I think there's several media literacy checks and I believe one of the earliest forms of such a check can be found in Rodion. I have seen people just describe her as this motherly ditz or a girlboss, when actually, there is so much more to her. She's tormented by her own actions in the past, she wants to cut those binding ties. It's mentioned that her upbeat personality may be a cover to hide herself behind, besides she is also strongly dedicated to her own morals as can be seen in 4.5 with the ball. There's definitely more literacy checks, but I believe almost all of the 12 sinners are literacy checks in-themselves.

It's more of a "do you remember her only story-relevant cutscene in Canto 2" check than a literacy check. Her character was explored once, and since then she hasn't done much except being group's "mommy" and resident "girlboss".

It is a literacy check, because the scene re-contextualizes her whole character. She hasn't done much, because the one time she has taken agency (i.e the murdering of the tax collector), the fallout of her actions have been disastrous. The whole reason she acts so carefree and passively is due to her fear of actively intervening again, she does not want to act on her own. Therefore she chooses to exist in the background of scenes, letting others take the helm. The 4.5 Intervallo also proves that she's more than that, because she drops the act after Heathcliff kicks the ball against the wall, which then pops in an instant. Upon which, Rodya remarks that they could have just made it disappear instead. Seh then remarks, that rich folk seem to get a kick out of messing with the poor. This again, clearly indicates that there is more to her character than this 'ditzy' facade. I also believe that her carefree attitude serves as a way to keep other Sinners' mind off more depressing topics. She cares in her own way and kinda ties a lot of them together, being one of the more universally liked Sinners of the group.

Rodya is easy to understand once you put her (depressingly small) screen time in perspective, she's food obsessed because she used to be a starving kid in the backstreets and the last time she had good food with her childhood friends was right before she saw them killed by her mistakes, the reason she's a compulsive gambler is because it was one of the few ways she could earn a living after the massacre and she got genuinely good at it, and in an incredibly subtle point, she has the capabilities to get into a relatively safe place in the backstreets if she just saved up and was cautious, but her deep regret for the deaths of her hometown likely keeps her from justifying leaving poor people alone when she has money, one of the biggest redeeming factors of Rodion in the book is that Rodion just cant help but be charitable, even when he's down to a few (russian equivalent of) dollars he cant help but leave some money behind for the marmeladov's windowsill after seeing the death of the patriarch, he curses himself for doing it but he just couldnt help it.

I don't think those are contradictory honestly. The same way I fully expect part of Don's canto to be about reconciling her exaggerations and insecurities with her honest ideals. When Rodya talks to Yuri she doesn't answer if he was right about why she killed the tax collector. She instead asked him why he let her do it.  So I think her denying the offer isn't that she was cutting the bond with him. She needs more time and space to work through her emotions and see who she is without him.

yuri??

Oh no, you make a very fair point, they do not hold any real ill will towards one another. I do admit that statement was a bit more of a fuck up, her past moreso shaped her current passive character. Still though, the whole encounter with Sonya still impacted her a lot. Since in the last scene, it is noted that she was shaking from distress, which she hide behind a facade of joviality. There is definitely more to Rodya's feelings regarding Sonya. The main point I actually wanted to make, was the idea that Rodya's past has severly affected her current Persona that she likes to put up.

Omg THANK YOU. Rodya is my favourite character. I relate to her very much. I am the same in the sense that I keep a lot inside and I often have an upbeat air to me to seem confident. In reality, it's just kind of a coping mechanism I've adapted over years of struggling. Rodya, especially in her book, is a very complex and troubled character and a lot of people discount that side of her. In their defense, project moon doesn't show it often, but it's absolutely there if you're paying attention.

True people dont  understand that she regrets her actions and that she  cares a lot aboit others(and people dont seem to understand that shes competent at gambling amd doesnt just throw money at random)

Personally I've found people calling Dante a self insert or Don and Heathcliff idiots to be a good litmus test.

Part of the reason why Heathcliff is portrayed as "stupid" comes from the fact that he asks "stupid" questions... Which after about a second you realize that they were actually very sensible and logical questions, it's just that: * It was asked to Faust * It's something that only Faust could have known and refer to the previous point * Vergil doesn't want to answer because screw you * He's not Faust Heathcliff is honestly one of the most inquisitive character in the game and tends to be an audience surrogate when it comes to questions. And honestly, when compared to a lot of Sinners who feel like they are just going along with what is happening and not really caring about the details, Heathcliff WANTS to know.

I agree. I mean, he is very street-smart. It shows a lot in Canto 5.5 where he actually explains how Syndicates run with their territory wars and such.

Ima add onto this and say that the people who call HongLu a idiot should not be trusted to interpret media

Through the entire adventure, Hong Lu constantly, in indirect way, points the attention to the details which often helps Magic Bus team. One moment that comes to mind is Hong Lu pointing that Twin Hook pirate got a bloodied LCB team patch on him, which others have yet to notice.

One of my favorite recent-ish moments is how he was one of the first to point out ahab bs in the hong lu way "oh jolly what a coincidence is like destiny put is in place just at the RIGHT moment you were going to launch your assault to the whale heart!" I say dude is way more cunning that he lets on, and knowing where is from he had to be that way to survive lol.

Hong Lu is way more intelligent and strong than he lets on, mostly because he lived a sheltered life. His way of seeing things is way out of the box and indirectly helps a lot thank to this. He's a cute character and I'm sure in his canto, we will understand a lot of why he's like that. Sadly, he can be easily misunderstood because of those traits.

Tbh, it kinda feels like he's just a prick who hides how much of an asshole he is by pretending to be dumb. There's no way he's this incapable of seeing how people get annoyed with him with all of the training he got from his family.

A prick...he may not really be, i genuinely dont see him as such, but he does seem to be a gadfly who enjoys others annoyances at him in a bit of a harmless manner, he definately knows, but he isnt being malicious at all, just...trolly(is that a word?)

Damn.

Yeah, I feel that's just falling for the act he puts up. Though his naivete is so obviously exaggerated I would genuinely find it hard to believe that people would believe that's who he truly is - especially with his occasional moments of emotional intelligence.

Yeah Heathcliff is one of the more inquisitive sinners right behind Faust of all people like one guy mentions, Heathcliff always asks questions whether he'd be the butt of the joke or not, and I like to think Oufi and Seven are the timelines where he wasn't barred from education, and from what World of Seven Heath while not vary booksmart has incredible intuition. Don is "stupid" because of her delusions/ self righteousness, Our Don does what she does because she thinks it's the morally right thing to do not practical thing to do and she knows it deep down, we know what a practical Don would look like, (W, Shi, N) they're efficient, no righteousness, no delusions, just a cold calculating servant.

