LacklustreFriend
37 Pieces of Flair Minimum
No bio...
User ID: 657
LacklustreFriend
37 Pieces of Flair Minimum
1yr ago
It does feel like an increasing amount of Western economies are just build on rent seeking and extraction of wealth produced elsewhere rather than producing wealth themselves.
LacklustreFriend
37 Pieces of Flair Minimum
1yr ago
I have to point out that the Meijj Restoration wasn't at all a conservative movement, but the exact opposite, where the Imperial government was embracing Western and modern influences and destroying much of the traditional social structure of Japan. The fact it "restored" power to the Emperor instead of the Shogun and Daimyos really doesn't make it conservative.
LacklustreFriend
37 Pieces of Flair Minimum
1yr ago
Indian nationalists have a pretty clear vested interest in blaming everything bad on the British. It's funny you say that the claim made that the British destroyed the native ruling class, when the more common complaint from Indian nationalist/anti-colonialist is that the British ossified the caste system (and thus is responsible for India's contemporary caste woes). I guess the British are responsible for everything bad, like destroying native social structures, as well as reinforcing native social structures.
LacklustreFriend
37 Pieces of Flair Minimum
1yr ago
They aren't actual aristocrats because Republic of India has abolished any such titles or positions (with a couple minor exceptions). But this is not really that different from many (not all) European countries that abolished all official recognition of nobility or higher status. But the people themselves didn't disappear. And yes, the Brahmins of today are descendants of yesteryear. But the point is that there was no wholesale social upheaval and discontinuity in India elites, at least not to an extreme extent like the Russian or Chinese Revolution, or to be more 'positive' about it, the US where the nation was build completely from scratch.
LacklustreFriend
37 Pieces of Flair Minimum
1yr ago
This is frankly untrue. The upper castes of India existed (and in many cases thrived) under British rule, under prior Mughal rule and beyond, and it still exist today. There is continuity. The elites of India were still mostly Indian, even if there was an obviously very powerful British minority at the political top. There wasn't millions of British people to wholesale replace the upper castes in India.
LacklustreFriend
37 Pieces of Flair Minimum
1yr ago
Pretty much anyone who ruffles their feathers gets called a reactionary, or some similar term. Including DeBoer.
LacklustreFriend
37 Pieces of Flair Minimum
1yr ago
It's not like he wanted to draw unnecessary attention to himself
His goal was never to avoid attention, but to curate his image. Someone who doesn't want attention doesn't go and give out interviews to magazines, and certainly go to every tiny news outlet spinning stories about his innocence after it all blew up. Him publicly driving a Toyota Corolla was not him being humble and avoiding fame, but him cynically using fake humility as part of his image of 'billionaire with a difference'.
LacklustreFriend
37 Pieces of Flair Minimum
1yr ago
I think they were referring to people like Freddie DeBoer, who is calls himself and is quite clearly a socialist/Marxist, but ruffles a lot of progressive (woke) feathers by criticizing by criticising identity politics. Pretty much anyone that's liked by the subreddit stupidpol.
LacklustreFriend
37 Pieces of Flair Minimum
1yr ago
So what was Women's Movement, and all the people who supported it then? Just unwitting pawns of Big Sexual Entertainment, too stupid to see their strings being pulled by Hugh Hefner and Hollywood? I don't buy it. Even if Hefner and co did contribute to it (which they did to some small degree), these women and feminists did still have agency. It's also just begging the question of why did women accept the Sexual Liberation narrative, when women had long been the sexual moral arbitrators? Why wasn't Hefner and co suppressed like in any other moral panic that women are so capable of? If you want to attribute it to something than other feminism itself, you're better off looking at birth control, domestic technologies and other technologies in the postwar era.
How about ‘true sexual liberation has been tried at least to some extent, and is inherently exploitative of women (and children), under pretty much any economic system’?
I was making a humorous reference to the 'true communism has never been tried'. Many contemporary radical feminists will still support the notion of a 'sexually liberated society' in the same way communists will support the idea of a communist utopia. The joke being that communism has been tried and failed, and similarly that sexual liberation has been tried and failed. But it doesn't stop the radical feminists continually idealising how next time ("real" sexual liberation) will work.
LacklustreFriend
37 Pieces of Flair Minimum
1yr ago
My interpretation is that what is implied is that she really doesn't have that power. Maybe she does in the literal sense, but in the social context she's just victim of her abusive father (who really has the power) and the social environment more generally. We can easily imagine that if Mayella had defended Tom on the stand, she would have been badly beaten if not much worse. She is essentially coerced and doesn't have that power.
