Bio
they/them
Personal Ratings
1★
5★

Badges


GOTY '23

Participated in the 2023 Game of the Year Event

1 Years of Service

Being part of the Backloggd community for 1 year

Loved

Gained 100+ total review likes

Well Written

Gained 10+ likes on a single review

Popular

Gained 15+ followers

Pinged

Mentioned by another user

Donor

Liked 50+ reviews / lists

Roadtrip

Voted for at least 3 features on the roadmap

GOTY '22

Participated in the 2022 Game of the Year Event

Gone Gold

Received 5+ likes on a review while featured on the front page

N00b

Played 100+ games

Best Friends

Become mutual friends with at least 3 others

Noticed

Gained 3+ followers

Liked

Gained 10+ total review likes

Favorite Games

Before Your Eyes
Before Your Eyes
Disco Elysium: The Final Cut
Disco Elysium: The Final Cut
Outer Wilds
Outer Wilds
Life is Strange 2
Life is Strange 2
Paradise Killer
Paradise Killer

217

Total Games Played

000

Played in 2024

027

Games Backloggd


Recently Played See More

Class of '09
Class of '09

Dec 12

Victoria 3
Victoria 3

Dec 03

Slay the Princess
Slay the Princess

Oct 23

Crusader Kings III
Crusader Kings III

Oct 01

Mice Tea
Mice Tea

Sep 22

Recently Reviewed See More

there's a point halfway through where you realize a lot of what you assumed was just humor because of the satirical tone of the writing was just the game saying what it meant. like, okay, let's examine the white supremacy shit: there is no route where the text is "hell yeah we love white supremacy it rocks!" and the joke is that this is a stupid text. the text itself is instead very explicit about how this is an abhorrent and violent ideology which even treating with apathy is wrong. the joke is, holy shit isn't it fucked up that we're just kinda describing the real world at you? people believe this and act like this?

so then there is no reason to believe that the rest of what this game is saying on the surface level is any less sincere and straightforward. and man it has some powerful shit to say at times, i'll be honest. some parts toward the end of my playthrough had a fairly strong emotional impact. feminist kino.

I asked for a whirling, living, breathing machine, and she gave me the hell I most desired.

Economics is kinda bullshit, okay? I’m a communist, plenty of you fuckers are communists, we’re obligated to believe that if nothing else. But wouldn’t it kinda be neat if economics had something to it, if everything was just supply and demand at various levels of scale, if you could feel the veins within the invisible hand of the market and twist them in any way you liked? Fundamentally, this is what Victoria 3 offers the player: You get to build an economy and make it run so goddamn good that you launch your country’s standard of living into the stratosphere.

The process of industrialization is the beating metal heart of this game. It starts, if you are a weak enough power, at the most basic level: You set up logging camps, use the wood you produce to build tools, use those tools in your logging camps to increase productivity, start mining iron with the tools you built, increase the efficiency of tools using that iron, and on and on it goes. It’s all very straightforward in a line by line description, but fails entirely to capture the dynamic energy that sets this apart from other grand strategy games like it. That energy comes from the populations. You’ll hear this come up whenever people discuss Victoria as a series: It’s all about population management. You want to meet their material needs, provide them with jobs, track what classes of society they come from and who you are empowering, so on and so forth. It’s all about the populations.

But there’s almost a sense that management is the wrong word entirely—left alone, your populations manage themselves. They’ll work on subsistence farms and provide their own needs, and everything will stay at a relatively good equilibrium unless a greater power swoops by and annexes your entire country out of the blue. Whoops! There’s a very real pressure to be better, be stronger, be more capable of resisting imperial powers, and this can only be managed with a directed vision. Pure reaction will never be enough. This is why resistance movements and rebellions in the real world do not merely dissolve once they have achieved their immediate goals—dissolution of the state creates a power vacuum that is just asking to be filled. (Vincent Bevins writes about this phenomena at length in relation to modern mass movements in his excellent new book If We Burn, as a side note. Please read it!)