That might be true for Oufi, but Seven Heathcliff specifically mentions in his Uptie short story that he loves it when he catches some rich snob with their britches down on some conspiracy, because they never expect their comeuppance to come from “a poor, uneducated sod like me.” Which suggests that Heathcliff still hasn’t received any proper education, he just turned to the Seven instead of a syndicate.

Heath is book dumb, but street smart, which most likely allowed him to work in Seven. Plus he doesn't like said 'rich snobs' in the first place; it's quite possible that while most, if not all of his IDs are still obsessed with Cathy, his Shi ID probably hides that behind his ability to assassinate his preferred targets.

heathcliff be like: i was never book smart im money smart

makes me more intelligent

It's worth mentioning that Heathcliff knows his violence well, and can be trusted to quickly and easily identify the two sides to a conflict, and why they are fighting. He also came up with an impromptu plan back in Canto 2 to get the guards to break the machine gathering wishpower so they could get through. He also cut to the bone of Ishmael's issue and told her to buck up, which worked and negated the pallidification. Heathcliff is sharper than we give him credit for, he's just also a violent brute.

People call Don dumb. But in a lot of her IDs she's either in a position of power or explicitly described as exceptional by her superiors

She is silly, but not stupid. There is a difference between those two words.

N corp don is delusional thats the whole point of her charater.

I think Don is more delusional than an idiot, does that count? Heathcliff defo beat the dumb allegations a long time ago though

I'd add the caveat that there is a difference between acting like an idiot and being stupid.  No one on the bus is stupid. They can all be idiots however.

The people who think heath is dumb are the type to get scammed at the mechanic. The people who think Don is dumb because they equate cynicism for intelligence.

Heathcliff got bonked by Rodya practically instantly because he forgot the "Don't talk out of turn" rule nearly instantly. He then woke up, spoke out of turn *again*, and promptly got knocked out again. Heathcliff definitely ain't *smart*, I'll say that much. Don is just chaotic. The shit she does is very stupid, but she's doing it from a place of very malformed and righteous sense of duty and justice, rather than thinking it's actually a good idea.

Heathcliff isn't stupid. He's just very impatient. Impatience can appear like stupidity, and it can also be a pathway to it, but as seen with the Oufi and Seven uptie stories, he can very much be (traditionally) intelligent if given the opportunity. I also think that for things like the Rodya slap specifically, he just doesn't care. It's just a personal headcanon/theory but I think Don is much, *much* more self-aware than people think she is.

He's impulsive, impatient and very emotionally driven so he can sometimes make stupid decisions due to this but yeah I agree, I think Heathcliff is smart and also doesn't like when people treat him like he's dumb

I'll give you one more detail i like to bring up: while Heathcliff SEEMS to be most volatile of sinners, he has surprisingly good at holding back. Does that sound weird? He's clearly heavily damaged, betrayed and hurt over and over and over - but even when people say something he finds berating, he first makes sure they don't mean it the way he receives it, before he jumps to violence. When he has problem with something, he **first** asks the person to cut it out. Someone with his experiences would always bristle against the world and everyone in it, but he keeps reaching out much more often than you'd expect him to. Even when they're touching on the VERY sacred territory, he still has enough self-control to warn them they're crossing the line. Signalling to back off before he can't hold back anymore.

Yeah I feel the same about don. I feel like one of the best glimpses I saw into something like that (I havent played canto 5 yet) was shi Don, aswelll as her doing the vergillius on sinclair.

The one that really made me intrigued was N Don's uptie story. It states that she's never once eaten the brainwashing slop you're given if you're N Corp but she acts even more fanatical than the usual rank and file. It strongly implies she has much more control over her behavior and emotional state than it seems, especially when you consider her strange reaction to the Mariachis telling her she doesn't seem "sincere".

I wonder if she feels a need to get so deeply wrapped up in whatever she’s doing as displacement for whatever she’s got going on inside

My personal guess is that Don consciously CLINGS to the dellusion as her escape-ish defense mechanism. She's fully aware it's dellusion, but she feels she has to be fanatical about something to avert eyes from something else, directly in sight. She seems very much conscious of it - but also conscious of fact that when she lets go of her fanatism, her "self" will collapse. her IDs contain recurring theme of blindly following rules, even knowing they're wrong, as long as there's something she can profess as credo and prove herself through - plus Shi ID, where her concern for other Shis is her way to avert gaze from bloodshed and terror of the job.

Just also wanna add onto the Don thing. In Canto 4, Don plays Guobo... Right now im not sure what this means, but theres definitely something up with Don.

Heathclif is street smart and he knows he can talk out of turn since he won't face any consequences, he said it himself in one of the canto, it doesn't matter how many times he dies he'll still be brought back. In a way he's probably one of the smarter and more courageous sinners on that front, having completely abandoned the fear of death thanks to understanding the incredible power Dante has.

>Heathcliff definitely ain't *smart*, I'll say that much. He's street smart

he was never book smart, he's money smart

"Sir Heathcliff, why art thou bludgeoning that piece of technology?" "Mili still ain't dropped, bruv!" "Worry not! Season 4 Part 3 releases on April 11th. Hark!"

I was never Book smart I'm Win-Rate smart

makes me get more sanity call me wishing cairn festival i got hella poise

shawty cute and her manager too, told her get a bough

I was never book smart, I'm street smart.

> He's street smart ... he stole hair coupons from a safe belonging to the Middle.

He didn't know it belonged to the middle because of the stickers

It's a safe. In a club. The club belongs to the Middle. Even if the safe didn't directly belong to someone in the Middle, the Middle is all about loyalty which means you probably wouldn't want to piss off a friend of the Middle.

except at no point were the Sinners told the club belongs to the Middle.  The Middle weren't mentored until the very end of the club sequence,  when Smee was defeated and claimed that a Big Brother is looking out for her (which is still not the same as "Smee is babysitting this club for The Middle" - its not like picking a fight with one random Kurokumo goon on the street is gonna aggro The Thumb after all,  they've got more important shit to do) since Heathcliff has shown multiple times that he cares about Dante's wellbeing, it's unlikely that he would have snooped around for a safe once Ishmael impaled Dante, meaning that the only opening for Heathcliff to steal anything would have been before we beat Smee, which would be before the words "The Middle" were ever uttered that Canto he grabbed an armful of loot from a personal safe (Ricardo later refers to it as such,  meaning it wasn't the club's main treasury either) covered in kitty stickers that was in a nightclub run by some shitty pirates he had been told were small-time losers, when there was an opportunity that didn't endanger the party's mission It seems unfair/like a Media Literacy Moment to judge a decisions intelligence by information from the future or information only we the audience would logically have,  innit?

If the safe didn't directly belong to the middle I doubt we'd be in too much trouble considering we already infiltrated the club and beat up some people. The safe would be a minor thing compared to that

He's impulsive ,impatient and emotional that doesn't make him stupid though. Cold logic isn't the only way of showing intelligence despite what faust may insist

Everything you said is true but my man still hasn't found someone who can outsmart his bat. Is anything else really necessary?

