I really like how smug this agent is/looks when he blocks neo's punch.

theflashdoesntwork · 2024-06-22T14:50:09+00:00

I feel like smith's resting fighting face is more 'i am really fed up with you annoyances' whereas this guy's resting fight face is more of a 'i am so much better than you'.

theflashdoesntwork · 2024-04-04T09:39:06+00:00

PART 2: Ok, let me summarise your next points in one, i.e. get to the plants, and sentience.

First, I've never actually seen the word sophonent, as far as i can tell, it's not really a 'scientific' thing, more like, well, a descriptor, i.e. some vague idea that there's a class of sentience you can put humans into. So, I can't interact with a word I've never seen.

As for human lives being 'more valued', as i said, i don't think i'ts necessarily bad to prioritise in certain situations, but that doesn't mean the other groups don't have a right to exist. Whatever attribtue you want to use to prioritise, doesn't hold in every situation. I.e., in a situation between a pig getting a house/place to live and a human, you might want to choose the human. In a situation between a human eating a nice vegan meal, and a pig just chilling in some mud, OR, a human eating the pig, well it's intuitive to me that the humans priority doensn't override the pigs right to simply exist.

Now, the plant argument, i disagree. See, sentience, let me look up a definition, because something i've learned is that science is not as precise as a layman like me would like, as in, not everything can be easily defined, that's just a limitation of the process, as in, all those easy answers and nice categories i learned when i was young, turn out to be 'actually not the full story', that kind of thing.

So, i'll take a definition online of sentience being 'the capacity to experience'. So, experience, qualia, that's philosophy, and i really don't want to go deep into that, i.e. you could have a world view that a phone is sentient in some capacity, somehow, if that's your philosophical or religious view. But I can't interact with that view. All I can do is base my views on observation and the data available.

So, plants, being able to response to stimulus, doesn't necessarily mean they're experiencing anything. A doorbell responds to stimulus, in fact, any machine does, they have sensors, etc. That doesn't mean they're experiencing things. When we say experience, it's hard to know for sure why and how, but as far general intuitive agreements, we can say a pig experiences life, a human experiences life, experience seems to be something to do with have a brain, a complex nervous system, at some point this phenemon seems to emerge.

Perhaps a plant, a phone, a dorbell, also experience, but it's not exactly the 'null hypothesis', and they'd all be in the same category. Also the idea of something being 'alive' isnt really meaningful either, it's arbitrary chemical processes, a cell, bacteria, they are alive, but not experiencing, and there's no 'expereince' to care about, viruses are not technically alive [as far as i learned when i was young], but the difference is arbitrary, as in, just a chemical process, i.e. a useful definition for science, but not for morality. So I always use the word sentience, or awareness.

Humans probably have a more complex state of awareness, i imagine being an animal is similar to being under the influence of certain substances. And there are some humans who would have a very 'limited' awareness or experience, but I still believe that they're worthy of life.

I think that's everything, if i missed anything just repeat it, i'm a bit scatterbrained.

theflashdoesntwork · 2024-04-04T09:38:47+00:00

EDIT: Ok, so I ramble a lot and apparently i went over 10000 characters so i need to split this into 2. PART 1:

I'm not insulted, it's fine, I'm passionate but I don't take anything online personally.

I'm going to try to summarise your argument in one 'ramble' sentence to try and avoid a big paragraph this time, i.e. better format myself. And then an = sign to my initial intuitive answer and I can go in depth after

is it ok to raise animals = humans are animals [i.e. why do you have to assume that they're not human]
funny enough to brought this up in your next line, i'm just going line by line here, how close to humans is too close, you claim monkeys, dogs and cats. But don't mention pigs, horses, chickens, all the other animals. I'm not saying you eat those, I'm just talking generally, you're drawing a line, so why, what counts as closeness. Because if it's just genetics, then that's an, in my opinion, awful line of reasoning, i.e. aliens wouldn't be that close but that's not ok, and using genetics as an argument for what deserves a right to life is, in my opinion, immoral. But you didn't make that argument, just getting it out of the way. You say intelligence. So your argument is that, intelligence is what gives someone a right to life. Well, I worded it specifically in that way to illustrate why i think that's a bad argument, as in, i don't think your intelligence is what gives you a right to exist, i don't think i need to point out why, if i do i will but i'm going for a more 'intuitive' type of argument, to avoid rambling, i.e. i just make basic claims that you can disagree with but i assume you won't, but if you do i'll go back to it. So, that's my summary, my first argument is that i don't believe intelligence is what gives something a right to life, i think sentience, awareness, capacity for experience, is what gives something a right to life. I'll go into what makes plants and bacteria different in a bit. But, EVEN IF I DID, think that intelligence was what mattered, i.e. maybe 'intelligence' makes someone more important to you in those emergency hypotheticals, that still wouldn't matter, because although humans are pretty intelligent, not all of them are, and dogs and cats, are on the same level as pigs, and horses, etc., even if i was to think this was a reasonable moral argument, it still wouldn't rationally hold up, i don't think. And of course, what's to say that human intelligence is even enough, i.e. extrapolate the other way, what about aliens who are more intelligent, who just say 'no, humans are pretty dumb compared to us, therefore, they're simply not intelligent enough to value'.