I agree with a lot of your post, but your actual original premise ("Radical feminism is essentially an unhelpful defensive response to the sexual revolution") is untrue. For two pretty straightforward reasons: One, radical feminism predates the sexual revolution. Two, most of the early radical feminist literature supported sexual liberation, if not outright sexual libertinism. People (in this thread even) who argue the sexual revolution was mostly just a ploy by men to get access to sex are wrong. Not that there's no truth to the idea some men loved the idea of free non-committal sex and supported it for this reason, but the idea that feminism and women more generally did not play an active and leading role in the sexual revolution is false.
Radical feminist ("second wave") texts such as Beauvoir's 1949 The Second Sex, Friedan's 1963 The Feminine Mystique predate or coincide with the beginning of the sexual revolution.
Other, slightly later radical feminist texts, such as Firestone's 1970 The Dialectic of Sex or Millet's 1970 Sexual Politics, call for sexual liberation, either explicitly or implicitly (it's explicit with Firestone, it's more implicit with Millet who says sexual repression of women is an oppressive tool of patriarchy). The idea that radical feminism is a defensive response to the sexual revolution is historical revisionism by more contemporary radical feminists who realise that the sexual revolution actually was negative for women (and the majority of men for that matter, not that it matters to them), but don't actually want to condemn earlier feminists works or the whole political project of feminism so the 'reinterpret' them or otherwise reframe it (most often is the "true sexual liberation has never been tried"). "Men created ('false') sexual liberation for sexual access" is unironically a radical feminist revisionist myth.
LacklustreFriend
37 Pieces of Flair Minimum
1yr ago
Not the greatest example, because the reason Mayella comes onto Tom Robinson is because she's lonely, neglected and abused by her family, her father in particular. It's heavily implied that the reason she throws him under the bus is because of severe social pressure she's under, particularly from her abuse father. You're meant to have at least some sympathy for the position Mayella is in. At the end of the day, it's still meant to be her father Bob Ewell, as the major villain, thematically representing the evil patriarchal white supremacy that is being criticized in To Kill a Mockingbird.
LacklustreFriend
37 Pieces of Flair Minimum
1yr ago
Stuff like this really demonstrate the philosophical kinship feminism has with Marxism with this blatant utopianism. The argument being put forward is "if the entire world was in a permanent communist revolution feminist, there there would be no war and no problems in the first place, everything would be great! Problems only exist because patriarchy creates problems to then solve (for some reason)." Nirvana fallacy par excellence.
LacklustreFriend
37 Pieces of Flair Minimum
1yr ago
I'm not claiming Australian democracy is perfect, nor that there is nothing to criticise in the conduct of the Australian government in recent years (there is plenty to criticise in American democracy yet people still believe in the ideal). But I do think that Parliament House does reflect Australian political values that I value - including egalitarianism (in the general, not modern left sense), the 'fair go' for all.
I recently visited our nation's great capital, Canberra. While I was there, I did some the of typically touristy things. It's not the first time I have been Canberra, though it's hard to tell how much has changed with Canberra and how much has changed with myself and how I perceive things with culture war overtones being imbedded in my mind. But regardless, my perception was that broadly speaking left-wing politics dominates even in what is ostensibly non-partisan, politically neutral public institutions.
Firstly, there was the National Gallery of Australia. Frankly, I think the NGA is a pretty piss-poor gallery overall. It's international and pre-modern (pre-1800) collections is almost laughably bad for what is apparently Australia's highest public gallery. Outside of a couple of notable pieces, such as a couple of Monets and the infamous Blue Poles by Pollock, there is very little of interest. There were a lot of (post)modern pieces which I found atrocious (I probably don't have to go into a rant about why postmodern art sucks here), the worst offender being a piece that was literally just a square canvas planted black. That's it. The lack of a good international and historical collection is at least somewhat understandable because the NGA is a very young gallery by international standards, and (I imagine) it's pretty hard to build up a great collection especially with a relatively small budget. But even compared to other Australian galleries such as the National Gallery of Victoria and especially the American great galleries which I have had the pleasure of visiting- as unfair as the comparison to the Met or the National Gallery of Art might be - the National Gallery of Australia falls short.