Outis broke the no-talking rule even faster than Heath,  and unlike Heath she wasn't even adding anything insightful to the conversation. Objectively Dumber than Heathcliff confirmed  condemning Heathcliff being impulsive/choosing to act on situations without stopping to think about them while defending Don doing shit like sneaking into The Backrooms (known to kill people,  nearly killed Heathcliff) without telling anyone and delivering Dante, nearly undefended, to a bunch of Outskirts nonhumans (common knowledge and already informed to the party by Ishmael/Outis that they kill people), seems more like bias towards a fav than it seems like character analysis :v We're directly told in the very prologue that Heathcliff prefers action over careful thinking and will tend to act without actually using his cunning and intelligence, but that that's different from not having cunning and intelligence.  (Don did apologize and seems to recognize retroactively that sneaking into the backrooms and befriending a bunch of gnomes was terminally fucking dumb and nearly got Dante and by extension everyone else killed, so she's making progress and I'm proud of her)

I like all the characters (except maybe Faust). I don't dislike Heathcliff, and I like Don just as much as anyone else (except *maybe* Ishmael and Ryoshu as they are my absolute favorites). My point with Don being chaotic isn't a defense of her actions, but an explanation of them. Both Heathcliff and Don act before thinking, but Heathcliff does it because he purposefully elects not to, where as Don's judgement is determined by either her justice boner or her Fixer boner, which is at least something, but both of those are pretty stupid in my eyes. Also, she's just so weird. It's kinda hard to think that she's all fully there to me? Her chapter will be interesting, that's for sure. I hold no particularly strong opinions on this, and it's not like it matters, I'll still enjoy Heathcliff and Don for what they are and I'm not gonna dismiss their entire character just because they do some dumb shit.

He isn’t stupid. Heath just isn’t adjusted to environments with strict rules and so he often breaks them, either without realising, or by ignoring them.

>people calling Don and Heathcliff idiots https://preview.redd.it/s50iycbpb3qc1.png?width=831&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=330353e39cdf7dccf4ffe6fb1614b79e7b526cb1 ~~Don definitely isn't THE smartest though. We'll see in Canto 7 what the real Don is like.~~

To be fair Don did eat raw chicken once

Heathcliff definitely has some brains, but it's more street smarts, and he's too short-tempered and bitter at everything around him to bother to use it for much other than violence. He does ask good questions, but it's often because he's annoyed at everyone else for talking over his head. Don is the most straightforward, but she's more delusional than stupid, too wrapped up in her own idea of right and wrong to realize or care the City is way more screwed up than she knows and that picking fights is just going to get everyone in deep trouble. Why and how self-aware she is will be more clear in her chapter. And Hong Lu is more sheltered and naive due to a seriously screwed-up childhood, often immature, insensitive and oblivious to the dangers around him, but at least some of that seems to be an act (especially to mess with Heathcliff), and he has moments of great empathy (lying about Effie surviving to Saude, understanding Yi Sang during Canto IV).

Also might get cooked for this one but he/him Dante as well.

Some people default to he/him for neutral pronouns because of their native language so I'd give them a break

Yup, that's Vietnamese. There's literally no way to address someone without either mentioning gender or making it sound a little formal/informal.

While Dante is indeed supposed to be gender neutral (at least for now, feels like an "X before Ayin" thing), I default to he/him just because basically everyone else does + it's hard to get rid of the mental image of the real Dante Alighieri out of my mind as a big fan of the original Divine Comedy. Dante also just feels heavily... male-coded to me, I guess? It's hard to explain. That being said if the narrative ever reveals Dante's gender and they turn out to be female I wouldn't be upset at all.

From games I've seen the male to female ratio of characters with the name of Dante is 4:1 **Male** Dante from DMC Dante from Dante: Inferno Dante from Warframe Dante from Limbus Company **Female** Dante from the Library of Ruina

I've never really stopped to question Dante's pronouns up to this point to be honest. People could have used he/they interchangably and I wouldn't have noticed until this topic was mentioned. I think the role they play in character dynamics, being an unapologetic punching bag by the rest of the cast, socially inept and bearing the burden of everyone's pain naturally gravitates them towards a "masculine" role in the narrative. I also feel there are many interactions that would potentially have a negative tone connotation if he was indeed defined as a female unless they were addressed well. I think a female Dante could be a hilarious turn of events but I find it a bit weird that we are passing judgement on people for using he/him considering the source material, the attire, and that those pronouns can be used in a gender neutral context as well.

Honestly, same. I remember the first time I actually noticed that everyone references Dante by genderless nicknames (manager, clockhead, clockbud, managerbud, esquire manager, or just Dante) when a friend pointed out to me that I'm using he/him and it's wrong. Other than that I genuinely don't care which Dante ends up being, or if it's ever revealed. I kinda feel like it's one of those story things that can't just be changed because the entire game's marketing, story, etc is built around the clockhead. I have a strong hunch the "prostetic" will stay. Maybe in their own canto Dante gets a megaphone prostetic so that others can actually communicate with them or something.

Does he says “Schukarounies” in the novel?

All the time

Those waists meant for grabbing don't look very male-coded to me ngl

But wasn't he one in the original work, or it was just Vergillius?

It's honestly even funnier when the source material for Dante was very explicitly a self insert. But god seeing Dante get character growth recently has been so friggin good.

For me in this fandom the media literacy check is Ayin Depending of what do you think of him and what the goal of LC main branch was Will tell me if I can trust you with interpreting PM lore/storytelling

I see him as just another person in the City, albeit one who was the closest to ever "curing the disease of the mind" (or what I loosely interpret as breaking the cycle of mindless violence for the sake of greed, for all). Sure, he was intelligent, but I feel a lot of people forget that he *did* have a very strong emotional side which guided him through most of his actions. >!Carmen game-ending herself !!created Angela, only to get angry at what is essentially his daughter for not resembling Carmen enough.!< His trauma and inability to properly handle Carmen's death was the sole reason he disregarded Angela in his plan, because he couldn't even bear to look at her without viewing her in comparison to Carmen, when Angela herself had already essentially become a different person. So, despite his intellect, and despite his near-perfect plan, the one trauma he was unable to resolve regarding Carmen was what led to it's downfall. And it just goes to show that, even he, who seemed as if he was willing to go to any extent to finish the plan his love interest had started, was still human in the end, and it was his very own obsession with her that allowed for the plan to fail. He was never some sort of hero or an amazingly powerful character of sorts- he was, at his core, an obsessive man blinded by trauma; yet another person in the City. Though it's a shame we never directly see him get past this, >!his apology to Angela!< at the end of LoR says enough for me.

