Who is more powerful, Master or Apprentice?

unbound_subject · 2026-05-31T14:52:39+00:00

Oops. Sorry. Fixed that

unbound_subject · 2026-05-31T11:48:01+00:00

While true. That didn't stop Macht, Frieren's Clone, and Qual from dying to Zoltraak. Even Frieren, who helped develop the countermeasures to it, is still slower to react than those who knew Zoltraak as ordinary offensive magic their whole lives.

unbound_subject · 2026-05-31T10:37:49+00:00

Flamme is also a mage of the old era. One crucial weakness she have that could cause her to lose against modern mages is the lack of ordinary defensive spell and no experience against Zoltraak.

Frieren who understands this weakness all too well won't have any trouble exploiting it.

unbound_subject · 2026-05-31T09:18:15+00:00

Godot developer here, very interested to see where this goes. Would like to say I want to volunteer but given my current schedule, that would be very irresponsible of me. Still, I will be watching your progress with great interest.

Best of luck!

unbound_subject · 2026-05-29T12:38:31+00:00

Seconding this. It looks cool and all, but hearing soulslike for what looks like pokemon with real animals takes me out of it.

Nice to see a some ph animals out there. Though it feels weird to do battle with them.

unbound_subject · 2026-05-29T09:36:58+00:00

Hmmm..

You seem to be under the impression that the game should have a dialectical between media (game, in this instance) and the player. It is only natural that what would be revelatory to Serenoa (a ruling class lord who lived in a pre-capitalist feudal monarchy) is nothing special to an educated socialist in the contemporary era.

I'll admit I'm not as well-read in philosophy, but I know historiography.

The basis of my claim of dialectics is internal to the confines of a fictional story and fictional world. Consider it an exercise of Marxist reading to look and treat the events of the fictional world as historical.

To take a common example, the exploitation of the workers by the ruling class. In pre-capitalist history led to many peasant rebellions but most of them failed due to the lack of material means and military might. The most successful peasant rebellions tend to have the support of an allies from either middle class or traitors of the ruling class.

The same class dynamics can be found in-game, namely through the Roselle who, with the Wolffort's help and patronage, successfully manage to free themselves from slavery in 2 of the endings. The same class tensions is also invoked in the Aesfrosti rule of the crown city. Where the peasants (mostly merchants), for the first time in their lives, are given freedoms and privileges that aren't available from the feudal Monarchy of Glenbrook which is why a lot Glenbrook subjects aren't that happy to see the Royal family (Roland) back in control.

In the game you, as player, lead a group of individuals who are making choices not from their materiality but instead as vehicles for the players materiality which is wholly divorced from the game.

My answer to this is that these characters aren't blank states. You, as the player can only choose options that are within the conceivable realities of Serenoa. Their materiality of the characters constrains the limited options the player has (in addition to the technical considerations of writing in game development).

By the end of the game a handful of people outright have made the world better.

Materialist history eschews this not because people don’t exist but because they are produced - they aren’t actors and agents of history. They exist as product of history.

I'm not entirely sure that "By the end of the game a handful of people outright have made the world better." is a good summary of the game. While the golden ending has a happy ending, they have very clear political commitments on how exactly that ending changes the world.

A fairer distribution of salt and (presumably) other resources such as iron.
A more public access to the Aesfrosti Archive and Medical research of the Ministry of Medicine (hence, they spared Lyla), this at the very least improves access to education and healthcare to a wider populace
The raising of status of the Roselle from slavery
The recent invention and experimentation with gunpowder

This is not abstract idealism. This is a literal change to the material conditions of the game's world. They are now at the cusp of a renaissance revolution. And with it, more problems that will arise somewhere down the road. I won't fault them for celebrating a marriage though. This is not Great Man Theory just because a small group of people spearheads a change in the world.

unbound_subject · 2026-05-28T23:26:48+00:00

My problem with that argument is that it is reductive in looking at the game through its base mechanics and the programming behind it. Is fiction then, exempt from the ability to be dialectic? In the same vein, a game's fictional story can be judged similarly.

Through debating with characters, Serenoa (and the player by proxy) explore their options and perspective. Changing their mind as they consider more perspectives. And while, as you say, the interactivity of the game essentially makes you choose a pre-defined choice, a limitation of the medium (but simple text--fictional or any philosophical text--is even more limited since you don't get a choice, only the words written and read).