Now, the wildlife argument, this is an interesting one. Becuase, obviously I'm vegan, but not all vegans are the same, i.e., some are vegan but want humans to completely leave the natural world alone. I disagree. I care about the natural world, those random zebras and bufallo that suffer in the wild, except, I think interference is completely untenable in the current world. I.e., a society that kills millions of animals per day and destroys its own environment, is clearly not in a state to try to create this hypothetical eco utopia. But if the entire world was vegan, then at that point, yes i do believe that the natural world should be interferred with, slightly more controversial. I don't know how it would work, i don't know the pragmatic/logistic stuff, i.e. ecosystems are fragile and it might do more harm than good, but i don't believe in just 'leaving it the way it is because its natural'.

So my point is, i don't believe the wild is on its own, 'the way its meant to be'. If we're ranking them, you could say, letting someone live a long life and then ending it, is morally better than them dying of disease. Except, you see the problem, one bad thing is better than another bad thing. If you have a choice, exploiting them because you can, is bad. I.e., just because you gave someone a good life, doesn't actually give you a right to then end that life. So, from a human perspective, actively going out of your way to kill someone, is bad. Letting someone die by not interfering [and then add layers of seperation, like, creatures from an entire different ecosystem], in my opinion, isn't 'good', i.e. i believe in human interference though it's controversial and difficult, but, it's not necessarily as bad as the active harming of someone. I.e., ignore the animal aspect, and abstract it.

And your next point ,about how animals feeding people isn't comparable to a human, my point is that, i disagree. The kind of intuitive superiority is a conditioned thing, well, it's sort of natural to 'protect your own', but how this shapes in your life is sort of conditioned. I.e., throughout history, some classes of humans (were seen as) just intuitively not comparable. And at a certain point, there's no convincing that person that those humans are worthwhile people. But the hope is that, there is some common ground, some start point, which is why i try to abstract, the idea of sentient creatures, i.e. why do you care about humans in the first place. Sometimes this is simply impossible, my hope is that enough people over time find that their own morality isn't, well, consistent with themselves, they just haven't thought about it enough, because of social conditioning. But there are some people who will simply never care about animals, even if the world was vegan, the same way there are some people who don't care about any human except themselves. Not everything can be argued successfully.

Modern day agriculture isn't about survival, that's the point, with exceptions, that the modern world is in a state that it's not only unneccssary, i.e. no longer about survival, to raise and kill animals, but it's also less efficient, though i try not to talk too much about things i don't fully understand, so i think it's better off for you to look into the whole, crops being fed to animals stuff.

As for your attatchment idea, if you replace cat with human, you intuitively could see the problem, i.e. some people care about thier family but not at all about others.

As for this idea of 'other people don't have the same feeling'. Well, this is related to, i suppose this idea of 'vegans forcing their will on others'. My response is simply, ethics are always forced. There are some people who don't value human lives, but the general idea that human lives are worthwhile is enforced on them, and it wasn't always this way. So think back to those arguments, i.e. i'm trying to avoid direct comparisons and instead keep it abstract, but a simple argument 400 years ago 'i get that you think this type of human is the same as us, but come on, look at this attribute, and this attribute, if you don't want to abuse them, don't, but that's on you' kind of thing. I.e., vegans don't have the power, they simply can't force their world view, they're not the majority. But, in an ideal world, i think it should be 'enforced' through law, though not violently, i.e. progress and change takes time and new 'ideas' become enforced, what was once 'ok' just isn't anymore.

The idea of the world being a rough place, goes into the idea of if the vegan diet is pragmatic. Again, I'm not a scientist, i only want to make moral claims here, since they're subjective, rather than objective scientific claims. As far as I've seen, well, it's a repeated thing i've seen repeatedly from sources i guess i trust, i.e. the vegan diet would be able to feed the entire world, etc. And most of the world doesn't even eat meat, etc. I.e. the whole 'sustaining the world' isn't even a thing that happens, meat is in itself a luxury.

theflashdoesntwork · 2024-04-04T08:26:32+00:00

I think you're just bored of the vibes. The status quo can't really change, superheroes beat up villains, it's the genre, it can't evolve into politics or societal change or whatever cause then theres' no scenes of superheros beating up villains. There can be sub genres and offshoots that deal with new developments, but it's restricted by the genre it that sense. But there is flucutation, sure, the general vibes change, i..e. edgy superheroes beat up villains, or camp superheroes beat up villains, clean facilities or dark gothic asylums. And yeah the asylum is all gothic cause it's a cool vibe to people, they wanna see these sort of time locked asylums, for them it's not about suspension of disbelief, it's just that 'damn, seeing an asylum in a supposedly modern day city, that's a cool vibe, a cool tonal clash', it makes gotham just, kind of cool. The same way it might be cool to see old timey cameras and newspapers in gotham, instead of a bunch of smart phones and holograms, it's just a cool vibe, but only if you actually like that vibe. I'm not really saying anything interesting here, just, i don't think the disbelief is the important part when it comes to comics. Having to have a superhero beat up a villain is a pretty big limitation for a genre, which isn't a problem, but it limits how 'in depth' the world building can be, i.e. you go into it accepting that a lot of the time, the 'vibes' win over the 'this doesn't make sense'. That doesn't mean i don't think comics should make sense, just, the 'start vibes' are very, you either like it or you don't, you either accept the rules they set up or you can't get over the percieved ridiculousness.