No, management implies that you are creating from the ground up the forces of society. But these forces arise naturally—they are a structure inherent to any group of people interacting at scale, though they may manifest in different modes. Our role is not to create, but to direct as best we can the immense forces that we already possess. This is the feeling you have when your country begins to industrialize and you see the basic production you had at first start to swirl in self-powering feedback loops, profits seemingly arising from nowhere by the sheer nature of the movement of money between industry and consumer and government. There is no better feeling than when you painstakingly direct the production methods of each factory and construction company and mine, one by one transitioning to the new tools you have access to, causing your country’s productive capacity to explode exponentially, only ever growing bigger and bigger. Your standard of living increases, industrialists and the petite bourgeoisie grow more powerful, and demand more and more—

And so you become a monster, lost to pure momentum.

My favorite thing to do in this game is to play as marginalized and minor powers across the world. It’s incredibly satisfying to do that initial work of building something from nothing. With the way that this game encourages you to think about populations at all times, it almost feels tangible how many people you are pulling out of poverty. But with smaller nations, there’s always a ceiling. This takes one of two forms: resource shortages, or population shortages. The first of these is not such a big deal—this is what trade fundamentally solves. Sometimes you have way too much iron and need more oil. The solution presents itself. But population shortages? If you run into these, you’re fucked.

See, this machine of pure human and industrial momentum is always stealing just a little bit from the future. The process of industrialization is a challenge to outrun the consequences which you necessitate by engaging in industrialization. Your profits come from constant expansion and growth. Your citizens are happier when you are doing more, cutting down more trees, mining more iron, squeezing every last drop of steel out of the resources you have. But what if there is no expansion left in the interior? You can’t build any more factories, you don’t have people to work in them! In fact, given how much of your economy depends on the construction sector, you'll even start to implode, unable to sufficiently create demand for all the goods you've been producing, if you're unable to keep building. How can you continue to compete? If you don’t compete with the global market, they will overtake you, grow more powerful, be able to raise a greater army, and then you will be back where you started—just a minor power swept away by the colonizers and conquerers that surround you. What can you do when you don’t have any of your future left to steal from? You steal it from someone else.

This is the enticing trap of colonialism, for once your country tastes the labor, the goods, the blood of one colony, they will never be satisfied. Interest groups are often a mechanic that feels a little half-baked and oversimplified, but on this point they feel fundamentally correct: Basically no group within a colonial power opposes colonization. It’s just objectively profitable for them, when the world is filtered through this lens of economics to such an extent that all is consumed by it. Even when your society has more than anyone else in the world, they still desire to just consume more and more and more. I’d almost say this game is cynical if it wasn’t so fucking on point. When the world is all an abstract map of economic affairs, the desire to paint your color across the world is almost natural. For a moment, I understand how we got to where we are.

But then I zoom in on the world and it comes alive, and I can understand no longer.

- - -

A post-script as thanks for reading:

I find recently that most of my media analysis tends to find itself drawn magnetically to human nature as a concept in one way or another. Sometimes it's an obvious connection, like Killers of the Flower Moon, and sometimes it's a little more obtuse, as with this review. But even here we made the connection at the end: "the desire to paint your color across the world is almost natural." I think this actually comes full circle to the comment I made about economics being bullshit at the beginning of the review, a connection which I'll explore in a moment. I think it's probably a very important idea to focus on because it seems to deeply underpin basically all of how we understand the world, and I think we don't get to the center of that nearly often enough. How can you deconstruct an ideology without understanding its foundations?

There's this pretty fundamental assertion that every regressive, conservative, etc. etc. likes to make in their art, which is that on some level This Is Just How Things Are, which always takes the form of telling us that some particular tendency is just part of human nature. Isn't it just so convenient that those who did horrific evil in order to claw their way to the top of hegemony, and who continue to employ great violence at their behest in order to maintain that power, didn't really do anything bad because if everyone does something how can it really be bad? It's a deeply false but psychologically necessary claim: That the evil I do is not evil, and you would have done it too if you were me.