The NGA's strength is naturally it's very large and extensive Australian art collection, including artists ranging from Arthur Streeton (and other Australian Impressionists) to Sidney Nolan to more contemporary artists that I or most people couldn't give two shits about. But the Australian collection is where some of the 'woke' influence was most apparent, on the descriptions of the works of art. Every single piece of Australian art had to have its 'indigenous' name of the location prefaced before the actual common name, regardless of how (ir)relevant it is to the actual artwork. So every piece of artwork created in Melbourne was labelled as 'Naarm/Melbourne'. In addition, there would often be huge non-sequiturs at the end of an artwork's description to insert some connection to Indigenous peoples. For example, it would describe the artist's personal history, how they ended up painting that specific painting, etc, only for the last sentences to abruptly talk mention the local Indigenous group and their connection to the area (bonus points if they mention how it was then taken over by English settlers). This also happened to a lesser extent in some of the other landmarks I visited. There is a lot of this general handwringing over Indigenous issues that has become pervasive in Australia and the Anglosphere more broadly. Now, one might argue that the NGA is simply catering to its dominant audience - the leftwing 'intelligentsia' who both dominate in the art world and the kind of person who would bother to visit an art gallery in the first place. But honestly this isn't good enough to me. The NGA is meant to be a national gallery for all Australians, and should be making a conscious effort to make themselves approachable for the general Australian public.
Next, we have Old Parliament House, now home to the Museum of Australian Democracy. It's honestly a pretty interesting museum, more than its name would suggest. However, there is a pretty stark contrast between the newer and rotating exhibits and the older, permanent exhibits. The older exhibits mainly aim to preserve and present Old Parliament House as it was in 1988 when the Australian government moved to (New) Parliament House (it's pretty awesome), and explain how Australian democracy works more generally. It's pretty politically impartial. The newer exhibits have an implicit left-liberal political ideology in their presentation that might be hard for the casual viewer to realise. It's not just being unabashedly pro-Australian democracy which it understandably is. The more charitable explanation is that the Museum is taking an implicitly teleological view of Australian democracy - all the historical events in Australia's political history led up to the political system we have today, and current Australian democracy is good (it's literally the point of the Museum) therefore all those events were necessary if not good (Gillard's 'misogyny speech', gay marriage plebiscite and and historical political protests generally so on are all presented positively and uncritically). This charitable interpretation really falls apart when you consider what is lacking in the exhibitions and what the counterfactual would be. There was no real rightwing political victories presented and definitely not presented positively, such as Abbott's 'Stop the Boats' campaign (Operation Sovereign Borders) which despite its poor reputation was quite popular with the general population and more-or-less remains the basis of both Labor and Liberal's policy towards asylum seekers/refugees/boat people to this day. It's also hard to imagine that if the gay marriage plebiscite had failed, there would be a exhibition celebrating this as a triumph of Australian democracy like there currently is one celebrating its success (ironic given that many pro-gay marriage advocates initially opposed the plebiscite before they got the results). it was occasionally less subtle with its bias, like an exhibit on Australian Prime Ministers ending with 'Who is Next' and showing a drawing a Muslim woman, an Asian woman and an Aboriginal man, and some shibboleths about 'all Australians from all cultural backgrounds'.
Lastly, I'll talk Parliament House itself. Of all the landmarks visited, Parliament House thankfully (and perhaps somewhat ironically) most apolitical (or politically neutral might be more accurate) presentation, other than the obvious stance of Westminster pro-liberal democracy. As an active political institution which contains Members of Parliament and Senators that may actively support or opposite any given political issue, greater care must have been places to present everything as politically neutral. This is probably aided by the fact that the number of public exhibits is relatively small, given that its primary role is actually a working institution and not a museum, and the main draw for the tourist or member of public is going to see the the House and Senate Chambers. Visiting Parliament House did make me realise an interesting statistic, however due to the obligatory 'Women in Parliament' mini-exhibit. Less than one-third of House of Representatives are women, yet over half of the Senate are women. A pretty notable discrepancy, which I would suggest may be caused by the fact Senators are usually selected by intraparty politics (and thus the agenda to promote female politicians) while seats in the House of Representatives are far more competitive.
To end of a positive note, here is where I make declare my love for Australian democracy. Australian Parliament House represents the best of Australian democracy. The architectural design is fantastic, with lots of open space and big sweeping boomerang wings that feel inviting. It open and accessible to the public, and you can pretty wander around much the building (not counting offices) unescorted. It really does feel like there Parliament is there to serve the Australian public. Sorry to bash our American cousins, but in stark contrast when I visited Congress you had to book a tour, and had to be escorted around the entire time. I understand that security may be a bigger concern for you Americans, but the ability to more-or-less freely walk around the most important political body is the prime example of why I love and appreciate Australian democracy.
