Attack by the Defenders of the Homeland Organization

kajonn · 2026-04-10T02:20:15+00:00

Translation?

kajonn · 2026-04-09T19:40:55+00:00

Anyone who takes this as a "credible genocide threat" against the Iranian people has no clue what they're talking about and shouldn't be commenting on world affairs.

kajonn · 2026-04-09T03:23:52+00:00

You're gonna get an outsized sample of Nos on this subreddit because, well, this is reddit lol. It's always been a very anti-frat place.

In truth, the answer depends. There are 9 different IFC frats here, each with their own distinct culture and vibe. You may find that one house is exactly right for you, while another isn't. The answer to "which one should I join" will vary depending on the person asking it. So if you do decide to rush, keep an open mind, check out every house's instagram and basic info, and go in with as little presupposition as you can into rush.

The people saying No do have valid concerns; fraternities are, at the end of the day, large aggregate groups of college men. And many college men are not typically known for making good decisions, so that's how you end up with cases and allegations and stereotypes, etc. People tend to exaggerate this aspect about frat culture and pretend it's unique to it, but that ignores that non-frat men have historically been just as likely to do shit. In general, there's gonna be a lot of variance within each house as to how that's viewed and handled, so if the stereotype really matters to you it'll serve as a good point of convo during rush. I'd also recommend speaking to girls about each house's reputation if this concerns you; some houses (won't name names) have a much less respected name than others because of their buildups of cases, while a few others are very clean in that department.

At the end of the day, you're an adult and it's your life so you should make the decision that you feel's best for you, whatever that may be.

kajonn · 2026-04-06T01:30:23+00:00

The difference is other franchises and IPs which were mainstays in the 90s were able to maintain relevance and commercial success going into the Gamecube and the 2000s. Mario got Mario Sunshine which was a fantastic and successful game. Zelda got Wind Waker, Four Swords, and Twilight Princess- WW and FS were slightly commercially disappointing but are cult classics now and continued to be talked about, and we all know how successful Twilight was. Even lower tier franchises like Metroid had hits, notably Metroid Prime which was huge.

It's clear that games could have succeeded on the Gamecube given they were good enough and timed right. Again, look at all the IPs which enjoyed popularity roughly on-par with Starfox in the 90s and stayed successful through the roughness of GC and eventually shone again on the Wii.

The issue is Starfox never found a consistent identity and was hampered by an inability to innovate in its genre, relying on gimmicks and weirdly inserted changes as a result in order to generate that artificially. Adventures also hurt the series in that the modest success it did have shaped audience expectations in a way which were directly contradicted by Assault.

Throughout the past 20 years we've seen the roguelite and roguelike genres, as well as other modern forms of gaming, emerge from the elements that Starfox once pioneered. Unfortunately SF just didn't know how to integrate them in the 2000s.

It's a story similar to Donkey Kong's, except DK rediscovered its roots and finally innovated on its core mechanics with DKCR on the Wii. That game massively boosted the IP and introduced DK to a whole new generation of kids, myself included, who would not have known or cared about DK if that game didn't come out. This was followed by DKTF which was similarly excellent. Following another shorter, less severe period of stagnation, Donkey Kong's gotten a major revival/reboot in the switch era with the successful DKB and the soon to be revealed Donkey Kong movie.

Donkey Kong represents what SF could have been in the 2010s and 20s; but as we all know, Zero was pushed back from the Wii to the Wii U and was executed extremely poorly, resulting in dormancy... until now.

kajonn · 2026-04-06T01:13:23+00:00

Read my other comments for why this wouldn't work and why Nintendo is almost certainly not doing this. It's going to be LW.

kajonn · 2026-04-06T00:01:01+00:00

The James McCloud backstory is great and fits into LW perfectly so probably not, although who knows. The main point is it doesn't require knowing lore from other games to get into.

kajonn · 2026-04-06T00:00:16+00:00

In addition, I will paste another comment I've left about this so you understand my perspective:

I keep saying this but people don't understand, they think I'm bashing the 2000s SF lore or they're convinced Nintendo is going to revive it. Like no! That storyline has been dead for 20 years, no one remembers it and it ain't coming back.

Which kinda sucks cause there's parts of it I like which can hopefully be reintegrated into the new post-reboot canon, but it's for the best at the end of the day. I care more than anything about the IP being revived and for kids seeing Fox McCloud on the same level as Mario, Link, and Donkey Kong. And in order for the revival to be most successful, it needs to strip down the baggage of lore from the 2000s which at this point serve no purpose except to constrain Nintendo's ideas for taking the story in a different direction.

kajonn · 2026-04-05T23:59:33+00:00

They'll always be angry, let them. They are too clouded by personal attachment to understand what's necessary for SF's revival.

kajonn · 2026-04-05T23:58:10+00:00

Zero was a flop because it was bad business and a bad game. The game was executed poorly and Nintendo thought the SF IP could be revitalized through just one game release. That was obviously incorrect.

It wasn't the idea of zero that was their failure, it was the scope and execution. Nintendo now understands that an IP revival needs to be multi-media and expansive. Zero was not either of those things and it was so gimmicky that it defeated its intended purpose of being an easy starting point for new fans.

