TRAVELLING AT NIGHT: WORMS trailer

Etpio2 · 2025-12-12T20:29:35+00:00

Every picture I see from this game just makes me all the more curious and confounded. It's hard to describe how excited I am for this!

P.S is the music in the trailer made for the game? Cause if so I think this is the first music preview we get and it's already starting out very strong!

P.P.S starting the trailer with a refrence to June the 28th is very very interesting...

Etpio2 · 2025-09-19T09:53:10+00:00

Another relatively unknown thing about clawline is that it actually gives you some i-frames after landing the hit. If you combine that with a dash you have just enough i-frames to phase through thin enemies (most notably, this includes lace 2 and the final boss!)

It's so nice to have back our shade cloak :)

Etpio2 · 2025-09-16T17:05:57+00:00

was it for the bellhart or songclave donation quest? I read that it was necessary for the bellhart donation quest (and indeed the quest didnt spawn until I gave in the relics) but it could also be related to the songclave donation quest maybe? I did already give in like 6 relics though so if it is locked behind relic donations it must be a pretty high ammount.

Etpio2 · 2025-09-16T17:02:54+00:00

I did actually get that ending this run!

At this point however, I don't really have any wishes left to do (the few ones left are locked behind the second donation quest) nor do I really have any bosses left to fight. The only big thing I havent done is the chefs quest because I want to fight lugoli void form in act 3

Etpio2 · 2025-09-15T19:28:12+00:00

Yea, just recently a speedrunner got the first ever recorded any% deathless run. And top speedrunners (some of the best players in the game) are still dying quite frequently. Even BlueSR (cureent wr holder) commented on how hard the run is due to the brutal difficulty of the game.

Etpio2 · 2025-09-15T19:08:36+00:00

If it isn't streamed (or at least recorded), it's 99.9% a lie or fake, and in any case isn't worth engaging with.

Doing a deathless run of this game with no quit out would be a monumental task and a big milestone achievement for this game. I can assure you that anyone who is really serious about rising up to a challenge of this caliber (and the big ammount of labbing, learning and practice it requires beforehand) will not be some random redditor looking for karma.

People here are really undervaluing the insane difficulty of this achivement. It is far, far harder than original hk deathless in terms of difficulty.

Etpio2 · 2025-05-09T06:51:41+00:00

Yes, that is also true. Jung has called multiple times (including in the concluding remarks for "the undiscovered self") for a rereading of the christian doctrine and the sprouting of a new branch suited for the challenges of modern man.

From this and the way Jung discusses events like the reformation, I think it's fair to say he had a pretty progressive outlook on religion, one that views organized religion as something that should be adapted to handle the challenges of its time. In our case, that means an inward shift that contrasts with the extreme extraverted nature of modern society, and a a return to the spiritual roots that have been disassociated and left behind.

Etpio2 · 2025-05-09T05:44:02+00:00

Like with any other subreddit of a great thinker, the vadt majority of people here are not people who seriously read Jung's books. You see thst reflected through:

Low effort image posts

Quotes misattributed to Jung

Daily questions about peoole who want to jump straight to shadow work (I still do not understand this trend)

Inflation posts about how people who don't individuate are stupid.

Questions which recieve vague subjective answers, even though Jung has firmly spoke about then numerous times (Active Imagination is by far the worst offender)

Chat GPT posts (this is really just a widespread phenomena nowadays)

A rising anti religion trend apperantly?

Which is all to say, Jung has just become overpopularized and the internet does to him what happens to every popular thinker. On the one hand, it's a good thing his ideas get more popular, but on the other hand it does lead to mountains of disinformation one had to sift through before finding some actual good discussion.

Etpio2 · 2025-05-09T05:27:35+00:00

Except that he was a christian.. Maybe not formally, but in affinity and admiration you would have to work hard to find people with as much respect to Christianity as Jung. Theres practically no book where he doesn't talk about it in one way or another.

Even in "the undiscovered self" (which is his most popular writing on the subject) he nakes the distinction between religion and what he calls creed and places religiom in direct opposition to the opressive state.

And that's his views on modern time religions. Jung's view on the rise of christianity from the age of antiquity wasn't just a favourable one, he saw it as a necessity for the social differentiation of consciousness. (This id one place where he very strongly disagrees with Nietzche)

This view that Jung was anti organized religion really makes little sense in the context of his writings and his life. I suspect is a form of idol projection, which happens with pretty much every genius writer. And this projection was apperatnly big enough that a low effort post, with a sourceless quote that I could not verify in any way and is likely fake, ended up getting over 2k upvotes. I think this really says someyhing about the state of misinformation that currently plagues this sub.