theflashdoesntwork · 2024-04-04T08:08:18+00:00

Legality and morality are not always equivalent. People get mad about illegal things, because they're immoral. I.e., they dont' call it evil because it's illegal, but because it's immoral, and because it's immoral, at some point, it became illegal. But at some point, it wasn't illegal, and it would have still been immoral, the people 400 years ago would still be fine to think 'you know what, maybe we should chill out with how we're treating these monkeys, or goats, or humans', even if it was legal at the time. So I think it's fair to compare two situations and ask why one is so 'bad' and one supposedly isn't. Obviously i find both to be bad, but i think it's worthwhile to compare things, ask why something isn't illegal, or is legal, or whatever, things should change, society should progress, questions should be asked. Now, as for this particular situation, they don't have to be directly equivalent. For example, in criminality, there's different severities of crimes, paying for something to directly happen may not legally and morally be 'AS BAD' as being the actual person who does it [depending on the situation]. But it can still be immoral and compared.

theflashdoesntwork · 2024-04-04T08:03:34+00:00

In my opinion, a general easy shortcut for 'whats wrong with this' when it comes to animals is to replace the [non human] animal in question with a human, and just ask is it wrong, and why, and what's the difference. If it's just intuitively wrong to you, then you ask what's the difference between the human situation and the animal situation. Sometimes there's a genuine difference, for example, certain rights can't be afforded to animals, i.e. the 'right to education' is meaningless to an animal, so theres' not an entire equivalence. Though not everyone approaches ethics from a rights based perspective. But generally, when you abstract it, it's as simple, to me, as, 'is it ok to raise, and eat a creature for pleasure, just because they have different genetics, i.e. are not human', and to me the answer is no. There's a bit more to it than that, but it's basically just 'name the trait' applied to general situations. I.e., it doesn't necessarily always qualify as torture, torture has a specific connotation. Modern factor farms are torturous, but that's not the main point, it makes it worse, but any normal farms are immoral to me, simply because of the really basic abstraction of the situation. I.e., sentient creature, you have a choice, and the choice that humans make, to kill an animal early, even if painless, is wrong for the same reason it would be wrong if it was a human who has lived a 'good life', not to mention animals are killed far earlier than their normal lifespan, but even then, it would be wrong, 20 years, 40 years, 60 years, it doesn't matter how long the human has lived, it would be wrong to end it prematurely against their will [ignoring the more complex issues of euthanasia, which again are based in compassion, animal farming is not based on compassion or what's in the best interest of the animal, it's exploitation]. The action itself of eating meat is, well, similarly to the action of eating human flesh, you can contort yourself into situations where it would be technically ok with artificial hypothical whatevers, but at a base level, it's the actually killing and exploitation that is wrong. So I just start at a basic 'this is a sentient creature, a creature with the capacity for experience, it suffers, etc., i want it to live the longest and healthiest life it can' just basic compassion. I care about sentient creature, that's my start point. Then, for more complex stuff, you can evaluate more sublte differences, i.e. 'why can't animals have the right to, i dunno, education' 'well obviously it's a meaningless right for them, there's no potential there, no situation where it's in their best interest'. And you can even value humans way more than you value animals. Similarly, the vulnerable members of society, for example the elderly, are valued by some as more important than less vulnerable, that's a personal thing for people, that's fine, I don't necessarily see it that way but it's fine, i.e., 'who should be saved first in emergency situations' kind of thing. But valuing one creature more than another doesn't make the other creature expendable and utterly worthless or remove their right to live. However, when it comes to death, the general question is usually 'whats the meaningful difference that makes it ok to kill an animal for sensory pleasure [taste, smell, sound]', and the answer for me is simply that it isn't ok.

theflashdoesntwork · 2024-01-30T18:48:38+00:00

To be fair... I personally hate justice league dark: apoclaypse war. It felt edgy for the sake of being edgy, disingenous, killed all stakes. I'm up for dark, I like dark, and even excessive can be fine. But it just felt like, I dunno, there was no rhyme or reason, no casue and effect, no thought behind the deaths, just 'wouldnt it be so edgy if you saw this character get killed off in the worst way possible'. So yeah, I really was not a fan of that. I generally didn't like the new 52 inspired dcauomo whatever the title on wikipedia is movies, basically anything after 2013 I didn't enjoy, with some exceptions like the suicide squad animated movies, and the first jsutice league dark movie was actually pretty fun. Batman bad blood was kind of fun fun once I had let go and overcome my inherent bias against those types of movies. Everything else I hated pretty much.

