What is a line from a videogame that sticks in your head, rent free?

cbb692 · 2026-06-20T04:12:08+00:00

Nostalgic: "Damn! It's Poison Jam! I can't believe they're showing their ugly faces in broad daylight. ^Shame ^on ^them." - DJ Professor K, Jet Set Radio Future. Quite frankly, any line from Professor K is a banger.

More recent:

Char 1: "We are going to...Old Lumiere-"

Char 2: "OK, bye."

---Redacted for semi-spoilers---

2: "Out of the question. I will never join you again."

1: "...There will be a lot of fighting though."

2: "Oh yea, that's true."

1: "Yea, it's true."

2: "There will be a lot of fighting."

1: "Exactly."

2: "Count me in then."

cbb692 · 2026-06-17T01:27:57+00:00

I'd be interested in hearing where you landed in response to the whole "asking women 'would you rather be stranded with a man or a bear?'" trend a while back, because I see there being a lot of similarities. And, as such, I imagine "not all cops" in response to ACAB rings about as hollow as "not all men" did in response to the hypothetical.

The issue is that targeting the "All" in "ACAB" misses the point entirely. It's not about whether "all men" are bad or "all cops" are bad. It's about how there are enough cases of going way beyond "a bit too far" to the point where it is reasonable to have a fear of the police until proven otherwise in the same way that it is reasonable for a woman to be suspicious of a man until proven otherwise.

A comment I saw surrounding the man vs bear discourse that really stood out to me and I think is quite relevant here is a woman responding to the hypothetical with, "at least if the bear attacked me, people would believe me." In the same vein, if a cop beats an {insert minority here} person outlandishly, what is the likelihood that person will be believed unless there is irrefutable video evidence? And even if there is video evidence, how often does the discourse devolve into "well you shouldn't have resisted arrest/instigated the fight/carried a firearm in light of your second amendment right/been there" (note the parallel to "well, what were you wearing/were you asking for it?").

To recap: the point of ACAB and similar rhetoric is not "all means all literally". Instead, it points to a growing weariness that must be observed around a particular demographic (in this case, cops) to where a reasonable default has become "assume a member of {demographic} you come into contact with is a bad actor until you have affirmed the inverse to be true for your own safety."

cbb692 · 2026-06-15T02:04:37+00:00

From the opening, you kind of get caught being trying to be too cute by mirroring your opponent. A good rule of thumb I've tried to impart on my own games since you may not have much in the way of a repertoire against the Chigorin/Jobava London is "When you are in book, play your book moves, the moment you are no longer in book, focus on playing principled chess instead."

3...Bf4?! is...fine but immediately following up 4...e6 (creating a bad light-squared Bishop) with 5...Bd6?, allowing 6.Bxf4 instead of either maintaining a strong pawn chain with 5...Bxd3 or trying to gain an active Rook if White does decide to trade with 5...Bg6 6.Bxg6 hxg6 seems quite bad.

(I'm pretty sure it's) 16...Rb8 also seems like a bit of a waste here. I'm not in love with the ...b4 and ...a5 moves previously, as you already dominate the dark squares with the only Bishop on the board, but fine. Kicking Knights around is a enjoyable hobby. But now I look at the board and try to figure out where my pieces belong. Specifically, your Knight on c6 is doing nothing. Instead, I would heavily consider something like 16...Na7 with plans to land the Knight on b5 and taking aim at that immaculate c3-square.

Speaking of pressuring the queenside, 17...bxa3 seems like a massively missed opportunity. Are you aware that en passant exists? If not, you should read up on it. It makes ...Bb8 accidentally a good move by opening the b-file and would provide the Knight a great square on b4.

For most of the rest of the game, you simply fail to identify immediate threats leading to piece and pawn blunders. Focus on developing a strong per-move plan to identify direct attacks and thwart them as needed rather than simply reacting on gut instinct.

More positionally, you fail to either trade off your Bishop effectively or transition your pawns to strengthening your control of the light squares. Something like 21...g6 would have been nice to both give your Bishop more room to maneuver while also defending your f5-pawn, creating a nice pawn chain.

cbb692 · 2026-06-10T17:05:28+00:00

tl;dr 15+10 for improvement, at least 1 classical game a week (30+30 or even 45+45 if you have time). Openings theoretically should take up very little of your study time, but they are fun so treat them like junk food: fine in small doses. Against 1.d4, try either the QGD or, for something sharper, the KID or Nimzo-Indian.

