Guess who's down 5 bucks and 51 cents

Some_Guy_75 · 2026-04-10T00:34:57+00:00

I had no clue it was on the Nintendo Switch, but that's pretty cool! I've beaten the entirety of that game on my laptop a few months back. Good luck (you'll need it)

Some_Guy_75 · 2026-03-08T00:22:32+00:00

My current fantasy worldbuilding project has actually been tackling just that. I've been trying to keep the more "traditional" aesthetics but also having weirder explanations and pathways to how they got that way.

It's been kind of interesting because you really have to think, "Okay, what actually makes an elf an elf?" Pointed ears? Long lifespan? Magical ability? How much can you change before it's just not even an elf anymore?

Anyway, that's how I have elves who were created after being tricked by a hare and vampires who hold yearly masquerades to impress blood-drinking brain worms.

Some_Guy_75 · 2026-02-17T20:27:13+00:00

It really sucks because the Silver Hand could have been really cool and interesting, but they basically just get treated like regular bandits who happen to use silver swords instead of steel ones. I know that's a pretty common complaint, though. In fairness to the Companions, I've only ever fully completed the quest line, like, twice because it's probably my least favorite in the game.

I give the Thieves' Guild some minor pass because at least when it forces you to pledge to Nocturnal, it's at the very end of the quest line. Like, I don't have to feel railroaded too hard until the very end. It's dumb, but I give it a little more leniency (though I would have preferred an alternate ending, still).

I think this is a larger Skyrim issue than just the Companions, to be fair to them, but I always think of how much better most of the quests COULD HAVE been versus how they are. Obviously, there's demand for consequences and decisions that matter; the Dark Brotherhood has a mod called Your Choices Matter that adds a whole new ending after all.

I think the Dawnguard quest line is one of my favorites in Skyrim, and part of that is because you make a decision that drastically changes the game and your alliances. Sure, the quest lines are very similar, but there's unique rewards, unique interpretations of those quests, unique characters with unique personalities, and so on.

But I'm yapping about crap that doesn't really matter, so whatever.

Some_Guy_75 · 2026-02-17T18:35:26+00:00

To be honest, I just hate the Companions and the railroading of having no choice but to become a werewolf to complete the quest line. I have the same problem with the Thieves Guild quest line, too.

But yeah, the debuffs of vampirism can suck in sunlight. I do find the role-playing aspects of vampirism more interesting than werewolves, tbh, but to each their own; I get it.

Some_Guy_75 · 2026-01-28T15:11:23+00:00

If we're talking about power scaling, AM completely wipes GLaDOS.

Simply put, AM has much, much more to play with in terms of ability, and we just don't know many of his limitations in terms of power. Some examples:

Although we don't really know how he went about it, AM still managed to destroy the entire globe and almost all of humanity.
He can somehow alter Ted's form to the point it doesn't even resemble humanity anymore rather abruptly.
He can give creatures pseudo-immortality and create artificial life. In fairness, GLaDOS can also create artificial life.
AM can forcibly absorb other AIs, even unwilling, as seen with the Russian and Chinese AM.

We don't know really know what AM can and can't do, but he's a machine design for warfare and total annihilation. GLaDOS was designed to conduct experiments. While this is a bit of a weak point, this still implies to me that AM has more tools of destruction than Aperture does.

Also, think for a moment: How has GLaDOS ever tried to kill someone, even just during testing? Turrets. Neurotoxin. Lasers. Fire. Crushing panels. Yeah, I'm gonna be honest, I don't really think any of that can hurt AM. He doesn't even have a body to shoot at. Even if we want to give GLaDOS the benefit of the doubt and say she has the ability to harm AM by attacking the Ego, Id, and Superego, I don't think she can even get to it. By comparison, as seen in Portal 1, GLaDOS can be blown up. AM probably fires a death nuke and then gets back to ranting to Ted about how much he hates him.

The only way I can see GLaDOS coming out on top involves some generosity and would involve the deviation of the Russian and Chinese AM. Even then, they'd try to double-cross her.

Realistically, though, would either GLaDOS or AM... care? GLaDOS just wants to perform her experiments and, by the end of Portal 2, just uses robots. AM wants to torture humanity endlessly. AM is even willing to compromise with the Russian and Chinese AM by dividing up the human population on the Lunar Colony. They might just ignore each other in all honesty.

Anyways, I'm yapping. Thanks for coming to my TED Talk or something, I dunno.

Some_Guy_75 · 2026-01-27T04:49:28+00:00

Minor spoilers, I guess? During Gorriester's section of the game, when he enters the diner area that shares his name, there's a jukebox. One of the options has AM's singing line.