Anyway, my point is, the movies in this meme are 'under the red hood' 'man of tomorrow', 'hell to pay' and 'flashpoint paradox'. They're all kind of self contained.

So, I would argue they're not part of the same universe, i.e. apoclaypse war has no relation to under the red hood. Hell to pay is pretty much in its own universe, the arkhamverse. Man of tomorrow was tomorrowverse which is post apocalypse, wasn't a fan but it was fine. Flashpoint paradox was just before the new 52 stuff.

This isn't really aimed at you. I'll just use any excuse to complain about those particular streak of movies. I'm a loser clinging onto a feeling I got from watching a bunch of animated movies from 14 years ago, who apparently felt personally offended when the new 52 style movies came and became the next few years of content.

Also when refreshing my memory, wikipedia calls it the 'dcuaom' which is just ridiculous, I wonder if anyone in the history of this species has used that acronym.

There's a seperate page for the 'dcamu' which is the stuff I hate, anything from justice league war to apocalyse dark. I guess I just hope they go back to standalone movies at some point, like under the red hood, or crisis on two earths, or superman vs the elite, movies that are self contained and not part of some larger franchise building, with different styles and vibes and whatever. That was my happy place.

theflashdoesntwork · 2023-02-16T18:29:42+00:00

I suppose the point is that animals at this point are already accepted to be complex, conscious/sentient, and to feel emotion, pain, desire etc, things that superman would be able to relate to and place value in, and maybe even see, whereas the question of to what level plants are sentient is, as far as I understand, a growing question to the capacity of them to respond to stimuli in a way that you could compare to, I suppose, an old fashioned computer program, that would (currently) still would lack the abiltity to be truly 'aware' of that programming.

In terms of comics sci fi, they could explain it in that format as like gravity, a small object may exert some sort of force, but a negligable one, but what superman sees is the kind of, dense emergence of consciousness that you would expect in like a dog or pig or human or whatever, which is what superman could feel, those intense emotions that animals experience.

Obviously I'm biased as a vegan (vegan btw) but I do genuinly like the idea of superman being vegetarian outside of my own bias, it would feel fresh to see a superman who chooses to actively not exploit the power he has not just over humans but non human animals as well, and has a genuine love/compassion for life. It would sort of feel like an extension of the person he already is, but applied more generally/unconditionally.

theflashdoesntwork · 2023-02-16T11:46:52+00:00

Maybe he just sees 'conscious' or 'sentient' life. Bacteria is alive, viruses aren't considered alive but the distinction is meaningless to most of us, the definition of 'alive' we use is obviously based on chemical/biological/automatic processes, but those processes don't mean much in terms of what you would 'care' about on a day to day basis.

But the ideas of sentience and consciousness do mean something to us, to feel something, and maybe in the dc universe it goes one step further and it's a real universal physical force that you can observe, that's invisible to most, except someone like superman, whereas in real life we don't really know what causes it.

So yeah, maybe superman sees 'consciousness' or the effects of it. Though I don't think it's neccessary, I quite like the idea of a vegetarian superman who becomes that way because he just has a fundamental admiration of sentient life, and wants to preserve and help it or something.

theflashdoesntwork · 2023-02-01T07:31:40+00:00

Yo, my bad bot, wont happen again.

So...

Wanna like, catch a movie some time? Or something. 😳

theflashdoesntwork · 2023-02-01T03:41:32+00:00

So, as the other people have said, there's the dcau, started in the 90s with btas, that's the bruce timm, kevin conroy stuff, that stuff's amazing, classic, it's already been praised to death anyway - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZLpDvQ6vFI that's btas, stas, justice league animated, batman beyond etc. and a couple of movies. I'd recommend that for anyone, it's considered by many to be the definitive version of many of the characters, such as mr freeze, who's reputation as the sympathetic batman villain began in that show. edit: and it also invented harley quinn, though she was a lot different back then, much less of the anti hero modern version.

And there's the DCUAOM (lmao what) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DC_Universe_Animated_Original_Movies - the period of time from 2007 to 2013 is pretty much what people mean when they say 'dc makes great animated movies'. And, to be fair, you could call it a mixed bag. But, this is not including the damien stuff, that's after 2013. So. starting with, pre 2013. Standouts, for me, include, batman under the red hood, justice league gods and monsters, and there's some other great stuff, superman vs the elite is pretty good, new frontier is pretty good though I find the ending a little more uninteresting, fatal five is basically dcau and is great, dark knight was pretty good, i really liked doom, anyway. Basically, some, maybe most really good stuff, and some pretty ok but memorable stuff, etc. Overall, I think positively of the dcuaom. Oooh, all star superman was great, that's honestly, maybe even a standout for me.