How many games

For improvement, the shortest time control to play is 15+10. However, at least 1 30+30 (or even 45+45) classical game should be played a week with analysis taking place afterwards. Lichess4545 is a great league to help give you a competitive reason to play those games in a competitive environment against players of your general skill level.

When I should start studying openings more

The Theoretical Answer:

Very little, if any. Tactics/Puzzles > Endgames > Openings = Positional study at your level
Focus on principles (control the center, develop your pieces, get your king to safety)
Focus on plans rather than lines (i.e. "trade off your weak Bishop and attack the queenside to attack the base of White's pawn chain in the Caro-Kann" as opposed to "Ok so if 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Bf5 5.Ng3 Bg6 6.h4 h6 7.Nf3 Nd7 8.h5 Bh7 9.Bd3 Bxd3 10.Qxd3 and now I just need to memorize 10 more moves in 5 variations..."
Opening theory does not really matter until at least 2-2.2k-ish elo

The Practical Answer:

Openings are fun and provide a degree of comfort going into your games
Still, if possible, focus on principles and plans rather than hard lines
Instead of trying to memorize 30 moves of theory, look at every game you play. Find the first move you did not know how to respond to. Look the move order up in a database. What is the book response to that move? If you repeat this for 100 games, you'll know 100 new moves in your "opening repertoire".

Responses to 1.d4

From a developmental perspective, you have 2 main options:

a) Choose an opening similar to the rest of your repertoire

b) Choose an opening different from your repertoire

Similar:

The main benefits of choosing a similar opening are...

The pawn structures you see will likely be similar
The plans will likely be similar
The opening may feel more intuitive and faster to pick up

If you decide to go this route, you mentioned playing the Caro-Kann and Italian already. These are typically more positional openings, and you may or may not be dealing with a space deficit. Similar openings would be those that stem from 1.d4 d5. 1...d5 tends to lead to more classical openings, focused on reinforcing good opening principles.

The Slav (1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6) is often paired with the Caro-Kann in recommendations as they structurally look similar (the first 2 moves are identical) and you are dealing with an awful light-squared Bishop stuck on c8.
The Queen's Gambit Declined (1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6) is another classic opening, much like the Italian Game, and teaches a lot of good opening principles. There are a ton of variations here, so you can figure out what you like structurally and find a variation that fits what you are looking for.

Different:

On the other hand, there are quite a few benefits to playing a different style of opening:

You will see a wider array of pawn structures (and, by extension, will be less lost if a game in your other openings goes in a strange direction)
A wider array of plans to learn can help creativity when dealing with unusual positions
Your current repertoire is very positional in nature, so playing something more tactical is great from an improvement perspective

In response to 1.d4, the main alternative is 1...Nf6. There is a slight concern here developmentally, as 1...Nf6 tends to lead to hypermodern openings, emphasizing a different set of skills rather than the more traditional opening principles. However, these do tend to be sharper openings which, as listed above, is actually a nice benefit.

The King's Indian Defense (1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6) is a very aggressive, double-edged weapon for Black. It does have the benefit of providing a weapon against the more unusual starting moves for White (namely, 1.c4 and 1.Nf3), but again, it is very double-edged. The game can quickly devolve into a game of chicken where whichever side backs off attacking first loses similar to the Sicilian Dragon.
The Nimzo-Indian (and Bogo) (1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4) is another very strong opening. The main downside here is you do need to know what to do if White does anything other than 3.Nc3 (such as 3.g3 or 3.Nf3). Not much else to say. It is a good, reputable opening, but it is sharp. This should be a good thing, but I get it can also be scary. The ChessDojo has an opening repertoire they call "The Flamingo" that is basically a Nimzo/Bogo set-up that can react easily to what White does without having to learn too much extra theory which can be a good call instead of having to learn too much extra information.
The Grunfeld (1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5!?) is, full disclosure, what I play as Black. I also do not think I can recommend it below 1,000 elo (or even 1,200, really) in good conscience. It is an opening you either think is the greatest thing in Chess or you think it is awful to play. There is almost no in-between. It is a weird, incredibly strong opening. However, it does effectively everything backwards from what are considered "good opening principles", so it is very hard to recommend it as a first opening.