LacklustreFriend
37 Pieces of Flair Minimum
2yr ago
Almost certainly would have made for a more interesting film. But of course, this would never happen because you're injecting even the lightest bit of nuance into the film's social message which is 'colonalism bad, western/white countries bad'. Having Wakanda actually be the one colonising another culture would never be allowed, let alone the message of 'let bygones be bygones'.
LacklustreFriend
37 Pieces of Flair Minimum
2yr ago
The impression I got from playing Disco Elysium was that they are some kind of post-Marxists, or disillusioned Marxists. They are still support the Marxist project, but they see Marxism more like the lesser evil than a grand utopian vision. It's a begrudging kind of support for Marxism.
I always felt that that Disco Elysium was went easiest on its criticism of Marxism of all the ideologies the game critiques and satirises - I thought this even before I knew the background of the developers. Much of the criticism of Marxism within the game itself isn't actually levelled at the philosophy of Marxism, but rather how Marxism is (in)effectively implemented. The union boss is less a critique of Marxist or socialist organising, but more about how self-serving people will abuse the idea of Marxism/socialism to enrich or empower themselves. It occasionally veers dangerously close to 'Marxism doesn't fail people, people fail Marxism' territory. Not to say it the game doesn't have any substantial critique of Marxism, but I definitely felt it was less substantive than some of the other critiques.
LacklustreFriend
37 Pieces of Flair Minimum
2yr ago
Given that these disciplines are not new, surely there is a handbook of basic principles for crafting such messages? Do we have any practitioners of the dark arts that can provide such resources?
I'm not sure if it constitutes a 'handbook' but I strongly recommend Walter Lippmann's Public Opinion (1922), who quite literally wrote the book (haha), on public communication and how to manage/manipulate public opinion.
I would also recommend Edward Bernays's Propaganda (1928) or Public Relations (1945). Bernays was kind of Lippmann's protégé.
These two men are basically created the foundation for our understanding modern mass communication, mass media and mass culture. Now-ubiquitous terms like propaganda (in its modern meaning) and stereotype were coined or popularized by these men. Both of them made some highly topical political arguments to our present political environment. Lippmann basically advocated for a technocratic elite/agency that used propaganda benevolently to shape public opinion, believing that (simplifying here) that the informed member of the public/voter is oxymoron, no member of the public is effectively capable of making informed decisions on any number of issues. Bernays has broadly similar views to Lippmann, although where as Lippmann more saw propaganda as a tool to be used by a (benevolent) elite, Bernays more sees propaganda as the inevitable result of an mass liberal democratic society, the alternative is chaos. Bernays is also responsible for making bacon and eggs a stable breakfast food and partially responsible for all the bad shit United Fruit Company did in Central America.
LacklustreFriend
37 Pieces of Flair Minimum
2yr ago
They could at least set up an independent authority to run the elections. Here in Australia, both the Federal government and each of the State governments have their own Electoral Commission which is an independent agency that explicitly is meant to be non-partisan. In the US, as best as I can tell, elections are run by under a division by each State's Secretary of State, who is a partisan, elected official. A similar thing I always found silly in the US is that how judges are allowed to be members of political parties (even if they're appointed by governments they could at least give some effort to maintain non-partisanship). Same with most election redistricting.
Obviously, you're not going to be able to weed out every partisan or partisan influence from agencies, but the American approach seems to be 'well, we can't completely get rid of partisanship, so why even bother, just go full partisan and hope things balance out'. I have worked in elections in Australia in the past, and honestly when people describe how things are done in the US I am shocked about how mismanaged and partisan the whole thing is, my experience of Australian elections is extremely positive, non-partisanship seems to actually work at least to some extent.
LacklustreFriend
37 Pieces of Flair Minimum
2yr ago
I think the idea they might have been going for is that Patriarch's rule was beneficial at first but he's been losing his touch
This is mentioned a couple of times offhand by a few auxiliary characters (Gideon Reyes being the main one iirc), but that is definitely not the reason Angela Deth is overthrowing him, and seeming not why you the Player Rangers are overthrowing him (the available dialogue options against the Patriarch imply you're doing it because you think he's an unjust tyrant). In fact, the Patriarch's age and deteriorating health are completely irrelevant. The fact you can learn and comment on his condition leads nowhere, and it's not even a necessary condition to get the peaceful transition ending. The overthrowing of Patriarch is pretty much exclusively based on the belief he's an unjust tyrant.
find a lot of additional info etc., you get more data on bad stuff done by the Patriarch - selling his people as slaves to be murdered by the crazy kite people, killing his wives etc.