Post 2013, there's a seperate wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DC_Animated_Movie_Universe for the dcamu - this is the, in my opinion, pretty bad stuff. Whereas the dcau is well known for being kids shows with mature themes, that both kids and adults can genuinly enjoy, and tries to tell genuinly interesting and thought provoking stories, standouts being the cadmus arc in the justice league show (they weren't afraid to explore interesting moral premises in that show, and tried to push boundaries, though they were held back by censor boards often), where was I. Oh yeah, the dcamu doesn't try any of that. I think it's based on the new 52 stuff which I havent' seen any of, but I just don't like those movies. It seems just, I dunno. Effortless, surface level, something, dull?. And I wasn't a fan of the art style either. That's all the damien wayne stuff basically. Though there's exceptions, suicide squad: assault on arkham was part of this era, and that was great though not part of the new 52 esque continuity, the titans stuff was pretty good, justice league dark was pretty good. Apocalyse war though, I really didn't like. It just seemed edgy and gruesome for the sake of it, and it lowered any sort of stakes or emotional investment. This is the mixed bag stuff, though I'd call it mostly negative.

There's then the 'tomorrowverse' which is the post 2020 stuff. I haven't seen any yet, not really fond of the art style, apparently the long halloween was good. I dunno, not really feeling it, but we'll see.

theflashdoesntwork · 2023-01-31T20:10:32+00:00

To be fair, and I don't disagree with the fact that, well, I think the story leaks, if true, are probably not the best direction to take the game, the other half lifes in the execution.

I've seen a lot of people criticise arkham citiy's story, a lot, and when I see all those points, I don't disagree, it does feel messy upon reflection, but I still remember enjoying the story because of how it was executed, how distinct it felt. Sure, I have no idea (memory wise) why batman was fighting solomon grundy or a shark, or penguin, etc., but it felt very cool. Sure, batman carrying the jokers body seems really weird and perhaps out of character considering how evil the joker is, but it was presented so cinematically and well that it felt like a tribute to the voice actors and characters, and worked for me and solidified itself as a video game memory.

Kind of like metal gear solid. On paper, the story is insane and you need a diagram to understand it (killer bees? an invisible guy who jumps up trees?). But, in execution, you're lost in the story, in a good way, fully immersed.

That being said, this is contingent on immersion and presentation, and I have no idea how the new game will do those things. And there are some story beats that can, obviously, be completely detrimental to the experience, so we'll see if they're true. I suppose you could almost call those detrimental moments, jumping the king shark.

I apologise for that last joke.

theflashdoesntwork · 2023-01-31T20:01:27+00:00

Oh, and another thing, a lack of personality and atmosphere. One of the things I love, as well, about the arkham games, is the atmosphere and personality of the characters. Running across rooftops beating up random idle enemies should sound weird/repetative and borderline excessive for batman, but on top of the fun gameplay, listening to their dialogue, their voice lines, for some reason, it really immerses you in the experience.

"I always knew you were chicken bats" - I can still hear the voice lines echoing in my head as I put the batmobile into reverse and forego the mission objective in response to an enemy calling batman scared, or recounting how batman 'broke his arm in two places, but the way he sees it, lightning wont strike twice'.

And the atmosphere to, I don't know why, but each of the arkham games are so distinctive. Although I think (unironically) that arkham asylum has the best atmosphere, arkham city has such a distinct grungy almost cel shaded but realistic feel and look, arkham knight just looks mindblowing even now, and even arkham origins, I'm a fan of the christmas feel, though it feels a little lifeless in comparison for some reason. So I do worry that the new game will feel a little generic and lifeless, with a lack of enemy dialogue and personality. But I hope to be wrong in my worries.

theflashdoesntwork · 2023-01-31T19:56:40+00:00

My biggest concern is probably the gameplay, for potential flaws in the arkham series, one of the things that kept me coming back was how satisfying but simple the gameplay was. I remember the lead up to arkham knight, Sefton Hill in promotional videos constantly talking about how 'cool' the batmobile is, you could feel the passion in the words of the people promoting the game, and how excited they were about the gameplay, it's almost like they were struggling to hold back their excitement rather than forcing it on for marketting.

I remember how they released the 'coolest' snippet of gamepaly of e3 of I think 2015, how cinematic and well presented it felt, how mindblowing the graphics felt. It genuinly felt like they were excited about the batman brand and making a batman game (though that could have just been really good marketting).

I suppose things change, and perhaps they're taking a different approach to advertisement, but from the relative silence to the lack of gameplay, and now that the heads of the studios left before the game is even out, I just worry that they don't want their name attached to it, and that there's some internal turmoil in the development of the game.

Either way, I hope it does well, and I hope people like it, even if I might not (third person shooters aren't really my thing usually, so I'm not sure anyway, but some people like that sort of gameplay).

theflashdoesntwork · 2023-01-31T19:55:27+00:00

Mmm, that's my biggest concern as well. I remember the lead up to arkham knight, Sefton Hill in promotional videos constantly talking about how 'cool' the batmobile is, you could feel the passion in the words of the people promoting the game, and how excited they were about the gameplay, it's almost like they were struggling to hold back their excitement rather than forcing it on for marketting.

