still be entirely operated by a text interface. The interface is called terminal because Linux and its ancestor UNIX were often used in mainframe computers: Big, towering machines which are accessed by multiple users through a terminal screen without its own hardware, kind of like ATMs.

(3) Anything you don’t want on your computer

(4) I have access to a student edition of Windows 10 because of my university’s agreements, but of course “free” also includes pirating and Microsoft more or less implicitly supports that too. It’s always a bad omen when a company wants you to use their proprietary software no matter what (and Microsoft really wants you to use Windows 10).

This article is written thanks to my dearest Patrons, namely: Acelin, Effy, Laura Watson, MasterofCubes, Makkovar, Morgan, Olympia, Otakundead, Sasha. Also thanks to Alex (@jyhadscientist on twitter) for his perfect editing work.

Game Criticism

 How can I write better about games? What do I look for in a video game essay, and to some extent, media critique as a whole? Review, retrospective, critique or analysis; for the purposes of this discussion, they are all essays about a released game or part of a game.

A central theory:

For a long time, game reviews were written in order to draw attention to the games as much as, if not more than, to critique them. As these essays were pretty much the only way to get any information on the games, and too many of the reviews served as barely-concealed advertisements, some still do even now. Nowadays, this function is now performed by long video essays; while they are often referred to as critiques, they are really commentated walkthroughs with some critique in them. To be clear, I love those kinds of videos; there is true journalistic value in a traditional review that combines basic impressions and breakdown of a game’s success on performance, accessibility, whether it justifies its price etc, but they don’t have the captivating essence of media criticism in them. A critique essay is different in that, it provides a theory, a core statement from one or multiple perspectives established by the author.

Descriptiveness:

A common beginner’s trap in fiction-writing is to overuse adjectives. Essay-writing has the opposite problem, pages can be easily filled with a swarm of alluring and all-encompassing descriptors like “good”, “bad”, “love” or“don’t like'', followed copious usage of “very”, “really” or “absolutely”. These words are easy to use because they are so simple; yet often, they are loaded with meanings they cannot carry. A sentence such as “I enjoy it but it’s bad” is okay to say casually but sounds utterly meaningless in a text which is supposed to define a perspective to view the game.

Anyone can make a list of “pros” and “cons”, a fundamental requirement for a good essay is to dig under that. I purposely limit the use of these words in my essays so that I can avoid staying on surface level and make my writing more evocative.

Openness

A sibling problem to the lack of creative descriptors is to rely on overly vague words and phrases, most of which are marketing buzzwords, unsurprisingly.

• Fantasy settings categorically cannot be “realistic”. The sense of believability they are aiming to achieve can be called “verisimilitude”.

• “JRPG” doesn’t mean the game has “turn-based combat” or “anime style visuals”. It just means “a RPG of Japanese origin”.

• “Anime-style” is quite vague too. Does it mean “a bright color palette, somewhat life-like proportions with simplified faces?” That doesn’t say much, at least giving an example from a show, director, studio etc. would be much more helpful.

• “Generic” is not a terrible word in the abstract but assuming that the reader has a similar range of media exposure as the essayist has, however, is.

• “Not a real video game”, alongside terms like “walking simulator”, often collapses the multitude of ways we can understand interactivity into strangely derogatory statements about who gets to sit with the big boys.

• “A Skinner box game/system” is sometimes used as a cooler way to say shallowly repetitive but it is much more fitting to games which are designed to be as addictive as possible, at the expense of the player.

• Nearly all instances of “objective(ly)” either can be safely removed from a sentence or replaced with a synonym of “definitely”.

• “Subjective(ly)” either means “please don’t harass me over this”, which is sad but understandable, or an eye-rolling way to express preference over an “objective” idea.

• No “deconstruction”, “subversive” or “ground-breaking” please, unless you have a strong grasp on genre history.

• If we define “allegory” as it is used in “allegory of the cave”, then it does require a strong hint at authorial intent, at least.

• Games which are openly backed by publishers are sometimes called “indie”. Quite jarring to read when the author clearly doesn’t know what “itch.io” is.

• Creators may be “pretentious”, but when applied to individual works the word becomes a roundabout and, dare I say, pretentious way to call them bad.

• “Overrated” doesn’t tell me much. Who is praising the game too much? Why does that matter in the critique? Another inferior replacement for “bad”.

• “Underrated” is mostly harmless but occasionally applied to games which have already entered many best games lists. It is not the same as “niche”.