Yeah I'm aware, I briefly mentioned it but I didn't go into in my original post. Although iirc he only actually killed one of his wives, who tried to assassinate/overthrow him, at least it's implied from visiting all the graves after seeing the map after confronting Victory. Patriarch was giving prisoners to the gangs as slaves as part of his deal for them to leave Colorado Springs. Which yeah, is pretty shitty, but relative to all the shit going around him is understandable. If we were to judge the Patriarch against leaders throughout history, not just contemporary society (which the writers implicitly want you do to) Patriarch is actually really quite tame. If that's the price to keep Colorado Springs safe, the only island of stability in a world of post-apocalyptic chaos, it's probably justified. Specially in contrast to Deth's plan of overthrowing him (violently) and just hoping everything doesn't collapse on itself. Deth's own plan also involves freeing a slaver leader (Ironclad Cordite) to use him against the Patriarch, and when he eventually leaves to go to Kansas to go conquer and kill there, you can actually question Deth about her hypocrisy and the atrocities Cordite will certainly commit and she just handwaves it away as 'yeah he probably won't make it that far and will be betrayed by his own gang eventually, don't worry about it'. Yeah, real confidence inducing.
In the end, I think that one of the main problems is just there's also a tension with Fallout/Wasteland games how much grim apocalypse stuff and how much "leavening" goofy stuff you add in.
Somehow Fallout NV handled it perfectly fine, and yes, even I will begrudgingly admit the Bethesda Fallouts did a decent job of balancing this. I honestly just think it comes down to the Wasteland 3 writers just not being very good.
Story Continued
The major theme in Wasteland 3 is about compromising on values to achieve your goals. It is true of the Patriarch, ruling Colorado with an iron fist despite false promises of elections and appeals to pre-War America, signing a secret deal with raider gangs to leave Colorado Springs alone in exchange for giving them supplies and slaves. Angela Deth does this, she goes AWOL and commits treason against to the Rangers to bring down an unjust tyrant, to the point she is even willing to free and work with a leader of a slaver gang (betraying the Ranger good guy ethos), if indirectly, to bring down the Patriarch. You as the Player Rangers, have to make plenty of compromises which leaves no one happy to get (in my opinion) is the 'best' outcome.
The theme and the story WL3 is trying to tell doesn't work is because the Patriarch is unambiguously the good guy. Here I don't mean unambiguously to mean there's nothing to criticize him for, but rather he is obviously the correct choice, at least morally. The Patriarch basically built/formed Colorado Springs from scratch, the only beacon of real civilisation for anywhere in Colorado. He did defeat many of the raider gangs, but eventually he reached a stalemate and struggled to beat them. So eventually he reached an agreement with the gangs to pay them off to protect Colorado. As presented by the game, this was pretty much the only way to keep Colorado safe. Angela Deth doesn't seem to appreciate that that the Patriarch might actually be a just tyrant rather than an unjust tyrant and he had good reasons to do what he did. This is a (post-)post-apocalyptic world! The Patriarch actually seems like a decent guy otherwise and seems to genuinely care for the people of Colorado. While he obviously doesn't tell you the whole truth, he never actually lies to you and completely upholds honours his deal with you. Ironically, his biggest flaw is probably the fact he allowed his dangerous, crazy children to run free and didn't punish them earlier like he should have when he had the chance, the most human of the flaws, not wanting to punish his children out of fatherly love.
I'm really not sure what the developer intentions were here. I've seen some people try to explain Angela Deth's stupidity by saying that's the point, she's being a Ranger forever, she's become disillusioned and radicalized. I really don't think that was the intent, and I think the intent was really genuine attempt to portray some deep tale of grey morality that just falls flat. I think Angela Deth wasn't meant to be an disillusioned idiot is further evidenced by the "best" ending of the game, where you overthrow the Patriarch peacefully (rather than violently), which you do pretty unapologetically to the Patriarch (you get no choice), which seems to completely vindicate Deth. I think this is just a case of bad writing.