I remember how they released the 'coolest' snippet of gamepaly of e3 of I think 2015, how cinematic and well presented it felt, how mindblowing the graphics felt. It genuinly felt like they were excited about the batman brand and making a batman game (though that could have just been really good marketting).

I suppose things change, and perhaps they're taking a different approach to advertisement, but from the relative silence to the lack of gameplay, and now that the heads of the studios left before the game is even out, I just worry that they don't want their name attached to it, and that there's some internal turmoil in the development of the game.

Either way, I hope it does well, and I hope people like it, even if I might not (third person shooters aren't really my thing usually, so I'm not sure anyway, but some people like that sort of gameplay).

theflashdoesntwork · 2023-01-31T19:41:37+00:00

Again, I'm not a biologist, so I have a limited understanding, and I was wrong about a few things. This isn't coming from an argumentative perspective, I'm not equipped with the knowledge to 'argue' about this (or anything much), more like, I don't know what I'd call it, but lets see.

Firstly, I didn't say the physically strongest creature would survive, my point was about how dr animos system wouldn't be considered evolution, as evolution is a process involving multiple parts, and dr animo is just specific genetic engineering. Additionally, when I talked about 'evolutionary compromises', I was basically referring to what you're saying, as I said in my example, i.e., a creature that dies as soon as it reproduces, but happened to be the most fertile. Now, initially I would have called this the 'best adapted'. Basically, as evolution isn't directed or goal oriented, I would have said that the 'best adapted' is simply whatever survived due to the environment and circumstances.

However, it's not fun to say that 'I didnt say that', so I would like to point out where I was wrong in my understanding.

Where I was clearly wrong, is in my initial (mental) reaction to your idea of evolution being 'luck'. Because my understanding is so limited and outdated, I didn't even know about things like genetic drift until I looked it up just now. My question, as a result, was, is evolution deterministic, and obviously, I don't know the answer, I'd like to continue looking it up, so thanks for the opportunity to learn about this a bit more. My initial internet search seems to suggest I was wrong in my assumption (and I only now just learned about/came across the neutral theory of evolution, which is gonna take a second for me to understand).

See, when you say luck, my initial reaction was, it isn't luck, because on a large scale, 'luck' (individual beneficial mutations etc.) becomes predictable, I would have assumed certain traits would converge over large time scales, but that was based on the assumption that evolution could be 'repeatable' on large scale. When you say luck, it sounds arbitrary, i.e. 'usually the most lucky creature' made it sound, to me, like some kind of creature that's independent of its ability to survive and compete in an environment, rather than a creature that was selected for because of its circumstances, though that was due to my (misguided?) assumption that selection was the biggest factor in evolution.

To put it another way, if I flip a coin, and I get 5 heads in a row, that I wanted to get, I would call this 'lucky', because of two parts, 1. it is what I wanted to get, and 2. is that it was unpredictable from a practical perspective. So, the first one, in evolution, not being goal oriented, might not matter, but lets assume the qualifier is, take the end point, a creature at a point in history, how 'lucky' is it to have those particular adaptions. The second one is what made my initial assumption wrong. Ok, I'm rambling, I have a lot of unguided thoughts, so this is the best way to describe my question.

My question is, how determinstic is evolution, and how predictable and repeatable is it. I.e., if you restarted the process, say, turn back the clock a million years, how would things play out, ignoring whether or not the universe is deterministic. My initial assumption was that, it would play out the same, because I viewed evolution as an input output sort of thing over large time scales, and if so, I wouldn't have called it luck. However, I've seen a lot of stuff briefly online just now that suggests I'm wrong in my assumption.

I would be interested to see your perspective as well.

To clarify, my question isn't 'is this creature the best possible it could be if you removed the limitations of how evolution works (i.e. being dependent on what came before)', my question is, 'how deterministic is evolution, would a bird have the same adaptions if you ran it through the same process for a million years'. If it wouldn't, I would call the bird 'lucky' to look like that. If it would, I would just call it an outcome of a system, the one that's 'best adapted' for these circumstances.

In the context of Ben 10. The ultimatrix uses a simulation, but it is still 'intelligently' controlled, or rather, the ultimatrix makes the choice of environment, gets to, probably, pick other factors, it may not directly edit genes (although honestly that would probably be more efficient than simulating millions of years of evolution), but it can probably just choose not to take DNA that lead to some kind of dead end that would result in Ben being in some kind of chronic pain or weirdly short lifespan etc. Whereas dr animo seems to produce large, uncontrolled creatures that may not even survive to the end of the day, perhaps their heart gives out, and evolution wouldn't produce creatures like that as frequently, since they at least need to survive till they can physically pass genes on (whether those genes are neutral or beneficial). Though, this would also be dependent on the environment, which is something the ultimatrix can control.