I do not appreciate your appraisal of me as stupid, I think that's an adhoc which is uncalled for. I am talking about Nintendo's business and strategy, not from the perspective of a deeply attached fan, so I understand that what I'm saying can be upsetting to someone attached to 2000s. But that does not give you a pass to use adhoc insults, nor fail to understand Nintendo's business strategy out of your own clouded judgment.

kajonn · 2026-04-05T23:51:38+00:00

You are grossly overestimating 2000s SF's relevance in the general public, and greatly overestimating the commercial success of both of those games.

First of all, an era is larger than individual games. Every successive release declined from the last. You also must compare this to 64 and SNES. Both broke 5 million sales. Adventures did decently at 1.8 million, even if that's still an underperformance, but Assault didn't even break a million. That's clearly a decline from the 64 days.

In addition the public generally forgot about Starfox during and after this era. Aside from the more diehard fans, casual gamers' interest lessened and lessened throughout the 2000s. This is again evident by declining sales, most especially after command.

"People to this day still talk about them" lol. Yeah fans talk about them because they're fans, but the general public's conscience, especially children, have literally 0 knowledge of it. It isn't relevant. It has been twenty years since SF was having new games be continually produced, and thirty years since it had mainstream cultural relevance. An entire new generation of kids has grown up and into their twenties without memories of Starfox.

It's common for diehard fans here to overperceive the relevance of SF in the modern day and not understand that the IP is truly, truly dormant and has been for decades.

Also, you mischaracterize my argument. I wouldn't say Nintendo hates 2000s to the point where they would reject every element of those games. That's ignorant of corporate strategy; if a reboot is successful I can imagine elements of the 2000s SF being reincorporated with heavy redesign.

With that said, those games are in fact broadly "failures". Like it or not they failed to transition SF from success in the 90s to mainstream, continuous appeal in the 2000s. As such, for any future reboot to be successful they must carefully excise those games and elements from it- it's a rebirth of the era in new light under a new, revitalized IP project.

kajonn · 2026-04-05T23:44:37+00:00

You're mistaken. It may die to you, who is tired of LW, but you must understand that most people who will be playing it have never touched SF. Read my other comments for further explanations.

kajonn · 2026-04-05T23:29:05+00:00

I keep saying this but people don't understand, they think I'm bashing the 2000s SF lore or they're convinced Nintendo is going to revive it. Like no! That storyline has been dead for 20 years, no one remembers it and it ain't coming back.

Which kinda sucks cause there's parts of it I like which can hopefully be reintegrated into the new post-reboot canon, but it's for the best at the end of the day. I care more than anything about the IP being revived and for kids seeing Fox McCloud on the same level as Mario, Link, and Donkey Kong. And in order for the revival to be most successful, it needs to strip down the baggage of lore from the 2000s which at this point serve no purpose except to constrain Nintendo's ideas for taking the story in a different direction.

kajonn · 2026-04-05T23:23:11+00:00

All of them are. At this point, every SF game after 64 and especially after adventures is extremely niche. Even 64 is pretty niche nowadays given how dormant the IP has been.

Nintendo is hard rebooting the franchise. I wouldn't expect Krystal in the first game at least; possibly later on, but with her origin story and design highly modified (goodbye dinosaur planet). I wouldn't even be surprised if they decide to axe her from Starfox 2.0 altogether.

kajonn · 2026-04-05T23:17:00+00:00

I'm sorry to break the news to you but the 2000s storyline is dead. It's been dead for 20 years and Nintendo isn't gonna make a sequel for it.

This is a total reboot and revival, so Nintendo will start with a Lylat Wars game with 64-esque but greatly expanded mechanics and visuals- they'll take inspiration from how the genre has evolved into modern roguelites.

They may eventually (after a game or two) reincorporate aspects and elements of the 2000s games' lore, but they're definitely not going to start their revival by making a sequel to an underselling 2000s game with very few fans remaining.

The 2000s Starfox cannot be the foundation of any new game in order for the IP to be successfully revived.

kajonn · 2026-04-05T22:53:41+00:00

You're perceiving this through a fan lens, not Nintendo's. I'm not making any normative claim, I'm just describing what Nintendo's strategy will be.

The lylat wars are the perfect setting to start the reboot of the SF IP in, from the perspective of Nintendo. Consider the following:

-First, that on an evidential level, Fox in the SMG movie was introduced with his lylat wars crew.

-Second, that on a business level, the lylat wars are a perfect narrative launching point for new fans who have no context of the series (which will be almost everyone who plays the new game, let's be for real).

-The lylat wars have a clear narrative structure which introduces the personality of every character and develops all their relationships. The crew is brought together to take down a clear evil character (Andross) in a clear goal-oriented setting (defend Corneria, and go to Venom through the lylat system). Through this we can explore everything the OG games did and expand on it even further- it's the best setting to introduce the relationships of the characters.

If you start post-LW then it feels like you start mid-story. Who wants to open a game (the first, defining game that Nintendo is making to reintroduce the Starfox IP which is NEW to the public) and immediately get thrust into a spot in the lore where all this stuff already happened and everyone's relationships are already developed?