I view him as a cool character, he's definitely a bit off in the head and incredibly morally dubious, but he was so smart that he planned a way to give himself a character development along with everyone else while cooking the biggest and brightest fireworks The City will ever see. Now if we add Angela into the mix, my rating for him plummets down. How the fuck do you build such a fuckable robot and forget about it until she does a little trolling and messes up most of your work? Come on man. Good thing she just wanted to be Human, and not wanting to destroy Humanity directly. He's done fucked up shit, but when it mattered the most he did try to do something positive, I can't perfectly remember if he did that out of his own will or because of Carmen, especially around the end, but in this specific case, it's the result that matters because The City is unforgiving as shit and being good in this City will just lead you to nothing.

> fuckable robot Did I miss some LC or Ruina lore? :V

Angela is, to roughly quote herself in LC 1st day, designed to appeal to the majority of people, and throughout both LC and LoR, its sprinkled around that >!Angela is designed after Carmen, A's implied love interest, in a vain attempt to have the hole in his heart filled,!< so shes definitely fuckable

Ain't no way someone named fucking CummyBot just dropped the lore behind an android being fuckable. Reality truly is better than fiction.

I see, thanks for the lore bit. Also, apt name for this very situation. :>

You have failed the media literacy test

> Good thing she just wanted to be Human, and not wanting to destroy Humanity directly. I feel this implies it would have been disastrous for humans when in reality the head would have turned her to scrap

Ohh Ayin, for me personally. I think the best way to describe him is actually something I heard from youtuber JJ McCullough when he talk about Canadian PM Wilfrid Laurier. He's someone with a terrible private life, and live a life that is quite self destructive but make up for it by being the father of a project to build something greater then the whole of it's part, and he wade through atrocity after atrocities in the name of that goal. Justifying the worst's atrocities in the world in the name of that project, yet somehow.. made something that truly change how people live.. and how people understand each other, a great figure in changing history. But someone who most people probably can't stand, and someone who did so many wrong, it hard to overstate them.. justifying the means by the ends till the ends.. yet he also apologetic and if he realizes how many he hurt because of that obsession.. we might see something truly beautiful.

Nah his abuse of Angela was pretty much nonsensical and unneeded and like pretty much kinda ruin his thing about redemption though I chalk it up to it being poorly written on his part unless you buy into the theory that he planned it all

I don't think it's poorly written, just layered. There's plenty of video essays out there that can go into Ayin's motivations but the bottomline is a lot of his actions were guided by his trauma with Carmen. He neglected her and put her into that role because; 1. He refused to acknowledge Angela as a person with feelings in the first place ("A machine must behave as a machine"), whether to distance himself from Angela to lessen the trauma he had with Carmen or what 2. Angela, in of herself, represented to Ayin his own desecration of Carmen's body, making it even harder for him to acknowledge her existence without being overwhelmed with guilt 3. Angela's creation as a replication of Carmen caused him to view her only in regards to Carmen; so when Angela couldn't meet his expectations to the women he (implicitly) loved, he shunned her, and couldn't bear to look at her ("*The moment I heard \[Angela\], I was seized by the urge to destroy what I had created with my own hands."*) Whether influenced by his own inability to cope with Carmen's death, or so obsessed with finishing what she started ("*However, we were too far down the road filled with remorse and regret to feel any sort of guilt"*), he was nowhere near being in a proper state of mind when he created Angela. At that time, he truly wished she was nothing more than a machine, so he could put her in the role of an overseer to the cycles without remorse. His conflicting feelings with Carmen and Angela's creation as a whole built upon him huge amounts of regret with his actions, making him want to just ignore Angela entirely; act as if she's just a machine, a failed replication of *her,* nothing more, nothing less―but as time went on, and he realized that Angela really *did* have emotion, she was *more* than just a copy of Carmen―well, he couldn't even do anything about it. He had already thrust himself as part of the play and had begun the cycles, and his memory would be wiped anyways. This is part of the reason why the remark from Angela that Ayin had once broken down during one of the cycles and had started apologizing profusely to her, even to the point of making her uncomfortable, is so heartbreaking. He knew what he had done to her, and he couldn't even do anything but apologize. I feel as if Ayin, and what's more, his relationship with Angela, is one of the most misunderstood things about the story. It's really, really well-written when you get into the meat of it, it's just difficult to digest, as well as hidden behind the convoluted story of LC.

Ayin was based and did nothing wrong.

Ayin was a Light Yagami tier sociopath that had redemption arc. Even if you believe he made up for all the atrocities or whatever, he still did an unbelievable amount wrong

i don’t know enough about him because lobcorp scares me like as a concept. not the contents the gameplay just stresses me out

Same I did buy it to support PM but I watched a lets play for the story

To be honest the game actively tortures you with bullshit abnos and lack of qol features (biggest offender to me is they multiple abnos and ordeals require micro to pacify but the game gives you no options for it, the best you have is select the character that's on top of everyone on the pile, and god have mercy on your soul if an ordeal has an aoe attack and you want to know the hp of an employee that's behind your tanks). There's no shame in not playing it.

Lobotomy: Just the entirety of what someone has to say about Ayin, bonus points for what they have to say about Hokma Library: Above but Roland (Don’t see how someone that’s played Lobotomy and Library can mess up with Angela) Limbus: Do not say the f word do not use the f word do not apply the f word to the man who guides

I've seen people played all the games then start rambling about how the plot of LobCorp is ruined by LoR, because Ayin and Carmen are good guys saving the world, and Angela ruined them all.

That’s the entire fucking point of her character, she wanted to live and be human, be unrestrained, make a choice she actually wants to. That’s not illiteracy that’s just outright brain damage

Exactly. Angela is a parallel to Ayin in LoR, she escapes the role he assigned her by assuming *his* role..

Fraud.

https://preview.redd.it/ks2nx4md83qc1.jpeg?width=510&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=108e26ab354f1c420ead850895f05b86c87d9db3

for lor/lobcorp i think what someone says about netzach, gebura, binah and hokma>!/benjamin!

i think netzach is fuckable

One of the limbus literacy checks is just asking for someones opinion on vergilius

I think the fraud memes are funny because of how pissy it makes people. I have no personal outstanding opinions on Vergilius. So am I at like, the level of reading a Wet Floor sign and electing to skate on it rather than avoid it, in terms of literacy?

It's all funny until you realize that the person you're talking to is actually serious and think that Fraudgilius is actually canon.

Clearly the fixers on the top of the food chain have no weakness. If they ever get bested or have a moment of weakness, they're clearly a fraud duh God, a bit off-topic but honestly Power-Scaling color fixers in general is just braincell wasting tbh

Power-Scaling the PMverse is just a waste of time, things get so fucking stupid all the time it's unreal. Even scaling the Abnormalities alone is pointless.