This is really compounded by the fact you are offered virtually zero opportunity to interrogate the Patriarch or Deth or any other major character about their beliefs and philosophy, you really have to try and just piece it together and justify it in your head. Even at the end of the game, where you meet Death and/or the Patriarch at the end of the game before you clash, there is no real examination of the characters and their beliefs. The conversation lasts five seconds and you even just pass a shitty speech check for them to stand down just because to skip the fight. To make a direct comparison with Fallout: NV, which Wasteland shares DNA with, you get multiple opportunities to talk in quite some detail with each of the major factions and their representatives and their justification. Even at the end of the game, where you can use a speech check to 'defeat' your enemies (e.g. Lanius), FNV doesn't just have some generic 'surrender please' dialogue, but puts serious effort into actually justifying how you convince the factions and it relates to their circumstance. The last section of WL3 does seem rushed and incomplete, and I wonder if it was their intention to flesh it out more.
I know it's perhaps unfair to WL3 to compare it to FNV, but WL3 is emblematic of what as I see as a growing negative trend in video game stories. The writers will raise some complex themes or ideas in their story, fail to or only superficially engage with those ideas, and then conclude like they've said something meaningful. It seems like they think that merely raising these ideas is good enough on its own. It's like the writers think they have to deconstruct their own story and characters (because they're overeducated hacks who were taught to do that in writing school), but don't actually have the writing chops or philosophical depth to anything interesting with it. The writers routinely fail to imagine living in post-apocalyptic society like Wasteland's would actually like. They're stuck in a presentist mindset where I think they just take things like 'Patriarch = despot, despot = bad' for granted because it appeals to modern sensibilities, even if such a moral judgement doesn't make sense in context of the world. I would rather they just stick to simple good vs evil stories rather that have the pretence of moral complexity without actually doing the work.
Another thing that I found really annoying was the portrayal of (true) AI/'synths' in Wasteland 3. As far as I know (mostly reading the wiki), prior to Wasteland 3, AI and synths were unambiguously evil, and the primary antagonists of the game. All the synths were created by the Cochise AI, an evil genocidal AI. Wasteland 3 I guess tried to change this I guess because there's numerous friendly AI/synth you come across in Wasteland 3. It feels incredibly jarring, because synths are meant to be the mortal enemy of the Rangers, and some dialogue reflects this, but they also seem to be going really hard on trying to get you to empathize with the synths. I've seen it suggested that this is deliberately done to try and create some moral ambiguity, or complexity. Maybe the synths are just pretending to be good to get the human's trust! Again, I don't buy it. In the endings where you help the synths/AI it's portrayed as unambiguously positive. It's just so jarring.
Other characters aren't really developed either, Liberty, who is presented as interesting character and antagonist, you only have two very brief conversations with which don't say much. All the companions are uninteresting or one-note except for Lucia Wesson, a daughter of an elite family who matures through the game (and her presentation is basically identical that of Mattie Ross in Coens' remake of True Grit), and Ironclad Cordite, the former leader of one of the gangs who has a grudge against the Patriarch and believes his destiny is to become the next Genghis Khan.
Other than that, the writing is just generally wacky, Fallout style dark comedy style of writing which can be pretty good in some parts and in the side quests.
Music
One of the best parts about the games is the music, it's utilized really effectively. During major boss fights or set battles, a really interesting and unusual song will usually play that relates to the circumstances of the battle. Usually this will different-genre cover of a song. For example, the final song of the final DLC plays a country western cover of a old sitcom theme song. The songs are surprising enjoyable, even if I don't really like all the genres that play. I wish more games tried something a bit unorthodox with their soundtrack.
DLC
Quick comment on the two DLC:
Battle for Steeltown - Help the leader of a super advanced factory that supplies all the advanced goods to Colorado resolve issues in her factory. Superficial anti-capitalist commentary with striking workers, and more synth-love. Some new gameplay mechanics. Alright, worth buying on sale.
The Holy Detonation - Help restore an experimental nuclear power plant to power Colorado, the power plant is being worshipped by two warring cults who deliberately radiate and mutate themselves. I guess this is meant to be some 'biting' satire of religious belief 20 years out of date? Has some interesting gameplay ideas, atrocious execution. Not worth buying.
Conclusion
I have criticised Wasteland 3 a lot, especially it's writing, but mostly because it's more enjoyable to criticise than it is to praise. I mostly enjoyed my experience with Wasteland 3, even if it was frustrating at times. It's a competent game that gets the basics right, but is otherwise pretty unremarkable. I would recommend it to anyone who likes tactical RPGs and is looking for some time to kill.