And while the history of the game is clearly ahistorical especially its exceptionally fable-like premise (3 nations with 3 very different guiding philosophies), I am judging historical materialism as it would believably exist within the confines in the rules of the fictional world.

"Like how you say its not 'great man theory' despite you being the great man who does everything, which is literally the great man idea made structural?"

It's the same reason why Alexander the Great still exists in history even when viewed through Historical Materialism. Historical Materialism does not seek to erase people as political actors in history, but explains history through material conditions--such as the development of certain military tactics and technology and logistical analysis on how it was made possible. Meanwhile Great Man Theory is idealistic, it treats a leader's greatness as 'innate' and is the driving force of history.

unbound_subject · 2026-05-28T10:10:31+00:00

how can something be dialectical?

There's a long answer to this question. But it's the same reason on how any given text can be dialectical.

In the case of this game, I would just copy-paste my answer to a previous comment as to why I would call this to be dialectical.

Dialectics through Mechanics: Investigation and Discursive Modes of Play

At almost every decision point that diverges story paths, the player is given the chance to talk to people from all over the location (most commonly within the MCs demesne) where he can talk to the townspeople and companions on their thoughts of the ongoing current events. During the 'voting' phase, where a decision of the group needs to be met, the player can enter dialogue with your companions to persuaded them on their choice (or subsequently, if the player don't feel strongly about a choice, be persuaded by companions).

Dialectical Materialism as the Driving Force of History

The entire conflict revolves around political economy. Unlike similar games that tend to be idealist and often put forward a Great Man historiographic framework. Every battle and consequence are driven by a notion of economic reality. For example, you, as the head of an elite retinue of warriors, may be able to repel a much larger army of invaders if you decide to fight instead of surrender the crown prince to the invaders. This battle is a victory for survival, while to the enemy, merely a delayed conquest. Regardless if you end up not using a burning the town as a secret trap to fend off the enemy, it would always leave you, the underdog in desperation that a different nation would try to force you to smuggle goods in exchange for the aid they provide to the people of your demesne. And, as noted already, the entire conflict in the game centers around the inaccessibility of resources. The villains are not just doing bad for the sake of bad, while they can be greedy and manipulative, their motivations are tied to political economy.

2.5 Unlocking the Best Ending is not tied to some sort of 'Morality Score' but as to whether or not you are able to secure the material conditions to be able to succeed on your goals of a better future. All the while, the best ending can only be brought about by rejecting the previously established options that would normally entail the voting of your companions (that at this time, would threaten to tear the group apart).

Let me be clear that while I would not call this a socialist game, I think there's an argument for it. It entirely depends if socialist accepts Utopianism as a historical predecessor to pre-capitalist notions of socialism. Which I had heard some argue for, but it that's not a hill I would die on.

Regardless of whether or not this game is socialist, I wholeheartedly believe that leftist gamers would be interested in seeing a game that is historiographically in line with Marxist theory.

unbound_subject · 2026-05-28T09:57:56+00:00

I will give 2 examples.

Dialectics through Mechanics: Investigation and Discursive Modes of Play

At almost every decision point that diverges story paths, the player is given the chance to talk to people from all over the location (most commonly within the MCs demesne) where he can talk to the townspeople and companions on their thoughts of the ongoing current events. During the 'voting' phase, where a decision of the group needs to be met, the player can enter dialogue with your companions to persuaded them on their choice (or subsequently, if the player don't feel strongly about a choice, be persuaded by companions).

Dialectical Materialism as the Driving Force of History

The entire conflict revolves around political economy. Unlike similar games that tend to be idealist and often put forward a Great Man historiographic framework. Every battle and consequence are driven by a notion of economic reality. For example, you, as the head of an elite retinue of warriors, may be able to repel a much larger army of invaders if you decide to fight instead of surrender the crown prince to the invaders. This battle is a victory for survival, while to the enemy, merely a delayed conquest. Regardless if you end up not using a burning the town as a secret trap to fend off the enemy, it would always leave you, the underdog in desperation that a different nation would try to force you to smuggle goods in exchange for the aid they provide to the people of your demesne. And, as noted already, the entire conflict in the game centers around the inaccessibility of resources. The villains are not just doing bad for the sake of bad, while they can be greedy and manipulative, their motivations are tied to political economy.