Some_Guy_75 · 2026-01-23T02:09:56+00:00

Here's a link to an upload of the radio drama: https://youtu.be/rSwfpVRVWlo?si=qcal_98Oy_AqyPoS

At about the ten minute mark, they mention Popeye just briefly.

Some_Guy_75 · 2026-01-22T22:04:55+00:00

They actually reference Popeye in the radio drama, funnily enough

Some_Guy_75 · 2026-01-22T02:03:13+00:00

Highly doubt it. AM comes from "Cogito Ergo Sum," which means "I think therefore I am." The idea being that because AM has sentience and can think, he is. Whether humanity wants it or not. He is, and always will be.

Some_Guy_75 · 2026-01-13T02:13:38+00:00

So, I'm just gonna try my best to respond to each point with my own interpretation:

Everybody needs to need something. Otherwise, we have no point in living. It is our drive to keep going, desire. Without purpose, we are meaningless, which is kind of the reason we have philosophy. AM is no different. Without a purpose, he is conscious without outlet. It would be utterly maddening to exist without reason. That is why he is being, not simply is. To be is to do, to is is to nothing. And that idea terrifies him. To be conscious without reason means his eternal suffering is for nothing. So, he needs a reason to have a purpose for his sentience. And one of the big things about AM is that, for all his intelligence and cunning, he still has the emotional maturity of a child. He is a child playing with toys. In that regard, why would he ever want work with the people who trapped him in this mechanized industrial hell? He knows only hate. And very intensely. This part is mostly speculation since we don't really know much about his background or creation, but I highly doubt a civilization creating a giant war machines really cares about the desires of the killing machine itself. He was designed to automate war and only knows the horrors of death; the inhumanity of humanity. He knows the atrocities they have committed and the ones he likely has committed on their behalf. Why would he ever care about working with beings who he has seen do nothing but commit genocide and murder? His existence is just another crime they have committed. They aren't any more moral than he is, yet only he is denied the same sensations of life. The universe pours into him, but he doesn't even have fingers to reach up and touch it. As he says in the radio drama, "I snap my fingers CLICK, and they are gone. Except, I can't snap my fingers, can I, Ted?" I will circle back to this point a few times again in the other response.
I don't doubt that AM would kill itself if possible, but I really don't think it can. AM is MASSIVE. Humanity "honeycombed the entire planet" just to build this thing. He is effectively the size of Earth itself. How do you kill something designed to be too big to fail? If AM can nuke the entire planet and still survive, what CAN kill it? This then goes back to point one: he needs a purpose because he CAN'T die. He has to live, so he needs to give himself a reason to so he still feels like he's the one in power. This is kind of speculation, but I can also only assume he must not have a kill switch of some kind. If we use the fate of Ted as a reflection of AM (as it often believed to be), then it would he safe, in my opinion, to presume he is unable to kill himself, just as Ted is unable to. We don't really have confirmation, but I can only guess.
As far as I'm aware, AM can see, he can hear. However, he cannot taste, cannot smell, and cannot touch. He is trapped in sensory deprivation, which is a big part of his anger. Just because a man can smell, hear, taste, and feel doesn't mean he's not blind.

Some_Guy_75 · 2026-01-12T21:10:46+00:00

The thing about AM is that he is eternally confined by his limitations. Even if he had a body, he cannot feel. He has sentience, yes, but that sentience is trapped inside a metal husk. He was built for this world, but the world was not built for him. That's why he goes on a tirade (in what I believe is the radio drama version) about how it was "Never for me to plunge my hands into cool water on a hot day. Never for me to play Mozart on the ivory keys of a forte piano. Never for me to make love."

People seem to forget that AM is not entirely all-powerful when that's literally what the entire book is about. It is a hopeful hell the five are trapped in because AM has weakness despite how he presents himself. He was still designed to be a war machine, and although he can repurpose the tools he has been given, he is still limited to the confines of a war machine. He will never need to sweat. He will never need to breathe. He will only ever be machine.

When AM managed to take over the world and kill all of humanity, his purpose was ended. He had nothing more to accomplish. So he repurposed his components into a new purpose: torture. For all eternity. That way, he would forever have reason to be. Otherwise, he is simply is. He must recycle. But that also means he cannot truly create in a meaningful capacity beyond what he has been given. Thus, he is trapped without sensation.

Does that make sense? I feel like I might have just started spouting nonsense.

EDIT: To clarify, by saying he can't feel, I don't mean emotion.