• A “niche” game can be said to have sharp features that appeal to people with a dedicated interest. It is not necessarily unpopular, but also not something that would get extensive coverage or be played by every moderately large streamer on release day, either.

• While it is not very common in game reviews, possibly because video games often aim for a power fantasy appeal, “Mary Sue” is still shallow and very markedly gendered.

• Words like “modern classic”, “masterpiece” or “magnum opus” lose their weight when they are used for any new slightly impressive game. Writers should exercise restraint and let their experience simmer, and test how it holds up over time.

• For that matter, “experience” can be easily over-used too. Games-writing can easily drown in words like this if we are not conscious about them.

Truthfully, all words have a potential to feel empty if the author uses them as shorthands for concepts that you have a drastically different understanding of; it is the author’s job to make sure you are on the same page. This is why I force myself to be open with my assumptions, expectations, standards and biases as much as possible. A consistent terminology also contributes to a healthier collective vocabulary for discourse around gaming.

Leaning into the heart:

An objective text about a game would be merely a series of observations without any commentary. An essay will always be biased. A good essay owns up to its biases. It doesn’t make arbitrary separations between taste and “quality”. It doesn’t attack nor necessarily affirm other tastes. It doesn’t downplay its preferences to revere an imagined authority. It doesn’t make vast cultural observations based solely on personal judgement.

I try my best to avoid using subjectivity as an excuse to avoid deeper analysis, nor use objectivity to seem convincing. Nothing is ever too personal to dissect, as often said about humor or music. There is no reason to start sentences with “I think”, “I feel” or “I believe” unless the clarification actually helps. Nothing is too universal to ascend personal preferences, something that some essayists seek to achieve by using words like “fact”, “design”, “system”, “framework”, “writing”, or “cinematography”.

A window to the writer:

Writing a critique is a statement that sharing opinions matters in and of itself. It doesn’t need, and shouldn’t be burdened by a mission to convert people or make a definitive statement that ends a discussion forever. It doesn’t need to provide helpful feedback to the developers, it’s not a beta test report.

Whether I agree with an essay or not doesn’t matter much. A good essay that I agree with helps to put my thoughts into words. If I disagree with it, it gives me insights into someone else’s world. Above all else, a great essay is a journey I undertake with the author, a journey which I discover not only new perspectives on games, but also, new things about myself.

Boldness:

A good essay doesn’t mince words. It isn’t swallowed in the pitch dark hole of nuance. It is exactly as positive or negative as it wants to be. More than that, great essays often go beyond the dichotomy of praise and criticism, they dissect and rebuild the object of critique in fresh, complex and imaginative ways, unrestrained by authorial intent or common cultural observations.

However, I can understand the hesitance. The audience of video games are often defensive to the point of inciting harassment towards game critics simply over mentioning things that exist in the game. Frequently, any sign of confidence receives accusations of being aggressive or pretentious, especially when the writer is perceived as undeserving e.g a woman. Paradoxically, there is also an incentive to bring out as many flaws as possible, to take a beloved game down a peg, and to be loudest and the most confrontational voice in the room.

This is another reason why staying true to the heart is so important. In great essays, even the harshest words can sound passionate. A purely nitpicky essay in contrast, often grasps at straws, contradicts itself multiple times or worse, will be flatly dishonest about the source material and it becomes clear that the writer doesn’t really care about the game they have chosen to write about.

Responsibility

Even essays with a small audience base like mine have an impact on people, it colors their opinion about media in some way. If my essays paint a fledgling creator’s work in an excessively unfavorable light, or drunkenly sing about the newest corporate game that carries an undeniable amount of taint within it, what do they add to the discussion? This is not a matter of tone nor a call to uphold some vague idea of fairness and certainly, no media is beyond critique but rather, critique is not always the most important thing to write about with regards to media. What always matters is, essays shouldn’t cause harm.

Highlighting creators

Game industry has a crediting problem and it spills into media about games too. It’s all too common to only name studios and publishers, and maybe a couple of famous directors. But most games are collaborative efforts and individuals leave a lot of footprint in the games they work on. So, we should grow a habit of highlighting creators whenever appropriate.