Wasteland 3 Review/Critique
I guess this is becoming somewhat of a series now, my previous reviews on the Motte are:
I finally got around to finishing Wasteland 3 after playing it off-and-on for months, some of you may have remembered that it inspired me to make this post when I first started playing it.
Overview
Wasteland 3 is a tactical (think modern XCOM) RPG set in the post-post-apocalyptic Colorado, where you control a group of Arizona Rangers, a kinda-military organization who arrive in Colorado from Arizona after making a deal with the 'Patriarch', the leader of Colorado Springs, the only really civilized and stable polity in Colorado to aid him in exchange for supplies. The Rangers are ambushed and nearly wiped out en route, which kickstarts the game.
Disclosure - I have never played either the ancient original Wasteland, or its modern prequel Wasteland 2, though I never felt I really needed to, the game is a bit of a fresh start.
Overall, I found Wasteland 3 to be solid, fairly competent game. It does have some notable issues, is surprisingly short and feels rushed at the end, but is enjoyable enough. The gameplay is decent, the writing and RPG-elements are passable. It's nothing remarkable. I would only recommend the game if you are a fan of tactical style, turn-based RPG.
Gameplay
The gameplay of Wasteland 3 is nothing revolutionary. The gameplay is most directly similar to the Shadowrun series. Like many CRPGs, you have a party of customized Rangers and/or companions who you run around the world with, completing missions, have skills to interact with the world (lockpicking, 'nerd stuff' (hacking) etc), or use for dialogue choices (speech checks). You find new weapons and armour as you progress. There is also an overworld map to travel between city/combat hubs. The combat is basically extremely similar to the Shadowrun games, or to XCOM:EU/XCOM2 if you haven't played it. Now to focus on the actual criticism:
I didn't like the progression system in this game. You get perk points every few level ups, but there are so little perk choices available that never used most of them because it never felt worth it, entered the endgame with most of my perk points unspent before finally just using most of them on minor perks I didn't care about. Similarly, I rarely used any special abilities (not counting the Strike Meter) outside of a couple that were pretty broken. It never really a reason to use anything than basic attack 90% of the time. But that might just be laziness on my part. I think I might have screwed myself over too, because I played the game without any melee characters which I think the game really wants you to have, as melee damage and health are tied to the same stat. I tried to make my heavy gunner my tank and it didn't quite work. The time to kill on my characters even with moderate health investment was extremely low. Enemies would often have anywhere from 4x-20x my characters HP, and my characters would die in one or two hits. As such, fights were usually feast or famine, as if more than one of your characters go down at once it's highly likely you will lose. I think they had to have this low time to kill on player characters because healing items are functionally unlimited. I wished they would have balanced it better, limit healing, lower damage have have slower, more deliberate and methodical fights.
One of the more fun parts of the combat/gameplay is amassing a large group of NPC followers (animals, robots and others) who will proceed to maul and absolutely destroy the enemy (they also usually have 3x-10x amount the HP of your characters). But this is pretty blatantly overpowered and gets boring pretty quickly. It also reduces the amount of actions you can take, because it becomes hard to use any kind of AoE weapon.
Choosing skills seem really superficial and isn't really a meaningful choice. Realistically, you want and can easily have at least one member of your team max out every skill, combat and non-combat. While the game has some pretense of the being able to play anyway you want, with any skill combination, it quickly becomes apparent that maxing out skills like lockpicking, explosives (defusing) etc becomes pretty much mandatory. There are a couple of exceptions like Toaster Repair and Survival, which just add additional funny content and reducing tedium respectively. The worst part of the skills is the armor modding and weapon modding (crafting) skills - you can just have a separate Ranger not in the main party who you just swap in and out whenever you want to craft something, making the whole crafting skill check redundant. Wasteland 3 suffers the extremely common issue in RPGs where speech checks are almost always strictly better than other options, meaning picking them is a no-brainer.
Equipment is also an issue. You find new equipment fairly quickly, and higher level gear quickly outclasses old gear. This means whenever you find a piece of equipment you really like, you might be tossing it away after a couple of levels, no way to upgrade its level. Wasteland 3 isn't the worst game in this regard, but it is annoying.
The game is deceptively short. The game honestly feels like it's missing the last quarter of the game, and was rushed to completion (I have no idea if this was actually the case). The game builds up to the final confrontation, finally a meeting of all the major characters... and it goes nowhere. It all resolves itself incredibly quickly, game ends. More on this later.