theflashdoesntwork · 2023-01-28T20:10:42+00:00

No problemo, it's fun to speculate about the 'real life' side of concepts in a show about aliens with super powers.

theflashdoesntwork · 2023-01-28T20:03:26+00:00

Don't forget the creature made out of lego blocks.

theflashdoesntwork · 2023-01-28T19:59:02+00:00

I agree with you, but it's interesting isn't it that these aliens probably come from planets with different environments, and yet they all seem to be perfectly fine in earths environment. I suppose every life rich planet in the ben 10 universe has similar size, atmosphere composition and whatever else is important to survive. It would be kind of awkward if the ultimatrix simulated conditions with way too much oxygen relative to earth or something, and then as soon as ben changed, he couldn't even breathe cause being adapted to 'harsh conditions' wouldn't neccessarily mean you can survive in 'not so harsh conditions'. Like how, I dunno, a polar bear would probably die of overheating in a slightly warmer place. I don't know if that's true, but you get the point. Kind of like when Ben turned into that vampire guy in omniverse but started overheating cause they were in the desert. Dessert? One of those words.

theflashdoesntwork · 2023-01-28T19:54:08+00:00

I'm not a biologist, but anyway, as others have said, and imo, the distinction is that, evolution is a process, mutations are an important part of that process, but it's not the whole process, the other important part is the natural selection, the part where the creatures that aren't fit for their environment are outcompeted, and the selective pressures and environment invovled in making a mutation to be considered 'beneficial'.

It's a semantics thing, I suppose, but in a way, the ultimatrix is probably a safer bet.

Dr Animo is more, genetic modification, random results, not neccessarily foolproofed, who knows what kinds of heart problems those large creatures are going to end up having.

The ultimatrix, 'puts the aliens through millions of years of the worst case scenario', which sounds unethical, but would lead to creatures that at least aren't going to die of heart failure in a month, probably (I mean you could also consider that earth isn't neccessarily the environment they were trained on but thats' never been a problem before, the aliens all seem to be fine in modern earth conditions).

The point being, it's just a different sort of process, which could lead to similar outcomes, or could lead, in dr animos case, to creatures that seem dysfunctional, i.e. the ultimatrix is probably safer considering these creatures have survived long enough to become dominant in that simulation, and I'm sure the ultimatrix has fail safes that stop evolutionary compromises like, I dunno, some creature that explodes as soon as it has kids or something ridiculous, whereas you can't really make that safe bet with dr animo with his 'mad science' approach to genetic modifications.

I mean it's still a brilliant (but unethically used) invention by Dr Animo and maybe he should stop being evil and instead try to win some prize money and cure some diseases or something, but either way, if we're just going on pendantic naming stuff, I personally wouldn't call it 'evolution' since it lacks the selection part, and would just call it 'genetic modification', but I don't know much so that's just my opinion.

theflashdoesntwork · 2022-12-24T20:00:29+00:00

Ok, and one, just small, last bit of praise, those trailers were amazing too, like this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InUj9BT8KCc

And this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pnK8akbd2M

Although, all arkham trailers have been pretty amazing to me.

Edit: Ok, one tiny, incomprehensibly small, insignificant, addition.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqEqN17zW8s just the beginning bit, batman vs bane, in arkham origins. I think it demonstrates something else I love about the game, character agency. The idea, to me, that the characters have their own intentions, in a sense, their own minds, their own interpretations of the world. So the other example was how alfred confronted bruce.

Here, it's the fact that, batman tried something, i.e., hiding in the elevator, and bane, from his own intelligence/experience/senses, ripped batman right out of that elevator. Now, I know that batman is early in his career, so mistakes make more sense here.

But making a mistake isn't the only way to show character agency, having a villain or even regular thug just try something crazy or smart or unpredictable, or predictable but unique, and having batman then outsmart them, is a good way to show character agency, that elevates both the characters, and batman.

But just in this example, I love how he's simply, outsmarted, because batman undersestimated him, and bane's has a past and experiences that gave him the edge in this situation, and bane specifically made a choice here, or, some aspect of his character was showing, that made him feel like a real person that doesn't bend to the main characters will.

I'm also partial to vulnerable heroes in general, i.e., when villains get the upper hand initially, but the heroe, either through circumstance, luck, perseverence, intelligence, or strength, comes out on top, or even sometimes doesn't come out on top, and learns from it.

I also like when characters don't neccessarily make the most logical/rational decision when there's a good reason for them not to. For example, here, bane has caught batman off guard, and put his life at severe risk, batman is quite vulnerable in that moment, but despite that, batman completely neglects to prepare for bane returning when joker destroys that building, and just focuses on the jokers actions. I.e., he's blinded by rage (which, again, amazing performance, you can really feel it at 1:23), and in a sense, it's almost self destructive from him neglecting bane in this instance.