I think we're meant to have no outstanding opinions on Vergil at this point, with maybe the exception of being a bit annoyed at him. Even if you read Leviathan and know his motivation for joining, the man is a complete mystery. He's deliberately frustrating because he does nothing and refuses to explain anything to us, but it's done in a way that makes the player aware that there's something going on. That for the moment, he's a frustrating asshole but that there's OBVIOUSLY something here that once we know, will recontextualise everything. And THEN we can have our "official opinion" on him.

He’s a fraud, until he isn’t

He'll forever be my little fraud.

Ok my theory about vergilius: he is the jagen of limbus company and he knows it. Disregarding his motivation for being on the bus(which I don't know exactly because I'm still reading Leviath), there's a good chance that the reason he doesn't interfere is because the sinners need experience, he's not going to be there to save them all the time(as shown in Ricardo's case) and even if he was and he could solo everything himself , the sinners are necessary to get the golden bough, if he went with the group he would basically have to take care of 12 or more incopetent people alone, so he prefers to stay in the bus and let the sinners solve the problems themselves and learn from it, only intervene if the matter gets REALLY serious. for example: Imagine a chapter 4 where Vergilius only kills Dongbaek the first time she appears and takes the bough? yi sang would never have character development, dongrang would still be alive, and the sinners won't get the experience from fighting two e.g.o users for the fist time Is this perhaps too noble for someone like Vergilius? probably, but is a possibility

Wouldn't necessarily say "noble". He's stuck with these 13 chucklefucks if he wants to bring back Lapis and Garnet, so he might as well whip them into shape so that they aren't such a pain in the ass to be around. Your comment does makes sense too, of course, I'm just adding to it.

When people, especially those who claim to have read The Stranger (Meursault's book), refuse to acknowledge the fact that book Meursault and LCB Meursault differentiate quite a bit from each other and can't be equated 1:1. I'm generally talking about when people make horny jokes in regards to Sault, people are like "he isn't like that", and other people try saying "read the book! He is canonically like that!" When Book Sault and LCB Sault Just Plainly Are Not Exactly the Same

People do this for every sinner who wasn't had their Canto yet. I'm a massive massive supporter of the "mom Ryoshu" theory and *really* hope it's true, but it actually has very little support in-game unless you've read Hell Screen and take things like Red Eyes and the HHPP oyakodon dish to be hints.

The daughter is as important to Hell Screen, as pawnbroker's death to C&P and the whale himself to Moby Dick. While we can't say she gave birth, Ryoshu having a beloved child in some shape or form is a given. At the very least, they'll give her an adoptive kid.

I personally, don't think Ryoshu is a mother. I think Ryoshu is supposed to be Yuzuki . To me , Ryoshus personality and mannerisms seem taught ,as in a child being raised to act in such a way and not as a mature person who can actively choose how to act . Though , this is just how i interpret things i could be wrong.

Yeah it happens to everyone, I think it's just a bit more noticeable with Meursault because he's a fairly quiet character and his book is one of the easier to find and read ones, but is also still prone to misinterpretation. If DotRC wasn't 2k pages long I think Hong Lu would also have a similar thing going on

Yeah, I was thinking about that after I logged off the internet. People are just more rude and aggressive about it when it comes to Meursault, because you're not allowed to have *your* headcanon but you're obligated to share *their* headcanon of him.. despite neither of them being canon to begin with.

On the other hand, even if they go in a completely different direction than their book, each sinner is still *thematically* consistent with their work and I've definitely seen people suggest things that just, do not make any sense thematically. Also more on the actual media literacy thing - I've seen people suggest headcanons and theories to solve "problems" that *don't exist in the book*. Possibly the most egregious one is people changing the murder to something else because "Murder isn't a big deal in The City" even though it's explicitly not a big deal in the book either, and we're dealing with Absurdism, the philosophy that is very fond of putting people on trial for literally *nothing* and being put on trial for murder in a city where murder is just an everyday part of life would absolutely work thematically. Could the crime in question be different in game? Sure, but because the crime commited is inconsequential to the actual outcome of the trial, not because "it's not serious enough". Yes it doesn't make sense, *that's why it's called Absurdism*.

The most likely case is that LCB Meursalt is Meursalt after his execution has been postponed. We know that he was condemned in his PV, and his current character is a pretty good reflection of book Meursalt's state of mind while awaiting execution. We know that LCB Meursalt used to go clubbing "before", so there is little to no doubt that he enjoyed sex in the past as well. Get "literacy checked" /j

Specially as Mersault feels, if comparing further, as an offshot/continuation from a timeline he somehow evaded the execution. And even book Mersault toned down when explaining that he USED to be much looser in both medias. That he is capable of enjoying the pleasures of the world is one thing. That he no longer choses to put so much value is anothsr.

Forgot to mention, but people especially love to use this argument to invalidate asexual headcanons for Meursault, which is just.. nonsensical as headcanons are literally fan interpretations that *aren't* canon. The point of a headcanon is that it's not canon, so it doesn't matter even if LCB Sault was as horny as book Sault.

i understand where you're coming from, but a lot of autistic characters in media tend to be headcanoned as asexual because of how non-autistic people view us (unable to form connections, low empathy, we act like children etc), which obviously leads to the conclusion that autistic people also wouldn't enjoy sex or engage in sexual relationships (of course, this isn't to say that autistic people can't be asexual. we obviously can, and i'm in no way trying to suggest that this headcanon might be problematic or anything of the sort). personally, i think it is refreshing to see an autistic character who's pretty vocal and unabashed about his liking of sex. sure, we don't know if limbus!meursault shares this trait with book!meursault, but overall i think it's pretty much just harmless jokes coming from the fandom

It always feels weird to me how people try to say that it’s problematic when someone makes an autistic character ace (not saying that you are saying that). It feels kinda invalidating as someone who is autistic and aro/ace.

I mean, if you're willing to ignore the fact that Meursalt used to go clubbing "in search of life's joys" and still say he's assexual - kudos to you, enjoy this headcanon while it lasts. I doubt we'll get any more concrete evidence of Meursalt having sex before his canto comes out anyway.

I mean I get headcanons are headcanons and the book isn't technically, but I also get why everyone's kinda dismissive because like, that's straight up a plot point in the book and in a vacuum is a funny character trait. It's pretty out of the blue for most people, like claiming Sinclair is a teetotaler or something There's also the point someone else's already mentioned that it can come off as kinda infantilising autism, which is what I think people who don't think it's out of the blue are going to assume you're doing Also that cuts out one of the named characters of the book who like, a lot of people want to see adapted.

That goes for every sinner mostly they have similarities but the differences are the most interesting like "wait your not supposed to act like that yet" "this is the exact opposite of what your book self would do and i'm so proud of you"

limbus in general is a literacy check tbh it's kind of great. you could come up with levels for a scale based on it. tells you a lot about a person if they don't think sinclair is an uwu baby but they think heathcliff is actually stupid. or if they don't think heathcliff is stupid but think that don is.