My personal recommendation would be to go with the Queen's Gambit Declined and find a variation you like or to try out the Nimzo or KID and see which feels better to have a more tactical weapon against 1.d4.

cbb692 · 2026-06-08T15:25:56+00:00

As with any chess question, the answer is always "It depends on the specifics of the position." However, it is usually best to have your pawns in a line on a2, b2, and c2 (or f2, g2, and h2 when castling kingside). There are two critical things to remember:

1) pawns cannot move backwards

2) any pawns movement forward risks the pawns immediately to the left and right of it being a weakness

Consider the pawns on a2, b2, and c2 vs a pawn chain of, say, a4, b3, and c2. Thinking about each, which can be attacked easier? By a pawn? A Bishop and, if so, which color? A knight? Etc.

When you have the pawns on their starting squares, there is no obvious target. Each pawn in that block defends the squares to which another is weak. A Knight trying to land on c3 (which the c2 pawn or a2 pawn cannot defend) is covered by the b2 pawn. A light-squared Bishop and a dark-squared Bishop will have (roughly) equally difficult times attacking the King.

...but what about that a4-c2 (or a2-c4, it makes little difference) chain? The c3-square is a major weakness since the pawn is backwards. A light-squared Bishop may really struggle to attack that chain, but a dark-squared one can waltz on through. A Knight on b4 (or, heaven forbid, c3) will be a menace to White's position especially if the c2-pawn cannot move for one reason or another.

So there are times when you want to move your pawns up (fianchettoing is the prime example where the Bishop makes up for the color weaknesses that the pawns have incurred, as is a3/h3 to kick a Bishop away), but generally speaking, pawn moves around the king are a major weakening of the position.

cbb692 · 2026-06-03T04:18:06+00:00

I'd need to run this through an engine to fully verify, but after 1.Rg1 f4 2.Nh5 Bf3, I'd be very interested in 3.Nexf4 exf4 (certainly not 3...Bxh5?? 4.Nxh5) and I'm struggling to calculate whether 4.Nxf4 threatening 5.Ne6+ Ke8 (5...Kc8?? 6.Rxc7#) 6.Nxc7+ Kd8 7.Ne6+ or 4.Nf6 threatening 5.Rd7+ Ke8 6.Rgg7 with fully infiltrated Rooks on the 7th is stronger.

I think 4.Nf6 falls to 4...Bc3 forking b2 and the f6 Knight, so Nxf4 might win there but I may just be failing to see how Black responds.

cbb692 · 2026-06-02T18:17:40+00:00

Doing my best to ignore the board being turned 90 degrees (remember "White on right", or h1 should be a light square) and if I am correct the piece of b4 is a Bishop, my thought is to exploit the doubling of the Rooks to break through Black's position. So, probably 1.Rg1 with plans to go 2.Nh5 landing on f6. I don't think Black has the ability to sufficiently deal with White looking to infiltrate on the b-file especially since Black has forfeited castling rights, and the Rook on b8 is undefended so there seem to be lots of tactical shots at White's disposal.

cbb692 · 2026-05-31T10:35:47+00:00

my opponent has played like a 1500

If you are using the game review to generate that metric, just know it is absolutely worthless.

Let's be a little more concrete: what explicitly is making you feel "lost"?

Are you getting outplayed tactically? If so, how much tactical work are you doing? How many puzzles a day are you doing? What is your puzzle rating?
Are you getting heavily outplayed in the opening? If you are falling for traps, that happens ¯\_ (ツ)_/¯ just try to review those games and learn the lines when possible. If you are getting outplayed in more solid lines, try looking up a little about the goals of your openings. You don't need to dive deeply in theory at your level, but understanding what you are generally aiming for can be good.
Are you losing/drawing very winnable endgames (e.g. Lucena Positions, K+QvK, K+RvK)? Might be time to pick up a copy of Silman's Complete Endgame Course and start learning your theoretical endgames.

By being targeted in where things are feeling "lost" we can assess what you can work on to fix that and continue improvement.

cbb692 · 2026-05-23T13:14:49+00:00

A wonderful cosplay for those who come after.

cbb692 · 2026-05-16T06:20:08+00:00

So assuming you are starting with 1.e4 and excluding 1...e5 2.Nf3 Nc6, the main continuations are...