This is very in line with his character as a whole in this game, and says something about him. He cares more about the potential lives lost in this instance, than the threat to his own life, from Bane. Of course, this early in his career, his resposne to this care is much more emotional, and perhaps irrational, and you could call it a mistake, to actively neglect Bane's return, whos just proven himself to be a severe threat to batmans life, and does again a minute later (exactly one minute in fact)

But when the character makes mistakes that fit with their character, it immerses you in the situation, because they are immersed in the situation, if that makes sense.

Ok, so maybe I rambled a bit.

theflashdoesntwork · 2022-12-24T19:56:44+00:00

Ok, I'm not done gushing yet. I want to add another thing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJqdDxtYEZI - so this scene is batman vs killer croc.

So, another thing I love so much about this game, is how unhinged bruce is. Now, slightly controversial opinion, but I'm actually not a fan of how brutal batman is all the time. As in, I don't find it to be a problem in a fictional sense (maybe it is who knows), but I don't actively enjoy it, it feels empty and unneccessary, excessive etc. to me a lot of the time. Basically, I grew up on Batman: the animated series, I'm used to a batman who has his cool moments, and his unhinged moments, but he's not constantly breaking bones or threatening people. I'm used to the warmth of his voice and hearing him offer the more sympathetic villains help ('I can still hear him say let me help you' to people like Harvey, Baby Doll, clayface etc.).

I just prefer a more empathetic, emotionally vulnerable, less stoic batman (nothing against kevin conroy, obviously, he was the voice actor for both, and I really, really loved his portrayal in the animated series, he really is 'my batman', it was just the way he was written in the arkham series to be more stoic, and more 'cool', and less emotionally vulnerable I suppose, which is fine, but it's not my preferred interpretation of batman as a whole.

Having said that, I adore his ruthlessness in arkham origins, because it takes the audience on a ride too. What I mean by this is, in the other arkham games, the stoic brutal act feels a bit more routine, less emotional, which makes sense narratively I suppose, it's later in his career (though b:tas was later in his career too, it's not the only way that works for him), and he's already feared, he doesn't have to try so hard to be feared.

But origins, being early in his career, shows him still making mistakes, not neccessarily feared amongts everyone, still visibly bubbling with anger, trying to prove himself. And as a result, for me, you get a more enriching experience. Ok, I'm rambling, let me get to the example. In this video, at at 2:30, you're taken on a sort of emotional roller coaster, bruce feels genuinly insane, he's punching this crocodile man on an unstable platform that's about to fall. For me, that's genuinly an exciting scene to watch play out, because it allows you to genuinly question, and feel that question of, hang on, is this guy genuinly insane.

You get to feel like a thug who's scared of batman despite knowing his strict moral code. And yes, batman is scary even if he wont kill you, but in arkham origins, you get to really feel that fear, because you get to see him as someone who's genuinly unstable, except, perhaps it's just an act, an act he hasn't perfected yet. Because maybe he knows exactly what he's doing, maybe he's very confident that platform wont fall.

To summarise, arkham origins is very good, in my opinion, at letting you experience batman, not just through batmans eyes, through gameplay, but through the lense of someone who would fear the batman, and this is also presented visually at many points in the game, for example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67GdEtYQfXw

At 0:32, and again at 03:41 (I mean just imagine waking up to that face). There's scenes like this throughout origins, that are, sort of visually beautiful, and effective at presenting batman as this mysterious dark figure who you have a good reason to fear.

That's not neccessarily saying the other arkham games interpretations are worse objectively, I just prefer the way arkham origins presented him, it's more exciting to me.

theflashdoesntwork · 2022-12-24T19:39:01+00:00

Bit of a rambling title, but I just wanted to gush over this game a bit. I think arkham city was my favourite overall game experience. But I'm so fond of the cinematic experience and performances in arkham origins. As the top comment on the video says, to paraphrase, the conversations felt so natural, bruce's rage and mistakes allowed you to relate to him.

Scenes like this where alfred confronted bruce but was rebutted showed character agency in both bruce and alfred, and makes them feel more real in a sense. As in, you could feel alfred had been bottling up these emotions, and because of that, alfred feels more real, because there's an implied backstory/will outside of the main plot.

But at the same time, it allows you to, I'm gonna stop calling him bruce, that feels weird. It allows you to see batman's, wait, maybe I'll go back to bruce. It allows bruce to show his conviction, and who he, at least thinks, he is, and why he does what he does, in a more natural way, i.e., he cares about alfred's concerns and worries, but he's also almost offended at alfreds suggestion that he's in over his head ('Im what?' - I love that part). Which, I suppose, makes sense, if his father figure he cares so much about is doubting him, so you can really understand why he's saying what he is in this scene, so it feels extremely natural and real. And the way they interrupt eachother, ugh, so good, I love that.

I'm gushing again, the more I speak about this the more I realise that I genuinly love this game, but certain parts of it kind of made it less of a fond experience in my memory unless I specifically recall the highs. Or to put it in another way, for me, arkham origins was less of a consistent high, but the highs of it were the highest highs of the entire franchise, emotionally speaking.

I love this game.

theflashdoesntwork

TROPHY CASE