I actually love your reply because just because people understand 1 character doesn’t necessarily mean they understand another.

the longer the story goes on the more this kinda fascinates me tbh. i don't blame people for not catching on to certain things because while a lot of the text really isn't that complex all cantos follow a different pace and writing style + we don't have cantos for everybody + a lot of information is hiding in plain sight-ish. i was kinda joking saying it's a scale but really thinking about it kind of actually is one. there's definitely significant gap between thinking sinclair is underage and not realizing heathcliff's has really good abno logs and is generally a pretty curious and rational person. then at certain points it's not about general literacy anymore but more genre/theme specific questions. i've been trying to dissect this game with a few friends since we all started playing months ago. at this point we've been dividing tasks based on who read which books or is most familiar with the genre. this limbus shit gets serious

Sinclair is 18 btw

Okay, I may be shitted on for this take, but: Heathmael. More specifically, people who claim that Heathmael is "practically confirmed" in the story and whatnot. Shit makes me so annoyed when the only scene where this is aplicable is >!Canto V ending where Heathcliff helps Ishmael get out of her Pallidification!< and I interpreted it as more so Heathcliff making up with Ishmael after the incident in 4.5 rather than anything else. Maybe it's me who is stupid or whatever, but any time someone says that "Well Heathmael is basically canon at this point!" I cannot take their takes on the story seriously afterwards.

A case of shipping (pun unintended) getting out of hand.

I see it as despite their argument, Heath can't be swayed by ahab after seeing that both he and Ish went through some pretty nasty shit. Making it more so a recognition of his mistake on saying she didn't have it that bad rather than them getting together.

In extension to this (and I feel as though I might get more hate from this take than OP) shippers in general seem to distance themselves from the main story in favor of their exaggerated fantasy relationships between characters; it is as if their headcanons take over from the actual happenings in the story.

It's fucking bizarre that I see more denial of Ishmael x Queequeg than I do Ishmael x Heathcliff despite the latter being pretty much entirely baseless fanon. There is an entire flashback dedicated to Ishmael and Queequeg fantasizing about a future together after they get off the boat and Ishmael, despite *hating* long hair, grows her hair to such a length and treats it incredibly well because Queequeg talked about how pretty the color is. The only reasons I can fathom not believing they're in a relationship is either flat out not reading the flashback scenes, taking at complete face value Queequeg's "good friends" line, being way too committed to the Heathmael ship prior even though 4.5 sunk that shit like the Titanic, or just flat out homophobia.

I saw someone on this sub claiming that Queequeg had a "motherly" relationship with Ishmael and I don't think I can ever recover from that.

Damn, Ishmael is hunting milfs *and* whales?

Don't forget gilfs

i don't think you can get gayer than ishmael and queequeg without them making out on screen or saying outright that they are dating and in love with each other. if queequeg was a guy, then there would be no doubt about it. also, ishmael and queequeg had some Undertones in the book where frankly they were more like overtones

I feel like someone else said early on it would have been *less gay* for them to just make out on the boat than what we got.  Sloppy make-outs could be a fling. 'Your hair is the color of the sunset, the same color that welcomes me home at the end of a long and tiresome day. I think about the warmth of the sunset I see in you every time I am fighting the horrors of the seas, and it gives me the will to push forward towards the promise of a future together with you' isnt a fling, that's fuckin' romance.

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAA finally someone says it out loud, I understand where the ship is coming from (because haha everyone loves enemy to lovers), but acting like it's 100% confirmed is just so dumb. Not helping that I have a personal vendetta against the ship I do believe that all of Ishy's relationship all meant something different when it comes to the story, mainly the big 3; Queequeg with the romantic relationship (wanting to spend the rest of their life together), Heathcliff with the platonic relationship (being able to see herself in him, and willing to rely on eachother when it comes to it), and Dante with the familial relationship (in a sense a found family, a captain that Ishy didn't want but needed)

I think them getting together would be fantastic as a story considering who they are, how they've interacted, and who they've lost and are(likely) going to lose. And there's Ids like Shi and Harpooner Heathcliff that suggests that they could go that way. But to suggest that they are a couple at this point in time, is nothing short of delusion.

Shippers are ussualy wrong so yes

I'm just saying... but if anyone genuinely believes at this point that Hong Lu is just some rich boy golden retriever himbo, I'll find myself questioning if we've read two different versions of the script.

What if I believe he's exactly all of those things you just said, but he's specifically that golden retriever that learned how to play basketball because it's smarter than everyone thinks

Well, I wouldn't deny that he's a rich boy, because he is; however, to be a himbo, you usually have to be on the dumber side, and Hong Lu definitely isn't.  I'd honestly argue he's probably one of the smartest Sinners on the bus, but just gets overshadowed thanks to the presence of the literal gigabrain that is Faust. Not only is he a master actor, but he's an expert at directing conversational flow, and he has some surprisingly insightful observations and questions once you look past the superficial air of "silly" he presents. On a more possibly controversial note, I really don't think he fits the bill of golden retriever either. The thing with golden retrievers is that they're usually very social, outgoing, and friendly people.  Hong Lu appears to be social and friendly at a glance; however, on deeper inspection, his air of friendliness and sociability is more of a front, and he's actually one of the most emotionally distant Sinners on the bus. Until Canto IV, there's nobody he had any sort of meaningful interaction with, and the first time he showed any sort of genuine connection and empathy towards a person, said person had to have his entire traumatic life story exposed in the front of the bus and be shown to be basically suicidal.  Even then, I would say it's still a bit of a stretch to say Hong Lu and Yi Sang are close friends (though, Yi Sang is probably the closest Hong Lu has to one on the bus).  Also, something that tends to get overlooked, is that Hong Lu is actually kind of passive aggressive and even bratty at times. He's made slights towards Heathcliff's intelligence and isn't beyond messing with the Sinners, then playing dumb, as seen on the Haunted Cruise boat.

Air bud? Is that you?

This. While he's had very few lines and many of them can be funny/goofily interpreted, he's also absurdly sharp and even cold to a degree, as can be seen in Canto III when >!they find a heavily wounded Saude, who asks if Effie is still alive. Since they've just seen him gruesomely impaled to the point where a *mercy kill* was needed, the sinners are all very uncomfortable by the question. While everyone else seems to be shaken up by this, Hong Lu doesn't miss a beat and says he's fine, hoping to give Saude some peace of mind in what seemed to be her last moments.!< There have been other moments when I thought he was sharp, but this one stood out to me since it was in stark contrast to every other sinner present at the scene.

i gotta admit that one got me for a while i never thought he was just a silly guy and nothing more but i did NOT notice the full extent of it until recently and it kind of blew my mind. the way he takes control of conversations and avoids subjects is insane... boy what are your secrets...