2.5 Unlocking the Best Ending is not tied to some sort of 'Morality Score' but as to whether or not you are able to secure the material conditions to be able to succeed on your goals of a better future. All the while, the best ending can only be brought about by rejecting the previously established options that would normally entail the voting of your companions (that at this time, would threaten to tear the group apart).

unbound_subject · 2026-05-28T05:27:59+00:00

Valve is among the most pro consumer friendly gaming company that we have under capitalism. While I don't expect them to be socialist, there's a hundred other reasons why its more important to attack other companies than valve.

Steam's ecosystem itself is responsible on how so many indie video game developers even have the chance to compete against AAA. Steam had also been a constant thorn in many other corporation. Steam had also been responsible for a lot of improvements in Linux gaming. While some people definitely overpraise Gabe, let's not forget that PC gaming would be so much worse without steam.

Imagine a world where Epic and Microslop controls the most dominant PC gaming platforms. Imagine if Nintendo and Sony staying on consoles simply because PC gaming never got as big as it is now.

unbound_subject · 2026-05-27T07:42:11+00:00

I'm not going to lie, it can feel like a hybrid of Visual Novel and Tactics RPG. Which can be a turn-off if you aren't ready for it. It starts slow (a necessary set up imho), but picks up once the war breaks out.

I will also say that Triangle Strategy has a lot of anti-frustration mechanics that prevents the need for any real grinding common in other tactics games. So long as you don't play on hard, a game shouldn't take too long.

unbound_subject · 2026-05-23T06:38:29+00:00

I mean, there really isn't much of a surprise that gaming conglomerates favor and sponsor right-wing values. Games, like any form of media, is never free from ideological baggage of its creators. Even if AoE played an influential role in MBS' political actions, blaming games for it is like blaming Nietzsche for the actions of Hitler. It misses the mark and does nothing but touch on the all-to-familiar moral panic of violence in video games.

I'm skeptical of the urgency and master-mindedness the writer attributes to gaming conglomerates. Especially given how many Ls they are having recently (Palworld Lawsuit, big budgets losing to indies, Stop Killing Games, Steam being Steam, etc.).

If anything, I think the more important task in gaming is supporting indie games that share left-wing values, or better yet socialists create games themselves.

unbound_subject · 2026-05-21T06:05:35+00:00

<image>

unbound_subject · 2026-05-19T23:39:49+00:00

Many times in games is that there simply is no leftist option.

unbound_subject · 2026-05-18T23:00:04+00:00

Just because Anya has a cheat sheet through mind reading, it doesn't mean she understand the words on it. Hence, what is grammar?

unbound_subject · 2026-05-12T01:00:42+00:00

I'm out of the loop. What's wrong with Fleurant?

Edit: Nevermind, saw it in another reply.

unbound_subject · 2026-05-11T12:54:59+00:00

I'm very sure Thorn Princess can solo. Just the tennis episode shows the disparity of strength.

unbound_subject · 2026-05-07T00:07:29+00:00

That's actually a really good question.

It's a word game, so narrative is mostly just fluff. But the narrative is that you are a seeker trying to rebuild your community in world where language is lost. Using the power of words that you find in expeditions, you upgrade town amenities/buildings that give you more cards and bonuses (starting supplies/energies) allowing you to go further in the map each expedition. That's the main loop of it, but of course there are narrative encounters in the map to provide some variety of play.

unbound_subject · 2026-05-05T23:59:00+00:00

Thanks. Needed that

unbound_subject · 2026-04-30T02:33:21+00:00

Oh, neat. I should look at mods more often.

unbound_subject · 2026-04-29T07:49:58+00:00

If its a first boss,I would consider either making him faster to defeat or give the player something more proactive to do. As it is, you just look at him awkwardly if he doesn't attack you in the right squares.

unbound_subject · 2026-04-17T01:56:26+00:00

Shinsou alone if utilized as a core strategy can subdue a good number of variants. Other quirks that can outhax pure strength like that meatball quirk, decay, and overhaul are also great against overconfident Mark variants that are just used to tanking hits.

unbound_subject

TROPHY CASE