Story, Writing and Themes
MAJOR SPOILERS
I have a lot to say about the story, but I first have to briefly summarize the story to provide context to those who haven't played (but don't mind being spoiled!).
The Arizona Rangers are in desperate need of supplies after they had to blow up their own base to destroy the Cochise AI, the antagonist of Wasteland 2. The Patriarch of Colorado contacts the Rangers and promises them long-term supplies if they send a contingent to Colorado to help him find his wayward children who are destabilizing Colorado in various ways. Along the way the Rangers are ambushed and nearly wiped out by the Dorseys, one of the various wasteland raider gangs destabilizing Colorado. Despite this, the remaining Rangers establish themselves and proceed with their mission foil the Patriarch's kids and return them to him. The Patriarch's youngest son Valor is a snivelling insecure genius who is aiding a Ronald Reagan cult who want to overthrow the Patriarch, the oldest son Victory is a crazy, brutal psychopath who enjoy torturing and brutalizing his victims and is holding members of Colorado Spring's elite hostage in a skiing retreat. The whereabouts of the middle daughter Liberty, ostensibly the primary antagonist of the game, is unknown but you eventually find out she's uniting all the various raider tribes into one war party to overthrow her father, destroy Colorado Springs and theoretically set up a despotic raider empire in Colorado and beyond. Along the way you come across Angela Deth, one of the original Rangers (she was companion in WL1 and WL2), who was part of a forward part towards Colorado, who went AWOL after she learnt that the Patriarch isn't the exactly heroic saviour of Colorado he portrays himself as, refused to help him and is now trying to overthrow him. At the end of the game, the main endings are either to side with the Patriarch and fight Deth and some of your fellow Rangers, or to side with Deth and overthrow the Patriarch (either violently or peacefully if you got the support of some factions) and rule Colorado yourself. There's also an ending where you side with one of the raider gangs and help them raid and destroy/rule Colorado but I don't really consider it a 'real' ending, because it's so inconsistent with the whole ethos of the Rangers. It's the comically evil for evil's sake ending. Okay, now to the actual critique about the story:
Continued in below comment
Idiocracy: The Motte Post Adaptation
But seriously:
The main issue with your Tutsi and Hutu example, and the first part of your argument is you completely sidestep liberalism. If you're going to discuss this issue you really need to address liberalism directly at some point. Your argument is predicated on the primacy of the social group collectively. The classical liberal perspective have very little to say about groups or identity, and pretty much exclusively focused on the individual. So what if there are less Tutsis? Ethnic social categories like Tutsi and Hutu are (or rather, wishfully) obsolete under the liberal framework. There is merely the primacy of the individual. You need to rebut liberalism. Why, when we live in a liberal world, should we care about things 'cultural, behavioral, and genetic legacy'. They do nothing for me as an individual, except what utility they can provide me in the here and now, not when I'm dead. The future belongs to those who show up, and who shows up depends on who cares who shows up when you're gone.
Secondly, the people who 'did everything right' actually didn't do everything right. They forgot to have children. You're kind of using 'everything right' here to have two meanings. You're using it to be tongue-in-cheek by using the word 'right' to mean 'everything society told them was right'. Which fair enough, I think people have been deceived into an atomized, individualistic, hedonistic lifestyle that I think is both morally wrong and ultimately unfulfilling. But they also bear some personal responsibility in the path that they have chosen.
But you also seem to be unironically using 'right' to mean actually morally right, because you actually do seem to think they are right by evidence by your distain of those who actually do have children as lessers. They can't have it both ways. Either they're an atomized liberal individual who doesn't care about their 'legacy' or social units other than the self, making your whole point moot, or they do care about those things, so they should and probably will actually have children then. Your complaint seems to be that the educated, liberal, intelligent people aren't having enough kids. In that case your focus should be telling them them to go have kids rather than just complaining about 'fecund privilege' that the 'lessers' are actually doing the right thing by having kids.
LacklustreFriend
37 Pieces of Flair Minimum
2yr ago
If you could wave a magic wand to establish some collective norm to improve this situation, what would you do?
Unironically, as I say this as a pretty unobservant/lapsed Catholic, make everyone go to church. Alternatively, some substitute secular social club that theoretically fulfils a similar socializing role, but realistically this doesn't work, no matter how much atheists believe they can construct secular equivalents of the social role the religion plays.
It was more than that if I recall correctly - the idea for the name change was originally a suggestion by the Nazi ambassador to Persia.
More options
Context Copy link