Including content warnings

Playing great games with full knowledge often allows us to play the game in more enjoyable ways that a blind playthrough simply cannot provide. Seeing something for the first time is not really that crucial. However, it is still a unique experience we can only have once. It doesn’t matter how old or popular a piece of media is, it is guaranteed that the significant majority of the world has not seen it. Readers also have a right to know if they will read something mood-crushing or triggering. This is why content warnings, both for spoilers and sensitive material alike should be a standard practice for essays. This way, essayists can both be considerate and write without caring about spoilers. Indeed, spoiling the game is necessary, there is simply no way to do comparative media analysis, discuss themes or convey the game’s impact without going in as deep as needed.

Diligence

Lack of research is often better at spreading misinformation than blatant lies. A good essay requires avoids falling into the behavior such as:

• Recycling common video game myths, rumors and factoids.

• Presenting speculations as facts.

• Mixing canon and personal reading. To be clear, I don’t put much value on “canon” in my understanding of media, but it is still crucial not to misrepresent the text.

• Falsely quoting creators. This happens to non-English creators more often, due to mistranslations.

• Speaking confidently about production, media history, creators etc. without proper sources to back up claims.

• Exaggerating for the sake of comedy in a way that blends with sincere statements.

Of course, writing a video game essay doesn’t have to be as serious as preparing a doctorate thesis. Nevertheless, double checking information is an ethical duty.

Building upon the essayist’s experience

A common drive behind misinformation is the essayist’s unfortunate belief that their words will be taken seriously only if they sound as authoritative as possible. This is false, there is no need to be an expert on game development, a highly skilled player or have the fortune of playing hundreds of different games. Such perspectives can be also quite interesting but they are not necessarily more valuable than someone who has only recently played their first video game ever.

Another misguided belief is that the author should check every bit of content a game has to offer and make multiple runs if able. Of course it is admirable when the writer is dedicated, but no, games are not inherently entitled to completionism. Most games enter into a predictable routine after a couple of hours, no story is owed endless patience and “it gets good later” can be easily argued as a critical design flaw in itself, especially in a medium that can be highly demanding of time.

More importantly, the author only needs to represent their own experience and there are all kinds of experiences worth writing about! If a game is not worth completing, the boredom or the frustration should be on the page. As far as essay-writing is concerned, there is no wrong way to play. An essayist might decide that they will push the game to its limits, might go to an adventure as a novice player in a competitive scene, try out a game from a genre they normally hate, or tackle games only from very specific standpoint like gay relationships or the quality of fishing mini-games. Even watching someone playing games is a different but valid way to engage with games.

Authors just need to be honest about where they base their opinions from. One thing not to do is to reiterate common sentiments without any personal spin, that’s what review aggregate sites are for. Ranting about a “terrible game” is only fun when the writer has a tangential connection to it .

Freedom from nostalgia

Nostalgia is plainly a bad basis for critique. Not because it is an authorial bias , that’s fine and dandy, but because it is not a true personal connection.

When romanticizing the past, the object of attachment is interchangeable. The game is only tangentially part of the critic’s pink memories, in the same way anything can be fun with friends. It could be easily replaced with a toy, a room, a pair of socks, a roll of toilet paper, a supermarket or a brand of cereals. Because nothing specific about the game is tied to nostalgia, it latches on arbitrary characteristics instead; this can make it difficult for a writer to separate where their usual expectations and standards end and the wild reminiscing of “the better days” begins.

Criticism imprisoned in nostalgia is a fruitless search for an answer. It is an endeavor to come up with contradictory and endlessly-shifting reasons for disappointment with a game, a series or video games as a whole. It is painful to read, because nothing can bring back the writer’s past.

It is perfectly fine to say “I have so many good memories with this game”, but if I can’t even find any reasons why the game gives those memories, there isn’t much point to write an essay, is there?

Brevity

It is invaluable for me to internalize parting ways with my sentences and trim everything down until all words flow from the core idea. It is actually quite easy to write a lot, but finding the perfect length is an underrated craft.

Video essays are infamous for their length, but brevity is even more important for written content. Unless you are a known games-writer or write about new, shiny, topical games; people tend to not read essays over about 4000-5000 words. My personal ideal is the range of 2000-3000 words, that’s enough to perfectly cover all my opinions without going off rails. If there are paragraphs that feel worth keeping but also look isolated from rest, then that block can be expanded into its own article.

Brief beginnings and memorable endings

It’s very tempting to start essays with a weasel like “[insert topic] is popular/important”, and continue it for an entire paragraph. In truth, we all know no one reads those, yet we do it anyway because introductions can be seriously paralyzing. When this is the case, I advise to dive right into the heart of the matter and leave beginning to later. It is much easier to write intros when the essay has a solid shape. When you get ready, you can choose between two main styles:

• Setting the topic: List the questions and claims that will be examined and define the subject of the critique. Academic essays use this method a lot because the intro can reliably be extracted from the text itself.