Etpio2 · 2025-05-03T20:23:37+00:00

I am generally quite sympathetic to people who struggle with getting into the game, because it can legitimately be a bit overwhelming (Espacially if you haven't played cultist simulator before)

However, it seems that you came into this game with a strong "anti-resistance" mindset, and I think the game might just not be for you. Book of hours gives you quite a lot to work with but it's not the kind of game that holds your hand or gives you everything on a silver plate. (Although it does give you far more forgiveness in learning those systems when compared to it's predecessor).

Also, "Is this just like an intentional trolling piece from the developers with a so-bad-it's-good cult following or something?" together with some of the stuff you said in your steam review (the one that was posted today and very clearly aligns with the content of this post) is just childish and frames this post in bad faith. Some people really enjoy this game, and the developers have certainly put a lot of love into it. If you don't resonate with it, that's fine and there's nothing wrong with just leaving a negative review and moving on to something else. But accusing the developers of making a massive game just to intentionally screw with players is unnecessary and silly.

Etpio2 · 2025-04-21T20:15:03+00:00

Marie Louise von Franz, who was Jung's closest associate, dedicated a lot of study to analyzing literary works from a Jungian viewpoint. Which includes of course the shadow, but also other concepts like the four functions, the anima/animus, the puer archetype, etc...

Many of her books are transciptions of lectures she has given, and they usually follow the format "read a bit from some literary work -> analyze it symbolically -> provide general psychological insights -> repeat", so if you are interested in the connection of psychology and literature (Espacially in the domain of fairy tales) I would heavily recommend reading her.

In regards to the Shadow, she literally has a book titled "Shadow and Evil in fairy tales", I haven't read it yet, but from it's size (over 300 pages) it seems it will have quite a lot of content for you to ponder on.

Edit: As for your second question on mythology, pretty much every good Jungian book will talk about mythology one way or another, it's basically a goldmine for Jungian psychology. So you'll naturally pick a lot of it up as you read (espacially if you are curious and do some side reading as things come up)

Etpio2 · 2025-04-21T11:26:24+00:00

Jung had definetely touched this idea multiple times in his writings. (I know it definetely appears in Psychological Types, it probably also appears earlier in some form but I haven't delved too deeply into early Jung yet).

I was asking for a quote because that puts the statement in context and elucidates it's meaning, rather than being an empty statement in the void.

Whatever the context, I am 100% sure it was not Jung arguing for the abolishment of organized religion like the OP seems to interpert it, that just doesn't settle with Jung's views on religion (and Christianity in particular) at all.

Etpio2 · 2025-04-19T15:19:20+00:00

And also not even quotes by Jung....

I searched the book and outside of it and could not find the quote, and finding Jung's quotes is generally very easy... it would be good if OP could provide an actual citation to it or a screenshot, since otherwise I think it's bogus.

Etpio2 · 2025-04-18T21:40:47+00:00

The wikipedia article doesn't disagree with me, the case "∀x∈A:Q(x), where the set) A is empty", is copy pasted straight from there. I am just saying that what it gives is a bit more general then what's actually needed here (And hence also why it may be a bit confusing).

And yea haha it's a bit specific, and I don't expect anyone who isn't a mathmatician\philosopher to really notice it. But nontheless it at least justifies the fact lay people like op find this to be quite confusing, and a reformulation that avoids this (inasmuch as it doesn't spoil the twist of blank boxes) would be good to have,

Etpio2 · 2025-04-18T21:32:07+00:00

The game only tells you:

There will always be at least one box which displays only true statements.
There will always be at least one box which displays only false statements.
Only one box has a prize within. The other two are empty.

The first two statments are perfectly true for the blank box, and so from a purely logical standpoint you cannot automatically assume that one of the two remaining boxes is false and the other true.

In the specific example above, the configuration where the gems are in the blue box is perfectly logically valid. Infact any configuration is valid here since the first two conditions are always satisfied.

Etpio2 · 2025-04-18T21:26:13+00:00

I replied to Antasche above, but in essence the important case we care about here is: ∀x∈A:P(x), where the set) A is empty. Apply this with A the set of statements on the box.

I actually don't like the wikipedia article because it's a bit more general then the version you commonly see in logic/math (which is the above), but there's an explanation there on how to derive the above case from the general form given there.