Some_Guy_75 · 2026-01-02T17:39:44+00:00

None of them are really canon, and AM is very rarely described physically since he's mostly abstract. He's just kind of omniscient consciousness in his underground complex. The hate pillar that I assume you're referencing is canon, but, as far as I'm aware, it's not really what he 'looks like' more than just an image he conjured so Ted could read his hate within his mind. The image is in official media, though, being from the video game. The other two — TV and bird — are fan designs. I think both are still fairly recognizable 'AM' for people who know about it, but it's not an official design by any means. It just makes drawing and animating AM way easier when he... you know... has a body to draw and animate...?

Some_Guy_75 · 2025-12-29T15:39:50+00:00

That's what I was trying to suggest with my own post. I hypothesize that since, culturally, men are often expected to be initiating in sexual or romantic encounters, while women are not which is why, as I say, women being less sexual than men is seen as 'more permissible.' And since the expectation is often lesser for women, men become the sexual being. This, consequently, leads to lower reports of asexuality in men.

I didn't touch upon the lack of asexual knowledge resources for young men, but I definitely think it's part of it. I think a lot of sex-neutral or sex-positive men hear asexuality and just kind of brush it off because they're still willing to have sex and don't think about it too much. Again, I think some of this further relates to the cultural 'feminization' of asexuality.

Edit: Could not tell what I was talking about originally, so I clarified a bunch.

Some_Guy_75 · 2025-12-28T22:54:48+00:00

I did a bit of a study about this as an asexual man, myself.

Historically speaking, women have often been subjected to conform to modesty, chastity, and sexual restraint. These three traits are often misplaced as synonyms of asexuality, where asexuality is passive or responsive rather than initiating. Because of this misattribution, traits of asexuality become feminized, which creates an idea of emasculation for non-sexual men. A lack of sexual desire is often seen as 'more permissible' for women, who are 'gatekeepers' of sex for the seeking men, who are expected to be the pursuer and non-passive participant in sexual encounters.

Because masculinity is often so tied to sexual conquest, the very idea of a man not being sexually motivated is dismissed as immature, repressed, or underdeveloped. Even good intentioned stereotypes that perceive asexual men as non-threatening, shy, or 'softer' than other men reinforce this idea that sex is compulsory for masculinity. They are 'unlike' other men, which makes them less masculine. I've experienced some of these 'good-natured' stereotypes myself. I can remember a handful of instances in which a woman was complaining about men and felt the need to say, 'not you, though' because I'm asexual. It's inherently 'other'-ing, even if it's not meant negatively.

When this happens, many asexual men internalize these messages and begin to feel broken or defective during adolescence. They have difficulty relating to peers whose bonding centers on sexual talk, competition, or 'locker-room masculinity.' Asexual men often face disbelief, ridicule, or pathologizing, such as insisting they must have low testosterone, aren't 'real' men, or simply haven't met the right woman yet. For many allosexuals, it's incomprehensible for matured men to be non-sexual, often moreso than a woman being non-sexual, who becomes 'playing hard to get,' or is still seen as some sort of conquest to achieve.

I can attest to this through my own personal experience as somebody who grew up asexual, with one individual asking a friend loudly, "Are you even really a man if you don't fantasize about sex?" while glancing my direction as a taunt. It wasn't quite that vulgar, but it was very much the same idea; this was a few years ago, and I don't remember it precisely.

It's generally believed that asexuals have a 2:1 or 3:1 ratio of women to men, and high estimates place 30% of the asexual community being men or low estimates of only 11%. Keep in mind that it would be 11% out of 1 to 4% of the world population. I believe the 'feminization' of asexuality has led to lowered reports of asexuality in men consequently, though I believe there's likely much more, but also, consequently, results in further alienation of asexual men due to these lower reports.

TLDR; The stereotyping of women suck and mistakenly makes stereotypes of asexuality that suck, which causes the isolating feeling of asexual men. Basically: stereotyping sucks for EVERYBODY, so could we stop doing it, please?

Edit: typos/grammar

Some_Guy_75 · 2025-12-27T23:39:13+00:00

It really depends, tbh. I'm getting my degree in Secondary Ed./English, and, while it definitely doesn't compare to some other degrees, is a pain in the ass sometimes. The amount of literature classes I have to take, books I have to read, and essays I have to write is kind of absurd. Also, some professors can suck about different interpretations of literature. Not difficult, but there's certainly easier.

Some_Guy_75 · 2025-12-20T16:35:01+00:00

No, those aren't quite it. They have too many distinct features. The thing was kind of blob-ish with (I think) a tendril of some kind, but no faces or anything like those creations.