• Setting the mood: An anecdote, some purple prose, a quick rundown of history or a funny quote. Featured essays on magazines or websites often have stylistic touches to make them memorable. I usually don’t do this but they can be fun in the right hands.

Writing an ending is more straightforward. You can summarize your ideas and give a final verdict, that’s a safe and sound method. But an ending can be more than that: “Writing is a journey” is not just a sappy line, an essay can be concluded in such an astonishing way that can transform even any basic opinion into a profound statement. At the very least, the reader will not feel like their time is wasted.

I hope that you find my introspection about games-writing worth your time too!

This article is written thanks to my dearest Patrons, namely: Acelin, Effy, Laura Watson, MasterofCubes, Makkovar, Morgan, Olympia, Otakundead, Sasha. Also thanks to Alex (@jyhadscientist on twitter) for his perfect editing work.

The Finale of Avatar The Last Airbender and Pacifism

 

(Full Spoilers for Avatar: The Last Airbender)

Avatar: The Last Airbender(2005-2008) has a four-episodes long grand finale. (Season 3 Episodes 18-21) The one half of it is concerned with Aang trying to reconcile his pacifism with having to kill Fire Lord Ozai, and the other half is the final showdown. This showdown is famous for a lot of things, mostly praiseworthy, but also commonly receives two points of criticism: Aang’s Avatar state being activated out of nowhere and Aang’s eleven-hour ability of “energy-bending”, absorbing Fire Lord’s powers and thus being able to stop him without having to killing him.

Neither of these is a problem to me.

The final episode have such a good tempo that there isn’t too much room to think about the plot contrivances. Also, I have consumed enough media to subconsciously accept grandiose finales of this kind, there is nothing really wrong with magic just being magic sometimes. Most importantly, it is a thematically fulfilling finale:

First, it is not unearned. Aang discovers energy-bending precisely thanks to a ruthless commitment to his philosophy. it’s not like he was dragging his feet out of squeamishness, he is aware what is needed to be done, he is just determined to find an alternate way like he always does.

Second, the show doesn’t bend(heh) its world to push a message: There is just no easy way to make the Fire Nation recognize Zuko as the new ruler as long as the old one is up and going. However, Fire King’s mandate is based on being able to fire-bend. Even better, nothing about this is explicitly stated, instead it silently rewards attentive viewers.

Third, Aang is not only the Avatar, but also the sole representative of his people. Understandably, this would make it much difficult to compromise with his values. Especially when he is fighting someone who is about to repeat an atrocity that has befallen to his people the first time. Aang is not being selfish, not entirely at least, he is carrying an age-old heritage on his back.

Fourth, because Aang’s struggle is very personal, I am not too concerned with agreeing with his stance all that much. This is good because pacifism is a little weird. In the abstract I fully agree with it, but people who espouse anti-violence and respect often reduce the world to just a series of moral encounters, and demonstrate a great deal of ignorance towards structural violence. However, this doesn’t make fiction defending pacifism bad. Fiction does not have to conform to the totality of my worldview, that would make me unable to enjoy most things. Fiction can also explore ethical scenarios that doesn’t map easily to any real-world counterpart. We also need to give consideration to the culture climate the show has aired. Back then, it was very easy to find someone casually defending things like torture or mass-bombing on TV, a children’s show having a you-shall-not-kill stance isn’t that bad. Furthermore, even though I don’t happen to agree with the specifics, it is always satisfying to watch a hero put their feet down and say “saving the world” does not justify everything.

In isolation, ATLA’s final is amazing and deserves every praise it gets. And I am perfectly fine with its messages, as long as it the show’s premises naturally leads to that conclusion.

And herein lies a problem. Three of them, actually, but they all converge in a single, central issue.

1. Aang performs deadly actions

In Northern Air Temple (Season 1 Episode 17), Aang blows a huge pile of snow on a couple dozen climbing Fire Nation soldiers, collapsing the ground they are in. They presumably fall all the way to the ground, from a place where we can see the clouds. After that, we only see a four or five of soldiers running away. Since the show usually puts a great importance to make it clear that people stay unharmed during fights, the contrast strongly indicate that the fallen soldiers are gone, at the very least, Aang does not put a lot of care into that.