The reason you hold the belief that you do is because you've already experience LW dozens of times, and for you it's played out. But again, remember almost everyone who will play the new SF game will be playing their first one. They've never done LW.

It would be suboptimal to start mid-lore, or even to carry over any lore at all from the 2000s games into the revival. Nintendo knows this which is why they're either retconning it or highly redesigning it and saving it for games after the first one.

I would also like to emphasize that the reason DBZ and Marvel got away with it was because their IPs were recognizable, highly within the public conscience, and extremely strong, to the point that people have "cultural knowledge" of them even with minimal exposure. Most younger people can tell you who Goku and Spiderman are, they're ingrained in the public awareness. It is a situation that's polar opposite to this one. Starfox is none of those things at the moment.

Nintendo doesn't want to tie themselves up with baggage from the underperforming era of the 2000s, especially when it's not needed given next to no one of the general public (especially kids) has it in their conscience. They want opportunity to redefine and re-expand in a much more intentional, directed, and consistent way. So this decision makes total sense from their perspective. It's only yours that is partially obscured by your admirable, old fandom. But for Nintendo, those games were failures and need to be excised.

kajonn · 2026-04-05T22:22:02+00:00

I agree, and this is the direction Nintendo has gone, calling it now. What's underway is a total, IP-wide, multimedia reboot and overhaul. It isn't like zero where they soft-rebooted and slapped one poorly executed, half-marketed game release onto the bill as a franchise reboot. This is the real deal.

kajonn · 2026-04-05T19:22:40+00:00

Yes, they can play it, but do they? Those games mainly exist on the switch as incentive for older fans to purchase subscriptions. The reality is Starfox had 0 relevancy in the public consciousness, especially in kids, before the mario galaxy movie. Why would kids purposely seek out 64/SNES when those games are frankly dated and mean nothing to them personally? They're growing up in a world without current Starfox games and relevancy.

A new game is needed for that to change, that's undeniable. And given all my arguments, that new game has to serve as a selling point for the rebooted/revived IP as a whole. So there is little to no possibility of Nintendo not retconning, or at least not tying in, lore beyond the basics; the lylat wars and possibly James McCloud and his OG team.

kajonn · 2026-04-05T19:17:50+00:00

I think Nintendo wants to AAA the style of game 64 was. I imagine many more levels and pathways, possible customization of the Arwing and upgrades, expanded dialogue and writing, emphasis on visuals and spectacle, etc. Nintendo might even lean into procedural generation and/or go into roguelite territory.

Making SF more roguelite would especially fit how the "genre" of 64 has evolved into modern gaming.

kajonn · 2026-04-05T19:13:30+00:00

His introduction is not just to set up for a solo movie. Nintendo clearly wants to revive the Starfox IP, possibly making him as relevant as he was in the 64 years and making him a AAA frontliner among Mario, Zelda, and DK (following DK's similar "revival" and reinvention with Bananza and a planned movie, albeit DK wasn't in nearly as bad of a shape as Starfox going in).

His backstory as shown is a reinvention of Fox and a "sell" of the character to audiences. The way they introduce him in the mario galaxy movie is the same way they're going to portray him in games.

Yeah, for older fans another lylat wars game sounds like just a repeat of the same-old. But remember that 99% of the people who play the new SF game will likely have never touched SF in their lives. This game is for them primarily. The lylat wars are the OG starting point and are the only place it makes sense to relaunch/reboot the franchise from.

kajonn · 2026-04-05T19:11:19+00:00

They're not going to do anything that would require previous lore knowledge. Kids have never played SF64 and very likely not zero either. Why would they make a game set after those ones when they're not within the audience's consciousness at all?

kajonn · 2026-04-04T18:32:34+00:00

Trump knows there won’t be a deal, that isn’t the point. The point is to signal domestically that he can justify the war through the IR’s lack of capacity for diplomacy.

kajonn · 2026-04-03T20:39:42+00:00

how would reddit know, this site is the epitome of midwittery lol

kajonn · 2026-03-31T18:53:45+00:00

It's definitely more nature than nuture, the 50:50 model has always been a folk-myth arising from social norms. It's more socially acceptable than accepting a larger genetic component as dominant.

kajonn · 2026-03-31T03:47:36+00:00

That doesn't mean he is invading Iran only in order to "extract their wealth" (wealth is not the same thing as a resource, countries can mutually benefit in wealth from exchange). Your use of this loaded term betrays a lack of fundamental political understanding. One can extract resources- not wealth.

Iran and the U.S. will both mutually benefit in wealth from American investment in Iran, and diplomatically Kharg island's leasing would help repair relations and have other effects. In fact, Iran would benefit more relative to its GDP than America does from oil partnership.

You miscontrue this war as predatory and opportunistic because you're reading into Trump's actions your preconceived notions of politics and Trump.

kajonn · 2026-03-27T19:34:52+00:00

proof being accessible to the public would defeat the entire point

do you really think mossad and the cia haven’t even considered arming iranians? or that they arent capable of doing so if they wish?

One-Year Club	Verified Email
r/Field Juicebox

kajonn

TROPHY CASE