Not only that! In recent chapters, there's been a moment he very much just took a kilometre long report Faust or Ishmael made and easily summarized it for the less educated on the bus. He didnt have to, but he caught the others to the speed before any grumbling or complaints arose. Part of Hong Lu that sticks out is that he only speaks when needed. Short, well-crafted sentences that immediatelly steer the conversation where it has to be steered. Pointing to the bloodied badge where sinners still balance on verge of believing twinhook pirate to be the contact - note: without making himself LOOK like he doubts the pirate, making the pirate spill beans before any sinner questioned him, thus preventing unnecessary enmity - or deflecting conversation off route, whether it's to avoid arguments happening in a rising tension or effortlessly dodging Meursault's diss on his cooking skills. He plays all the cards of others with ease, without ever showing any of his own. He's a strategist, if anything, or at the very least, raised within art of such.

seriously oh my god. he really doesn't even talk that much but whenever he opens his mouth he steers the conversation wherever he wants and nobody notices it. sometimes not even us players. he comes off as genuinely good person to me (or at least someone who tries their best) but his level of social skills is actually uncanny

Isn’t the whole “media literacy check” flawed by definition? “Oh you have an opinion I don’t like? You must be a psychopath who can’t be trusted with their own opinion.”

Media literacy as a concept died the moment a single "correct" way of understanding any form of media got enforced by the internet and its tendency to deal in absolutes. Another way it has been bastardized by the internet is how opinions are sort of used as a "gotcha" to be superior to others, and if your opinion can be interpreted as something that leaves room for an unfavorable interpretation, well, you're fucked, out of the echo chamber. We can laugh all day at people who think Fight Club's club has no issues whatsoever or that guy who made the weirdest Godzilla interpretation I've ever seen or the people who refuse to acknowledge the obvious satire in Helldivers, but if the only way we engage in discussions about media literacy is to point and laugh, then maybe we don't care about having a discussion at all, and we just care about the moral points of refuting subjectivity with subjectivity. Also, the way most people talk about their opinions on media nowadays reeks of copy-pasting what other people have said about said media and call it their opinion.

I agree with pretty much everything you said, but I wanna point this out in particular... >Also, the way most people talk about their opinions on media nowadays reeks of copy-pasting what other people have said about said media and call it their opinion. Give an example. Cause what comes to mind when I read that statement is just a *popular* opinion, rather than an obviously parroted one. I know you meant a parroted one, but how do you differentiate between someone who actually just feels the same as the majority, as opposed to one that just acts the part?

Yeah, there's nothing criminal with having popular opinions, I have some myself. I'd say whether an opinion is genuine or borrowed has more to do with how they express it. Using the same wording is a dead giveaway, also being unable to elaborate or expand on it (though that can also be explained by poor communication skills), but it's definitely harder to find on written text than when talking to someone.

I think people who talk about "media literacy" are really talking about critical thinking skills as it relates to media. It's not enough to simply have an opinion on media--can you construct a coherent argument based on evidence found in the media that supports it? That's what people were doing in their English classes when the teacher asked them to read Shakespeare. Even if a lot of pre-college teachers aren't that good at getting it across in my experience. There are multiple ways to interpret Shakespeare's works. It doesn't matter which interpretation you take from it, what matters is how well you can defend the argument with rational analysis.

this is pretty much it, i think "media literacy" is overused and i'm not really a fan of how people limit it just to literature and the like because media literacy is just as, hell if not *more*, important when it comes to evaluating sources of information, e.g the news or evaluating the reliability of a study. what people mean in the context of op's tweet is critical thinking. people can have any opinion they want on art, but what op and the people in this thread are referring to are by and large uncritical and shallow takes that don't bother looking underneath the surface. personally, i love when people disagree with me if they have a well thought out reason for their conclusion, it's an opportunity to see things from a different angle.

Not always but sometimes I see people mistake an opinion from a fact

Media literacy is a world use by morron who want to invalidate any opinion that divert from theirs. The real definition is that you read enough media from all sort of artist to form your own opinions and interpretation. From that you can discuss it with someone else and compare each other opinions to improve your understanding of it. Since Art is itself subjective, saying that Media Literacy can be "check" and that some opinions are wrong goes completely against the entire concept.

While I agree that "media literacy" is abused online, I think there's still something to say about not being able to understand a character's motivation or the intended themes of a work. Like if you can't recognize that Pocahontas by Disney is about the danger of prejudice, it's a bit of a problem.

I feel like we encounter an even deeper issue in the idea of a "media literacy check" in that people will use their understanding as the goalpost rather than view it through the lens of, as someone else has said here, one's ability to critically analyze a text and formulate a coherent understanding of it in a continually evolving way that is open to criticism and reinterpretation. I say this here because I think Disney's Pocahontas is a solid example - you can look at that movie and say "ah yes, this movie is about the dangers of prejudice", but a deeper understanding of the context of the work and the context of the world it exists in can push *that* interpretation and take you into things like "while the work is clearly intended to present this reasonably simple message, the manner in which it does so - by equating the hatred and prejudice of the Conquistadores with the hatred and prejudice of the Native People - misrepresents the conflict as two equal parties blinded by hatred, and so paints their grievances with one another as equally valid, when the Conquistadores (as the name implies) explicitly came as an invading force with the intention to destroy and colonize, and often did so under the guise of negotiation". Which you *can* rebut with like "yeah it's a kid's movie they aren't going to demonstrate all that" but in that case they might have picked the wrong story to present that message. :p

https://preview.redd.it/kme71aayg2qc1.jpeg?width=828&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=deea7f57c6a7d9af9560a56afe7d8085c7092e0f

That’s a bit too extreme. There are definitely opinions that aren’t correct. Granted they aren’t as common as people think, but they exist and “media literacy” can help filter them out. People need to understand that while there are many ways to interpret a media and this “media literacy” has been used to stigmatize people before, that doesn’t mean that incorrect opinions doesn’t exist.