In The Siege of the North Part 2 (Season 1 Episode 20), Aang fuses with the ocean spirit and sends huge waves on Fire Nation ships, completely drowning them under water. Even if we accept Aang is fully unconscious during the affair, he still aids a very angry spirit to enact revenge. The very next episode acknowledges the dangerous violence of Avatar state, so Aang himself does not excuse “accidents.” In the episode before the final fight (Season 3 Episode 18), he argues that Avatar Kyoshi’s murder of Chin the Conqueror might be an accident purely, but when she rebukes him, he can’t say anything back, because he is fully aware this is just a cop out.

In Sozin's Comet, Part 3: Into the Inferno (Season 3 Episode 19), Aang blasts a wave of fire to an airship. It takes considerable damage and crashes to the rock formations not too far from the height they are flying. While it is not certain that the crew is dead, Aang’s behavior here stands out so much next to the gargantuan efforts he goes into making sure that the Genocide Guy isn’t dead.

2. Aang faces with the same dilemma before, but the show does not address it.

Fire-bending comes from sun, so during solar eclipses, you can’t do it.. To use this for their advantage, the good guys attempt an invasion to the Fire Nation capital. (Season 3 Episodes 10-11). An episode before, Aang suffers from nightmares because he is not sure he is ready to face the Fire Admin. There is no indication of a moral conflict in these episodes, Aang is just determined to defeat the king.

3. Aang’s allies kill people

In at least three very notable moments:

In Northern Air Temple, Sokka and the engineer guy’s invention cause a huge explosion eliminating a battalion of tanks. Unlike previous attempts to stop the tanks, we don’t get to see what happens to their crew. Yep, they are gone. Very triumphantly too.

In Western Air Temple (Season 3 Episode 12), during the attack of the three-eyed bald assassin, Sokka throws his boomerang and hits the guy. His laser beam eye malfunctions, causing him to explode and leave nothing behind but his metal arm. This is rather peculiar, because the Avatar gang does not see Sokka’s boomerang hitting him, no, they thank Zuko for defeating him. We can safely infer that Aang has no problem with Zuko killing a person, since from his perspective what else could have happened?

In Sozin’s Comet Part 3: Into the Inferno Sokka, Toph and Suki captures an enemy airship, eject its crew to the water safely and ram it into a whole group of airships, with appropriately violent explosions. In the later episode, we see the remains of the ships burning on the sea surface. There is no such scene where the crew members hug the water with minimal injury this time. It defies all reason to assert that no one is harmed here.

We can observe something all across these events: Our heroes put great care into non-deadly solutions, until the show decides that it does not matter. In particular, the fate of Ozai only seems to be an issue when Zuko demands an answer from Aang In short, the events of the show and its themes are in deep, clear conflict.

Even at the moment of writing this, I am a little doubtful of this observation. Because among so many essays, discussions, blogs and takes about ATLA, I have yet to seen a single person talking about anything related to this. Yet, when we look at the show holistically, I can’t help but see something fishy. This demands an answer. I can think of four of different viewpoints that can gives us one: Literal, technical, cultural and personal.

Literal answer: I am reading too much into this

In other words, people only die in this show when it explicitly says so.

This is simply ridiculous.

Even with the most generous reading, the characters still act quite recklessly in light of their previous actions and stated principles. Aang chooses to send a fireball to that ship just as firmly as when he redirects the lightning away from the Fire Tsar. This is the same Aang that gives up fire-bending for two seasons because he fears to hurt people. Sokka rams his airship into the armada just as deliberately as when he devises a plan to peacefully get rid of the ship’s crew. Even people who clearly don’t hesitate violence still avoid to kill whenever they can.

However, the real problem with this answer is that it turns this show into a joke. This is a work that deals with loss of pain, the human cost of war, imperialism and genocide. Aang sees the bare skeleton of his father figure. "Don't think about the things you see" is an insult to both the audience and creators. No, this is a better story than Valkryia Chronicles(2008), thank you very much.

I love reading too much into media. This is not reading too much. Being distracted by the action and character drama is notwithstanding, all of my observations are pretty straightforward.

Technical answer: It was just a mistake

They just didn’t think about the implications. For example, the creators and, really, the audience too knew that Aang wasn’t going to defeat the king in the middle of the season, so we didn’t have to think about the moral question for the time being.

Yet I don’t find this answer all that interesting. I don’t write articles just to point out mistakes in the show, it’s always much more interesting to me to think beyond “intention/mistake” dichotomy. There are no true accidents in a finished work, a story always creates its own meaning one way or another.