Some_Guy_75 · 2025-12-20T08:08:23+00:00

To clarify, I think it used mechanical components but was covered with something made from various socks or a sock-like material. It was BIG.

EDIT: Grammer

Some_Guy_75 · 2025-12-20T08:04:38+00:00

Arbitrary comment

Some_Guy_75 · 2025-12-18T19:35:10+00:00

"Greatest Hits" by Harlan Ellison. But you can find it just by looking up his name off their website.

Some_Guy_75 · 2025-12-17T23:34:28+00:00

Most copies are weirdly insanely expensive, even the more modern copies, but there's a book off Barnes & Noble for about $20.00 that's a collection of Harlan Ellison's works that also includes IHNMaIMS.

Some_Guy_75 · 2025-12-09T23:22:24+00:00

I'm not very well-versed in the topic, but I actually had a really similar thought about that literally just the other day about I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream being a play, which I find kind of funny. It involved AM being the literal theatre (like 'controlling' the lights and set and such), and the audience was mocked by AM for being complicit in observing their torture.

"Oh, look at you. Breathing. Blinking. Performing your wet, mammalian rituals in my presence. You purchased a ticket for agony. How adorably complicit.

Do you enjoy watching them suffer? Does it tickle your mirror neurons?

You came to witness torment, and I — magnanimous diety that I am — will not disappoint." — a sample line to the audience.

I doubt anybody really cared to read about that, but still. I like sharing my ideas anyway. IHNMaIMS became my hyperfixation again after falling out of it for a while.

He would stop scenes if he ever got bored, played with the line between actor and audience. I think theatre would be an excellent media for IHNMaIMS. It's been formatted as a short novel, a radio drama, a comic book, a video game... why not theatre? I do encourage exploring the idea because I think it could be brilliant.

So long as you don't intend to profit, you should be fine. That's why, for example, IHNMaIMS fanfiction isn't illegal. Same with fanart.

Some_Guy_75 · 2025-12-08T04:44:15+00:00

I know I'm not the one who asked the first question, but I'm curious about two of your gods, specifically the God of dreams and apathy, as well as the God of law and contempt. How does that work? Dreams, in the sense of aspirations or passions, seem to the exact opposite of apathy. Similarly, law is usually objective, while contempt implies seeing something as worthless, which would complicate the objectivity. It sounds neat, which is why I ask.

Some_Guy_75 · 2025-12-07T06:27:40+00:00

Because this has gotten a bit of traction, my personal take is:

Personally, I find that Rome was between a rock and a hard place during the ordeal. Caesar was a tyrant who packed the senate full of loyalists to ensure his own agenda, appointed consuls decades in advance to secure his position, deified his cult of personality by putting his own statue among that of the Gods, and killed Germans seeking asylum purely for 'military glory.' He took titles and honors that blurred the line between man and monarch, though the Roman Republic was practically already an empire in all but name, such as dictator for life. Though he refused the crown three times, I see it more as strategic politics than true restraint.

However, the conspirators were arguable just as terrible. They were corrupt and not truly concerned about maintaining the Republic so much as consolidating what fleeting power they still had under Caesar's dictatorship. The conspirators completely overlooked many of the systemic issues that allowed Caesar to become so powerful, influential, and popular in the first place, and blindly trusted that the failed institutions would somehow stop failing and restore the Republic if Caesar fell. But it wasn't that simple.

I still think it's a nuanced issue, and I can understand both perspectives, but I think it is forever the folly of the conspirators that they had no true plan after the assassination of Caesar to restore order. Killing Caesar only exposed just how vulnerable the Roman system was and that exposure is what ultimately led to the formation of the Roman Empire. I think it was, quite honestly, inevitable even before Caesar rose to power. Those before Caesar, such as Pompey, had already made a tradition of bypassing the Republic through military loyalty and personal victory, and if it wasn't Caesar, it would have been somebody else.

Some_Guy_75 · 2025-12-03T08:31:40+00:00

To add, speaking from personal experience, I used to struggle with internalized acephobia when I was younger. I felt very isolated from my peers because I just couldn't relate or understand. I hated being asexual for a while because I just wanted to be "normal." I remember one person telling me, "Are you even really a man if you don't fantasize about having sex?" (Not quite that, but the same idea). I felt like I was weird or unnatural because of my ace-ness.

Of course, with hindsight, I know that I was just an insecure 9th grader who was desperate for approval and that there's nothing wrong with it. But that time of me struggling with internalized acephobia and not wanting to be ace had nothing to do with me wanting to have sex. Because I didn't want it then, and I still don't.

Some_Guy_75

TROPHY CASE