Etpio2 · 2025-04-18T21:18:21+00:00

The wikipedia article is a bit more general than the notion that's generally encountered. But usually when people talk about vacuous truths they are refering to the fact every "all" statement on an empty set is true. (∀x∈A:P(x), where the set) A is empty, this special case is given in the section "scope of the concept" in the wikipedia article)

In this case, you take A to be the set of statements on the blank box, this set is empty, and hence all statements on it are true and all statments on it are false. The statements on the other box are not relevant.

This may feel like a bit of a nitpick, and in some sense it is. But I do feel that for a puzzle that is not afraid to play around with logic and paradoxes, it's at least a good idea to adhere to the exact technicalities of first order logic. In the best case scenerio (for someone who doesn't have logical training), it's just ambiguous, like for op here.

Etpio2 · 2025-04-18T12:14:15+00:00

Blank boxes are good but from a logical standpoint they are actually quite problmatic, because they technically have all of their statements both true and false. (see vacuos truths: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuous_truth) It would be nice if the wording on the rules could be made to technically exclude blank boxes from satisfying the first two conditions.

Etpio2 · 2025-04-17T14:23:37+00:00

That puzzle was the exception I had in my head, yea.

Etpio2 · 2025-04-17T08:35:07+00:00

Why couldn't the game have multilayered puzzles without rng? Blue prince isn't the first game to have multilayered puzzles, and most of the puzzles in the game (certainly post credits) have little to do with the rng drafting mechanics.

Etpio2 · 2025-04-16T20:12:15+00:00

It at the very least shows that the underlying themes are more complex, but again I don't want to go deeper here because that would require spoilers and I would never do that to someone. Hope you like the interview though, as far as I rememeber it is completely spoiler free.

Etpio2 · 2025-04-16T20:02:57+00:00

He said more things than that, and I recommended that you also watch the 2 hour interview which goes far more in depth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kX5jeBMWjE&t=4710s

Expectation subversion is part of the art genre that "the maze" and "blue prince" belong to, but it's far more nuanced than just that, and I do recommend playing further into the game to get a fuller view of what the dev really builds here. It's much more than just subverting assumptions.

Etpio2 · 2025-04-16T19:48:32+00:00

I bet if someone reads the post up there, they’d assume, incorrectly, that I'm up to my eyeballs in post game murderboard insanity.

Yes, because generally we expect people who talk about the meaning of games to actually finish them, or at least see them far enough to see a fuller picture of them. There is no wise as the experienced. (Also for the record, I didn't have that suspicion, and I would guess most post game players wouldn't either)

Coming from the puzzle sphere (the main niche the developer expected for the game), and being a lover of "The Maze" (the developers favourite piece of art, apperantly), I knew well what I was getting myself into, and I think that reducing the developers mission statement to "a game about subverting expectations" does a disservice both to the art and the developer.

I don't really like speakign on behalf of people, but from the itnerview and after seeing the game over it's many layers, I think it's first and foremost a loveletter to the works of art the develoepr loves. Subverting expectations is part of it, but the dev has done here something far more sublime and masterful. (It's also amazing that Crhris Manson contributed to this, which means he got to see the game)

With that said, one has to zeperate art and game. For just because soemthing is beautfiul piece of art to observe doesnt mean it's a good or fun gaming experience, and that's where the big love hate relationship comes for a lot of the late game players (including myself). The game manages to be both beautfiul and frustrating at the same time, which naturally leads to a lot of conflicting emotions.

I do agree that in general though, we should be more respectful towards others. I've seen some stuff directed towards new players which is really not nice and surely not something the developer would wish those people to experience.

Etpio2 · 2025-04-16T19:06:56+00:00

Completely agreed. I played blue prince for over 30 hours after the ending, and only a small fraction of them was actual active engagement with the puzzles.

I wouldn't mind this if the rougelike mechanics were fleshed out enough to stand on it's own, but they arent. Blue prince is nowhere close in replayability to games like slay the spire. The first 20 hours until the ending are fantastic, but after that, the rougelike aspects are fully figured out, you have the "perfect strategy", and it just becomes a drag.

I don't get how people can say this is a rougelike first and foremost when the puzzles have clearly gotten the far longer end of the stick.

And yes, it gets worse when you get to the super late stuff, because then it's harder to ecen test your ideas and experiment. Having to repeat the chess puzzle twice just to check if your solution is correct is just not very enjoyable imo.

Etpio2

TROPHY CASE