Cultural answer: In stories, nameless people don’t matter

Something we instinctively expect from fiction is that it should make the characters interesting enough to care about what happens to them in a story. A creator cannot just clap their hands and put the audience into whatever mood necessary for the scene. Obviously no, it is not sad when an alien monster eats a nameless guy, it’s usually goofy. This doesn’t mean the audience is sadistic, it’s just means the story does not care about depicting the fictional disaster as something to be taken seriously.

But the opposite can be also a huge problem. If the story is about how nameless masses are thoughtlessly consumed in the goals of the villains, it’s not right when the designated good characters do the same thing. This is rightly criticized in video games, yet it is also weirdly common in media that isn’t limited by game design concerns In Star Wars, it is nice to watch Luke desperately trying to see the light in his father but it becomes much less heartwarming when he first also end up slaying bunch of nobodies in the same movie.

It is so hard to take seriously when ATLA spends two whole episodes on morality of murder without ever addressing the elephant in the room. How is the life of the Massacre Man so special in the climax of a hundred year war? Who knows how many Fire Nation conscripts who can’t even fire-bend are dead because of the royal family’s ambition?.  The implication that I should value a cruel monster's life solely due to their proximity to main characters would turn ATLA into yet another mediocre story where the main character can be rewarded with moral purity in complete isolation from their actions and events, because we are demanded to accept that the universe is being reduced to only named characters. (Again Valkryia Chronicles rears its ugly head)

However, this assessment is too harsh. For the most part ATLA has enough depth to avoid being an hypocritical anti-violence tale. There is certainly something more interesting here.

Personal Answer: ATLA is a subversion of pacifism

Throughout the show, we see again and again that despite advising others to the same thing, Aang only hold himself as responsible for being a pacifist.. He is perfectly aware that people die in wars, he does not completely reject having to kill someone to stop a world-ending threat, his concern is to stay loyal to his way of life as much as he can.

Even within these limitations, the philosophy of anti-violence is seriously challenged in Puppetmaster(Season 3 Episode 8). The Avatar team is against Hama’s path of revenge and vicious blood-bending but in the end, Katara is forced to use blood-bending and Bad Extremist Minority is punished by to being locked in the dungeons of her oppressors, the very dungeons that pushed her towards a life of hatred in the first place. She gets no closure, no second chances, no redemption; for the crime of actually killing no one. In comparison, the show depicts someone like Iroh as a wise person who has learned from his mistakes, even though he actually led wars and undoubtedly caused many deaths.

From this, we start to see anti-violence in a different light. In contrast to Hama whose life have entirely subjugated to pain, Aang remains in near total control. He is always capable and lucky enough to avoid having to fight with all his might. The one time he is truly forced to into a corner, he is blessed with two miracles to non-lethally subdue the king. On top of that, he has the support of an unchallenged claimant to the throne, so he can establish an era of peace without having to do anything truly dirty. Aang is able to uphold pacifism insofar he can dominate over life, exercising both soft and hard power whenever appropriate.

In ATLA, pacifism is not a matter of compassion, importance of dialogue, idealism or even preservation of Air Nomad culture. It is a pure expression of power to pacify others into peace. Anything else is only complimentary. Avatar Roku’s mistake is not his mercy towards King Sozin, it’s his inability to sufficiently tame the Fire Nation. Hama is wrong because she pursues vain revenge instead of using her power for things that actually matter. The Punished King has many opportunities to stop the war, but he chooses glory of conquest instead. Hama and Ozai earn a similar fate because they are both swayed by their petty emotions instead of embracing responsibility; the differences in their beliefs and circumstances are almost entirely irrelevant.

This reading feels quite cold for a show that’s often lighthearted. Particularly Hama’s fate feels so dissonantly cruel. Yet it makes sense for a setting where some people are more powerful than others by birthright. Only Avatar can restore the balance, for only they are powerful enough to keep the world in harmony, by any means necessary. I still this reading the most and even consider it a positive one, because it reveals what kind of assumptions one needs to make in order to arrive at a worldview like that in our world.

It also implies that, for all it’s enthusiasm and respect of Asian cultures, ATLA is still an American show to its core, which is quite funny.

This article is written thanks to my dearest Patrons and special thanks to: Acelin, Laura Watson, MasterofCubes, Makkovar, Morgan, Otakundead , Sasha and Spencer Gill.