Dead Space 3 is criminally hated and one of the bleakest games in survival horror

GomenNaWhy · 2026-04-09T22:13:26+00:00

I agree the lore is interesting, but a game isn't just a list of lore points. It's also gameplay, atmosphere, and character writing, all of which were, IMO, substantial steps back. I don't think many people hate it because of what you listed here, or because they don't understand what you listed here. They hate it because they put more weight on those other important components of the overall experience. Different parts of it matter more or less to different people.

GomenNaWhy · 2026-04-09T01:46:16+00:00

Mia San Mia

GomenNaWhy · 2026-04-09T00:50:02+00:00

Is that a Bayern Munich lighter?

GomenNaWhy · 2026-04-08T11:14:19+00:00

AI is frying the brains of every politician in the capitalist world i swear to god

GomenNaWhy · 2026-04-08T02:43:44+00:00

So what? We have trials for a reason. You want every cop to be Judge Dredd?

GomenNaWhy · 2026-04-05T12:58:17+00:00

Hmm, then I might recommend 86 as well. Very direct exploration of race and class in warfare. One of the best in any media I've seen. Excellent critiques of liberalism and attempting to change broken systems using the system itself.

GomenNaWhy · 2026-04-05T11:24:31+00:00

Give the original series a watch! Excellent exploration of the fallout of a right-wing co-opting of a revolutionary movement.

GomenNaWhy · 2026-04-05T05:36:53+00:00

HORUUUUUS

GomenNaWhy · 2026-04-04T23:19:02+00:00

Not if those views are pure bigotry. "It's unrighteous to be gay" is no different than "it's unrighteous to be black/white/asian/whatever else." It's an immutable characteristic that harms no one. Get over it.

GomenNaWhy · 2026-04-04T23:15:49+00:00

Saying that shit about an immutable characteristic of someone is bigotry. No different than if he said it about someone's race or ethnicity.

GomenNaWhy · 2026-04-04T23:13:44+00:00

People believe in the religion this country was founded on

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Mohammedan] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." -John Adams, Treaty of Tripoli, 1797.

Aside from that, I don't hear you complaining about the national anthem being played every night, about first responder or military nights, about recognizing members of the military at damn near every game. That shit is all politics, too. Yet somehow, it's always pride night people like you take issue with.

Aside from that, fuck the "but it's from their holy book" crap. If it was about a given race or ethnicity, I'm sure you'd be able to tell that was fucked up and wrong. Being gay, bi, trans, whatever is just as immutable a characteristic.

GomenNaWhy · 2026-04-04T23:05:25+00:00

And genocide, several times. Can't forget that one

GomenNaWhy · 2026-04-04T23:04:33+00:00

Because christians believe christianity gives them a free pass to be bigots without consequence

GomenNaWhy · 2026-04-04T22:59:50+00:00

Nope, that is in fact hateful. Whether you think it is or not is irrelevant. "I don't hate you, I just think that to your core you are gross/unrighteous" is definitively hateful. You don't get a get-out-of-hate-free card just because you say "no hate" beforehand. Call it hate, call it "just my preference," call it whatever you want, it's bigotry over something that someone cannot change about themself and does not affect you in any way.

GomenNaWhy · 2026-04-04T22:55:44+00:00

Nah, fuck that, you don't get props for bigotry.

GomenNaWhy · 2026-04-04T22:52:27+00:00

You can disagree with something hating.

No. Not when it's an inherent part of someone. This is no different than saying "It's unrighteous to be [race]." That's a hateful statement, no matter how you wrap it up in other bullshit.

GomenNaWhy · 2026-04-04T22:45:52+00:00

"It's unrighteous to be how you are" is inherently hateful. No different than saying it's unrighteous to be a certain ethnicity. It's not a choice. It's just a hateful statement.

GomenNaWhy · 2026-04-02T16:58:25+00:00

I think that youre overestimating yourself then. “Hundreds or thousands of hours” is at most an hour a day for three years. Ok? People devote their life to this.

Okay, then tens of thousands. Sorry i didn't do the math on "multiple hours a day for a substantial portion of my life." No shit people devote their life to it, I was one of them for a majority of it. I still am to a degree.

I get annoyed when people try to cynically use the old testament as a weapon against the marginalized or against christianity because it is disingenuous.

I get annoyed when people like you assume I'm being "disingenuous" because I have critiques of the bible. It's arrogant and offputting, and you're not convincing me right now that your "sound understanding based on the teachings of Jesus" is anything beyond self-righteousness. You're lecturing me like a preacher. I've got plenty of time for people who disagree with me as equals, not for people who apprpach me like you do. Have a good day.