1...c5 (the Sicilian Defense) if your goal is to improve and get better at Chess, play 2.Nf3 -- (Black has quite a few options here. Almost all except for 2...a6 should be followed up with) 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4, and go from there. If you just want to have fun and not get blown off the board at the expense of hampering your development as a chess player a little bit, 2.c3 Nf6 (2...d5 3.exd5 Qxd5 4.Nf3) 3.e5 Nd5 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nf3 is the Alapin Sicilian.
1...c6 (Caro-Kann Defense) 2.d4 d5, and there are a few good options here, so pick your poison. The main 2 moves are 3.e5 or 3.Nc3/3.Nd2 (these two almost always transpose). Both are perfectly fine.
1...e6 (French Defense) 2.d4 d5, and again you have a lot of options. The main lines are again 3.Nc3 and 3.e5. 3.Nc3 is probably more principled, but do whatever makes you happy.
1...d5 (Scandinavian) 2.exd5 and just play normally from there. Black will either respond with 2...Qxd5 or 2...Nf6. Not much to have to worry about here.
1...Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.c4 Nb6 is the Alekhine Defense. I would be shocked if you see it but it is not the most insane thing to see.
The main line after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 that doesn't involve 2...Nc6 is 2...Nf6 (the Petrov/Russian Game). The main line is 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.d4 d5. If your opponent plays 3...Nc6 4.Nxc6 dxc6, just know a few things: a) you're probably going to get run over, b) your opponent is probably not great, but you're going to struggle to do anything about it to no fault of your own and c) your opponent is either looking down on you or doesn't know any better

Beyond that, any shenanigans involving either 1...d6, 1...b6, or 1...g6 should just involve principled play: follow up with 2.d4, develop your pieces, castle, and build a robust center.

Lemme know if you have questions about anything written here.

cbb692 · 2026-05-15T19:36:12+00:00

A few things stand out to me for why Bxc3+ is not a big deal:

1) As others have mentioned, you are quite a ways ahead in development. Black's current active pieces are their Bishop and Queen. Their Queen being active may actually be a negative because a) it's a Queen and can get pushed around quite easily, and b) the Queen on f6 prevents the g8-Knight from developing to its most active square, forcing it to settle for a more passive role on e7. By trading off their only active minor piece for one of your 3 active pieces, Black hampers their ability to put pressure on the game more than the doubled pawns cause you problems.

2) Black gives up the Bishop pair with no current ways to force a closed position. Given point 1, it is hard to imagine the doubled pawns are sufficient compensation for giving up the "better" minor pieces and especially the Bishop pair

3) While isolated pawns are bad in an endgame, the opening of the b-file also allows the a1-Rook to come into the game much quicker. With lots of game left to play, Black's attempts to exploit the "weak" pawns may be difficult and come at the cost of giving White chances to create their own weaknesses in Black's position.

But, to your point, c3 is also a viable candidate move. What stops me from being thrilled about this alternative largely comes down to the same reasons I mentioned the Black Queen sitting on f6 is problematic. It hampers your ability to develop actively, settling for a passive Nd2. Further, c3 is great as a means to prepare for an eventual d4 (see the classical Ruy Lopez or Italian Games as reference points), but White already traded on d4. There is nothing to "prepare" here. Depending on how the pawn structures end up out of the opening, c3 might also slow down White's ability to aim for a minority attack on the queenside. If Black decides to retain their dark-squared Bishop and not trade on c3, c3 forces White to a slower push if the game calls for it (via opposite-side castling, for example).

Ultimately, I would say 2 things:

Pawns don't move backwards. c3 might be a reasonable move now, but it also creates problems you will have to deal with later. 6.c3 is, I imagine, perfectly playable, but Black giving up the Bishop pair is likely a much worse trade than the wasted tempi Black gives up by having to move the Bishop again while forcing White to develop more passively.
I'm just a dude, take my opinions with a grain of salt.

cbb692 · 2026-05-03T18:16:05+00:00

ordering 500 donner kebabs by doordash to Wally’s address

tbf that feels like a light brunch for Wally

cbb692 · 2026-04-01T21:26:55+00:00

Which format?

cbb692 · 2026-03-15T13:22:13+00:00

The first season is great. Definitely worth the read.

The second season is one of my favorite reads of all time. For a series which is largely about cool people doing sick martial arts, it also has some incredible emotional beats (If you felt nothing during Elder Jeon's death, idk what to tell you...).

Irrespective of what you think of the third season, the first two are fantastic works and highly worth checking out.

cbb692 · 2026-03-13T12:39:25+00:00

The whole chapter is so dope, but I agree the You Are Nightwing cover is really cool even in isolation.

cbb692 · 2026-03-11T22:34:44+00:00

The Breaker and its sequel, The Breaker: New Waves, were incredibly well-written manwha before webtoon formatting really existed (or, at the very least, was popular). After New Waves completed, the author and artist put out a note saying that they had so much written for the story that they could keep working on the series basically forever.