It's the same reduction that is made to turn humans into economic machines—understanding us simply as a set of material inputs and outputs who consume and produce things. It's a claim that if you had the same material conditions, you would necessarily do the same thing. But this denies the "you" in you, doesn't it? Think about yourself for a moment. Find where "you" are, the consciousness and the observer of the consciousness, whatever that means to you. How is this amorphous primal beast of a thing reducible to deterministic inputs and outputs? Do you really believe that? This is merely an assertion of their axioms of truth onto yours, a refusal to negotiate reality with you but instead an insistence of their own experience, a complete and utter denial of the real of the subjective, of the concept of a You! It is the ultimate solipsism, the greatest sin, the making of man into machine with a computerized brain, the ooze of capital left behind in the creases of everyone's brain from its utter hegemonic power in the ideological realm.

All of which is why I say that economics (or rather, the mainstream capitalist understanding of economics) is bullshit—it is a fundamental reduction of humans to being consumers and producers, and that can never meaningfully capture the picture of any social structure that emerges from how we interact with one another. You've gotta look elsewhere to understand that. It's stuck too deep in the realm of asserting its own axioms, that great circular reasoning, to hold any real truth. It's fundamentally inflexible and immobile in a way that the absolute reality of what we call a political economy can never be reduced to.

Victoria 3 captures all of this incredibly concretely, a little glimpse of the irreducibility behind economy, the first of the shapes in its stages of dialectical development on the way to understanding what that irreducibility even is. It's an astounding achievement, even if it is limited at times by the boundaries of its understanding and imagination.

I took a week after 100%ing the game to think about it, and in retrospect, I'm more disappointed with it than I was at first.

There's a very unfortunate tendency in game writing that seems to pop up when a game wants to be "about" some Big Idea. Almost every time that Big Idea is some variation of existentialism, "we make our own meaning," so on and so forth. This tendency is to start reading Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy articles at you, couched in very poorly written original prose. There are, I think, a few obvious problems with this.

First and foremost is that a well-written game very rarely has to tell you what it is About. This is one of the reasons I actually think I enjoyed the demo a lot more -- the general idea that our actions literally changed who the princess was and how we perceived her and that reality was a mutually created spiral was already obvious without a single word being written about it. Unfortunately, it seems like the creators didn't really trust that audiences would Get It, and thus they leaned much deeper into the explicit conceptual stuff in the full game. The full game is so bloated with the internal cosmology that it seems to have no room to actually substantially explore anything.

Secondly: Listen, no disrespect, but laymen (I am one of these!) trying to explain philosophy at you pretty much always goes poorly. To communicate your Big Idea well, you need to be internally precise and clear about what your Big Idea is, and know how to put that precision and clarity into words. If all you can really accomplish is a string of mixed metaphors that vaguely hand-wave towards an idea, it does make me question if you even knew exactly what you wanted to say. I don't think this game really did -- some sort of mashup between "you make your own meaning" and "change is inevitable" and "you experience the world and yourself through other people," all of which are generally very broad and potent ideas that have been explored a ton through various works, and none of which this game really seemed to explore beyond a surface level of just Informing You Of The Idea. It's a very Nier: Automata approach to Big Ideas.

Finally, maybe a bit of a personal gripe, but I don't even think that the "reading an SEP article at the player" approach is necessarily bad. I'm open to the idea, but if you're gonna do it, I'd at least like the article you read at me to be a little more novel? Hit me with some weird-ass niche stuff that I'd struggle to read and make it more interesting! Be a weird little guy that explores weird little ideas and pelt me with that shit! I love learning about new stuff. I think it's inherently interesting. But dear god I cannot stand having games just tell me "hey! listen! did you know... we make our own meaning?" on repeat. I got it! I understand!

All that said: I don't think Slay the Princess is bad. I liked the voice acting a lot, the art was neat, the writing was (at first) a less insufferable and more clever version of the Stanley Parable kind of writing, and generally I'm always excited for new things from this dev team. Scarlet Hollow is one of my favorite VNs, it's just excellent on all fronts and I always highly recommend it! It's just too bad that this game got deeply caught up in a poorly crafted conceptual structure rather than leaning into the strengths of this dev team (very good character writing and slow burn spooky vibes).

It could have been a lot worse. They could have named a giant robot Nietzsche. Thank god there aren't any games that do that.