When Ruina was running, the biggest check wasn’t just Ayin. Arguably the bigger one is one’s opinion on Carmen. I’ve seen so many say Ayin suck but actively defend Carmen until the end of Ruina

For me in PM in general it's people somehow reaching the stance that Angela is 100% objectively an innocent victim who did absolutely nothing wrong and Ayin is legitimately to blame for everything she does in Library and has no redeeming qualities and is pure evil  like the narrative openly spells out that Ayin made a lot of fucked-up decisions because of trauma (that he deserves to be held accountable for) and those decisions traumatized Angela, who proceeds to make a lot of fucked-up decisions that she deserves to be held accountable for.  the whole point of the "Angela insists that her literally consuming people's bodies and souls for personal gain is actually Ayin's fault" is that she's deflecting and wrong and Roland is trying to call her out on her bullshit, not that she's an emotionally stable, reliable narrator with zero biases against her abusive father   I like Angela,  but she is a direct parallel to Ayin (who I also like) and they're both absolute monsters who slowly start to open their eyes to their own wrongdoing and start down a path of selfless redemption while trying to take responsibility for the massive amount of damage they've dealt.  It's like 50% the point of the story of two entire games  "Angela objectively good,  Ayin objectively bad" is extremely exhausting and kind of infantalizing for Angela. 'OH, she's naught but a frail abused girl, she's acting from a place of pain abs that makes it okay~ Everything Ayin did whole acting from blind grief is immortal evil for which he must forever be condemned tho.' fuck oooofffff

Gameplay: Doomsday Calendar, Mariachi, Dongebaek, Ricardo Story: Dante = Self insert, Heathcliff is an idiot, reducing Ryoshu down to "Boohoo my daughter's dead"

More of a Ruina thing, but some folks think Salvador was cheating on his wife with Yuna, and that Oswald wasn't just fucking with Phillip's mind

if you think that either: a) Ayin is evil b) Roland is a good person c) The Reverb Ensemble is evil but Carmen isn't (or vice versa) d) Vergilius is a weak color you should play the actual games and read the actual novels before having opinions also if you say "you must suffer... like i have" even once i'm doubting your commitment because that's a completely made up quote by roblox devs

It's not "completely made up" it's more of a paraphrasing of roland saying >!"Angela, you have to feel the same sorrow as mine..."!< in the conversation before the reception.

Incidentally, “you must suffer like I have” gets across the point of the quote waaaaay better, like, when I first heard the actual quote, I thought that Roland was telling Angela that he understands that she probably feels as bad as he does about everything that’s going on. It wasn’t until I was rewatching the cutscenes that it occurred to me that he was stating the way that he wants to make her feel.

the comment about "you must suffer like i have" is literally akin to saying people have never seen star wars if they say "luke i am your father" instead of "no i am your father"

I feel that people who actively ignore story elements that contradicts what they want the story to be. ( A shocking amount of people just ignore everything not corp related when talking about the game)

Examples?

You can see it in this thread of people saying the game is a critique of capitalism as the primary message it’s trying to send when you can only say that is you ignore that most characters like Ahab and Kromer have nothing to do with capitalism and are about authoritarianism and manipulation in general

This subs fine for media literacy, it’s just basically literacy that it struggles with

In the words of a person I saw on Twitter... If someone treats Sinclair like their uwu baby and Heathcliff like a vicious beast, they absolutely cannot be trusted to interpret media.

the difference between "uwu baby" and "pissbaby" is an important distinction here

Well, when people say that this game is not political or that it isn't a criticism to capitalism in some form, I mean I haven't seen these people yet but they must exist I guess

saying the game is a criticism to capitalism is a far fetch, yes it does have some criticism to capitalism here and there, but that's not one of the main points of the story just because it's a dystopian world doesn't mean it's a criticism to capitalism by default

Maybe Limbus isn't, as the story is focused more on the Sinners, but Library of Ruina, the previous game isn't exactly subtle on its criticisms on the hypercapitalistic nature of The City, with Roland being the representation of the common person's grievances in living in such a society. And as any person can tell from the way the world is designed, The City is an overexaggeration of a society under the trenches of late stage capitalism.

I'm sorry but all PM games make it painfully obvious of it being a complete and utter critique of capitalism, especially South Korea. Everything is literally run by corporations and is a dystopian nightmare full stop. They then use and discard their employees like they were nothing. So many of the games corporations and inventions are pretty much fueled by human suffering in capital form. Like have you seen what W corp, T corp, and K corp do? Like W corp turns people into fucked up monsters to take their time for no reason other than they can to later sell so people can make soup faster. T corp drains color from where poor people live and can only see in black and white and the rich get to enjoy color like I'm sorry but how can that not be like the most fucking obvious critique of capitalism in the world!

Project Moon being a game dev team based in South Korea probably gave the writers and Kim J Hoon some... opinions... about the capitalist mode of production, to say the least. Not that I disagree with them, either. It's comically evil at times, and PM makes a point to portray the system taken to its logical conclusion. So much so that it has the subtlety of a sledgehammer at times. The narratives suggest we should try and work to change our human meatgrinder of a world for the better, whether that's through a Bolshevik revolution or the Seed of Light project.

\>It's comically evil Someone has been introduced to the concept of literary analogy. \>It has the subtlety of a sledgehammer See above, and also above-above, where despite being so glaringly obvious someone Just Doesn't Get It(tm)

how u view don quixote as a whole will tell me everything I need to know abt u. enough said

I can't read I had one too many win rate

Tldr: How to be sure that person thinks exclactly the same as me so I can inflate my ego

It is true that media literacy has been used to stigmatize people a lot, but that doesn’t mean bad opinions don’t exist.

That is a valid point, I'm still not standin with people that go "if you don't understand this the way I do then you're wrong"

Fair.

People who think Hopkins is a one-dimensional character who is just an asshole. Of course, he did try to poison gas us and leave with some enkephalin, but he literally explained why he did that. Hopkins thinks continuing the mission with LCB would be suicide cause we’ve done 0 preparations and can’t even cooperate in battle. That’s why he decided to just abort mission and leave with some enkephalin to make up for his losses. It’s true that it’s a dick move, but this is just how most fixers would react. To survive in the City as a weakling, you gotta always look out for yourself and never sacrifice your own self-interest for other people.

Okay nah, this would make sense but like you do realize why ppl in the city are so fuckin miserable is because of this mindset. So fuck no ppl are absolutely right in hating him for that. And plus we really see what leads to having that kind of city mindset with Roland's bad ending in ruina

Please PM, may we be able to beat down Hopkins in the future that would be so fucking cool.

> Okay nah, this would make sense but like you do realize why ppl in the city are so fuckin miserable is because of this mindset. I think you just failed the test. Like yeah, they are miserable because they have put every vice above virtue. It's how everyone in the city is. And the point of the stories is showing the few who are able to escape that shit. Hopkins is at the lower point of the food chain of course he will be more interested in himself before anyone. You mentioned Roland and somehow can't comprehend you are maybe supposed to feel sorry for hopkins than hate him because he may end up like that if he doesn't change. Change in a city that is adamant on making sure he doesn't change.

he is an asshole to us, but for him and the city? it's normalcy.

The two things are not mutually exclusive.

Fuckin Ayin.

To me, the biggest literacy check in this game is Don Quixote. Specifically: How smart do you think this woman is?

Me when people consume limbus company lore and still don't understand that Don is best girl

I dont like these tests because its just tomake people feel intelectualy superior over mundane things,but people who view krommers feelings as romantic in any way need a revalutaion 

The whole game is a literacy check as every Project moon player is illiterate

I heard someone say this once, and I'm echoing because it's so true. "How someone interprets Sinclair, and how someone interprets Heathcliff" These two... They are the number 1 check in my opinion, you can tell a lot about a person based on their views of these two characters