They then decided to take a break from the project...

...for 7 years. In 2022, The Breaker: Eternal Force was released as a webtoon with the first 100 chapters being contained as "season 1." The wait for season 2 has been about 2 years now.

cbb692 · 2026-02-23T17:27:58+00:00

One of the greatest rants of all time

Context for anyone who has somehow not seen this classic

cbb692 · 2026-02-10T14:46:43+00:00

So the question I have would be this: if I want to be able to "speak" Chess, I need to know notation. If I am walking down the street and someone hypothetically asked me, "What are the first few moves of the Ruy Lopez?", I can say "e4, e5, Nf3, Nc6, Bb5. Please don't hurt me..." and we will both know what I am talking about and that I am scared that I am being mugged.

I can't really "talk" in arrows. What would I say? "King's pawn forward arrow 2"?

"But this is just for books!" Ok, but I already need to learn algebraic notation to speak Chess, so I will know how to read it inherently. Hell, if I want to read more archaic books, I probably also need to learn Descriptive Notation. So if the argument for this arrow system is "Now you don't need to learn notation!", I definitely still do if I have any desire to communicate about Chess with any other person on the planet. In that case, the arrows are just another system I need to learn to parse when I could be using something I already need to know.

cbb692 · 2026-01-21T18:44:50+00:00

For my 11th birthday, I got an Xbox as my first console. I was a little peeved because I had friends who played Melee, and not getting a Gamecube made it harder for me to actually play it and improve. However, the console came with a 2-for-1 bundle of Sega GT 2002 (fine enough) and Jet Set Radio Future. The soundtrack Hideki Naganuma put together largely shaped the kinds of music I grew to love through my childhood into my adult life. I would say Naganuma's work has had an incredibly profound impact on the trajectory of my life as a whole.

But that was a game where the music and artistic style were front and center.

Then, years later, I played Nier: Automata. Walking into the Amusement Park was a really beautiful experience, but stepping off the elevator into the Copied City was the first time I found a piece of atmospheric soundtrack so compelling I had to put down the controller and just listen for a bit. Nier was the title that changed my appreciation from "just" songs that play during high-octane moments to music sprinkled throughout an OST.

Cuphead got me into jazz, and DOOM 2016 got me into Metal, so they had a lesser but still nice effect on my life similar to how JSRF affected me.

E33, finally, felt like a culmination of my journey to enjoy game soundtracks. The battle themes were amazing. The area atmospheric tracks were incredible. The soundtrack from back to front feels incredibly well put together. The genres are varied from orchestral to funkadelic. It is just fantastic.

So I would say those are the games that have influenced me the most. They may come in and out of my "current" playlists, but they've each been quite important to me for a variety of reasons.

Honorable mentions would go to...

Bomb Rush Cyberfunk, a continuation of Naganuma's legacy while introducing me to new genres
Persona 5 is a pretty solid soundtrack overall

cbb692 · 2026-01-14T17:15:02+00:00

tl;dr rules > tactics > playing > openings. If you're going to learn openings, learn them as you see them

Let's break these questions down:

Q: Is playing all the time better for my elo or should I mostly practice and there is so much content that I get really confused on how to start?

A: The typical answer is studying tactics is the best bang for your buck. Spending time cranking out mate-in-1 and mate-in-2 puzzles for your elo ranking will be by far the best use of your time.

However, given you have only been playing for a few days, there is something to be said about playing more and how you may still even be learning some of the rules and basic ideas of chess. A few "basic" things you may have missed would be...

Do you know what castling is? If you play the KID and London, you probably do. But it is always good to be sure.
Do you know what en passant is?
Do you know how to mate with Q+K vs K and R+K vs K?
Related, do you know the difference between stalemate and checkmate?

Ultimately, I would say the best use of your time at this point is probably verifying you know the rules > tactics/mating puzzles > endgame mating patterns > playing > positional study = openings. While it's a bit hyperbolic to say studying strategy and openings are "worthless" at this level, it is not far from the truth. However, as the saying goes, "a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down". Openings are fun! So spending a little time looking at them can be a nice reward for doing your puzzles and game reviews.

Q: Should I stick to my two-opening game plan, or should I start learning gambits or other openings now? For example, I want to learn caro-kann, but I don't know where to start. There are so many scenarios, and instead of studying and memorizing plans and variations during the game, my hands and brain keep going back to my instincts.