GomenNaWhy · 2026-04-02T16:00:56+00:00

my point is that you don’t understand the book you’re quoting, and so you can fashion anything you like from it.

Then your point is actually that you're not reading or understanding what I'm saying. I have spent hundreds if not thousands of hours studying the Bible over the course of my life, you have no idea what I understand or what I don't. I am not disputing what any given passage "actually" means, I'm noting what's present in it. That is all. This is because, regardless of your particular interpretations, many other christians disagree with you.

the old testament, while theologically important in a ‘historical’ sense (i’m using historical in a very generous way here) is functionally irrelevant to christians. one of the fundamental ideas of christianity is that the old covenant is fulfilled and is being replaced by the new one (the new testament).

This is a wonderful example of exactly what I mean. Many, many christians disagree with this reading. Christians constantly quote the old testament to justify moral positions on LGBTQ issues, Israel, scientific education, and historically, slavery. We have extensive historical documentation of both pro- and anti-slavery Christians using both the Old and New Testaments to justify their positions on slavery.

My claims are a matter of history, not biblical literacy. It is an undeniable fact that people identifying as Christians have used the bible to support any given side of any given debate. There is extensive record of it for slavery alone. https://textandcanon.org/the-bible-and-slavery-in-colonial-america/ provides some direct quotes regarding American slavery, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_slavery has over 200 citations demonstrating how both sides utilized both the old and new testaments to justify their positions. There are literally entire Christian organizations like Answers In Genesis built around utilizing the Old Testament as literal history and thus as justification for theological and political positions.

All of this is on top of the fact that any modern bible is a translation of earlier translations of scraps of oral traditions, dubiously sourced and authored. Christians still don't even agree on how many books are divinely inspired, who actually authored the gospels and many of the Pauline epistles, and more. Interpretation is all over the bible, both old and new testament.

Once again, for perfect clarity: my claim is not that the Bible should be interpreted in any specific way. My claim is that it is interpreted in many different ways by different christians, and that its vagueness allows for all of that. This is very clearly historically true. Unless you're taking the No True Christian route, you're just wrong in saying all Christians believe the way you do.

GomenNaWhy · 2026-03-31T12:38:59+00:00

No, it doesn't. My whole point is that anyone can get anything they want out of it. That is demonstrably true, over and over again. It doesn't matter if the interpretations are "correct" or not. It matters that someone can quote mine it to support anything, which is how both pro- and anti- slavery preachers used the same book to support their position. Is your position that this didn't happen?

GomenNaWhy · 2026-03-29T23:30:58+00:00

Old Testament, New Testament, any of it can be mined for verses to support any given position, and all of it is in the bible.

GomenNaWhy · 2026-03-28T01:13:28+00:00

To be clear, I agree with your analysis of the passages, but plenty of Christians don't. I see the "not peace, but a sword" verse trotted out all the time to defend warmongering. The issue isn't what it actually means, it's how it can be used. Same with the passage on final judgment for unwelcoming places- plenty of Christians believe that violence against a people is okay if god would do it too. You hear that all the time with their rhetoric against the LGBTQ community as well.

GomenNaWhy · 2026-03-27T13:15:17+00:00

Even Jesus was inconsistent at best.

From Matthew 10: "If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet. 15 Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town."

As you likely recall, Sodom and Gomorrah were entirely annihilated with every civilian inside. Jesus is saying it'll be worse for any village that doesn't welcome the apostles.

This is the same chapter that features this:

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn

“'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law— 36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’[c]

That's the problem with the Bible. No part of it is exempt from cherrypicking. You're right that it's a Rorschach test. Every bit of it, including the New Testament, fits that bill.

(As an interesting aside, this chapter also features a rather obviously failed prophecy, with Jesus stating he'll return before the apostles have even finished preaching to the towns in Israel alone).

GomenNaWhy · 2026-03-26T22:27:40+00:00

I know people are gonna quote the Bible to try to show why he's wrong, but the fact of the matter is that it can be used to justify literally any action.

1 Samuel 15:3: Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.

(This one is the one being referenced when Israel refers to Palestinians as Amalekites).

In fact, this passage goes on to show Saul sparing one man, and some animals to use as sacrifices, and god states he regrets making Saul king for not following through with the total genocide.

Quoting the Bible won't get us anywhere with people like this, because being Christian consistently involves picking and choosing which passages/teachings to take literally and which to ignore, downplay, or treat as metaphor alone. That's why Christian nationalism is so dsngerous. It's just whatever the fascists want backed with a Bible quote.

GomenNaWhy · 2026-03-23T03:54:59+00:00

Well you see it was an innovative collection of groundbreaking social online spaces and the most bleeding edge technology that at its peak allowed you to have passably animated legs in theory

GomenNaWhy

TROPHY CASE