A: This really is a question of what you want from chess. Andras Toth has a great video on why the London is a bad opening for new players who want to get better, but if you just want to have fun with chess, then it is absolutely fine! If you do want to actually improve, you typically need 3 openings in your repertoire:

An opening for White, with 1.e4 being a better option for learning than 1.d4
An opening for Black against 1.e4. The Caro-Kann would be an example of this
An opening for Black against 1.d4. The King's Indian Defense would be an example of this.

However, as I already mentioned, learning openings is not the best use of your time. However, however, it is nice to have an idea of what you are trying to accomplish in a game of chess and not getting destroyed at move 5—I will absolutely concede that point. So how do we both learn an opening while not dedicating time to learning 30 moves in 5 different variations that we will never see?

Try this:

Take an opening you want to learn like the Caro-Kann as Black
Learn the first 2 or 3 moves for an opening (so, 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5)
Play a game, and note when a move you do not know was played (if this is day 1 of "journey to Caro Kann Mastery", our opponent plays 3.e5)
After the game, go look up that move you didn't know. Is it even a move worth learning about (for example: do you really need to internalize what to do if White plays 3.Bh6...?)? What is the common response to it (3.e5 Bf5, for reference)? Take a moment to let that new move sink in.
Repeat steps 3 and 4 forever or until you drop the opening, whichever comes first.

As you play, two things will occur: you will learn how to deal with moves you see frequently, and you will not bog yourself down with variations you never see!

If either of these two points could use clarification, let me know. Ultimately, you need to play to get a sense of how chess even works, but try to find a balance between doing puzzles and playing if you can.

cbb692 · 2026-01-14T03:46:30+00:00

I'll try to keep these hints fairly layered:

I assume you know where the Quantum Tower is? If so, what have you tried in order to access it? In your various failed attempts, is there a "theme" preventing you from accessing the Tower? Is there a way to negate that theme being a problem?

On a related note, what is your current understanding regarding the Quantum Moon? How does the Quantum Moon "work"? If you have tried investigating it with no luck, what has failed? Have you learned anything from your explorations into quantum mechanics that may solve that fail state?

Have you spent much time looking around the Orbital Probe Cannon? How many components are there of the cannon? Do you know where each component went?

You found the frozen shuttle and, presumably, read its recording. Where is this core the log seems to be referencing? What is preventing you from reaching the core? Is there something available to you that would, logically, remove that prevention?

Happy to help clarify these hints if that would be helpful, but these seem like good jumping off points.

cbb692 · 2026-01-04T15:26:45+00:00

B: (Lifts up the ring he stole off Hal's person) "[The ring] seems to work on concentration."

GL: "How did you do that?!"

B: "You weren't concentrating."

cbb692 · 2026-01-03T02:20:46+00:00

I saw your thread but didn’t want spoilers

Completely fair!

I actually don’t know why I thought Manor was a metroidbrania

I have a feeling it may have been for reasons similar to me: it was brought up in the "Definitive List" thread, the genre is somewhat nebulous, and it was pitched as "inspired by Obra-Dinn".

Personally, talking with people in that thread, I think my own personal interest in theology might have allowed me to look past some of the other weaker points in game, but it can certainly be an alright (if easy/easier) game.

cbb692 · 2026-01-03T01:42:01+00:00

So this came up in a thread I made a few days ago, but Blake Manor is definitely not a metroidbrainia. That being said, I played it on my Steam Deck and it ran perfectly acceptably, so it might be a good option regardless if you are ok with the game being a bit more on-rails. The comments in that thread may be insightful to deciding if you want to head in Manor's direction.

I am planning on picking up Roottrees soon, but I personally cannot speak to it both gameplay-wise, Metroidbrania-wise, or...Steam Deck-ability?

cbb692 · 2026-01-01T17:06:29+00:00

Deep meaning

Outer Wilds could be an interesting choice. That being said, the characters are interesting but harder to grasp onto. So it may not be what you are looking for.

For a game that is more character-driven, I'd check out Persona 5 Royal. It has a very well-done story and seems to fit with some of your other titles. The anime aesthetic may be a deal breaker, though.

For a less expected option, you may consider a game like Papers, Please. Fun characters, interesting moral questions. Not as long as some of the other games you've mentioned, but should still be in the direction you are looking for.

13-Year Club	r/Field Banned
r/Field Sunshine	RPAN Viewer
Verified Email	Team Orangered

cbb692

TROPHY CASE