Depression and my “youtube soapbox”

Hello, again the spates of writing I do on this blog is telling of a lot of things, heh. Long story short, I’m currently in therapy for depression. Honestly, I’m glad I’ve come to a point where I can accept a problem where I see it, and hopefully the therapy does me good and helps me stay in the best mental state possible. I have 15+ posts on different subjects I’ve wanted to finish and with some help I think I can try and be more consistent.

Ironically, I’m also creating a new category in which I decide to do one of the worst things someone with depression could do: look at youtube comments. I’ve done this for a while, and decided that I should create a series of comments from youtube I’ve responded to, just to show how I view certain topics and what I stand for. It’s been so easy to write out eloquent responses on youtube(surprisingly) that I just had to take the opportunity to share it and spark discussion on what I said. If the comment chain I participate in is/gets long enough I’ll try to keep things summarized in updated posts. This should be fun haha.

– A bard who doesn’t fit his title. And the rickety keys to tick. 

P.s. I keep the herp derp addon on Chrome handy, no need to actually worry about my mental state when I get on my soapbox.

Faith: An atheist’s perspective

I’ve wanted to write out my thoughts on this for the longest of times, and honestly it’s gotten more and more difficult to do simply because of all the angles I can approach talking about it. I’ve already done one little post on it a few days ago, in a post about Sunday Sermons but it was pretty narrow in scope. So, let’s talk.

Firstly, why has faith been one of my fundamental barriers for belief in a god? When it comes to belief, I think it’s obvious to point out that we believe based on what we perceive to be good evidence. Where faith comes in this process may vary on interpretation, but there seems to be one commonly problematic version of this that any atheist like myself refuse to have: blind belief. This understanding of faith basically posits that faith is simply belief without evidence. People often point to Hebrews 11:1 as proof that this is what faith is, and for now we’ll just leave that debate on verse translations alone use the verse as a reference: “1  Now faith is the 1aassurance of things 2bhoped for, the3conviction of cthings not seen.” Hebrews 11:1

The debate on blind belief doesn’t exist. I doubt anyone truly thinks THIS is how we should come to believe in anything, and even if it was it’s very clear that most believers have their own evidences justifying belief like everyone else in the world.

William Lane Craig, a popular Christian apologist,  and many others believe faith to essentially be trust, as the video shows. But, what warrants trust? Most parents would probably teach their kids to trust them based on experience and the fact that they care, but hidden within that remarks of “I’ve been right before!” and other variations of the quote point to the real reasoning: evidence. All placing your trust in someone is is declaring that you will depend on them, be it in the truth of their words of the actualization of their actions. When you trust someone, you basically demonstrate the belief that they will be there for you in one way or another. Like any belief, though, trust requires evidence. You just don’t “trust that the sun will rise tomorrow” or that the phone in your pocket will work, but believe that the sun will rise again given the evidence that it’s done so before. Even without science you can reasonably have faith in things like that through trends staying consistent over a long period of time. If a pattern arises it makes sense to believe it will continue.

In application to god, this means that evidence precedes good faith in this particular definition. I personally hold to this notion completely, and my being an atheist comes from the fact that examining the evidence has shown it to be faulty in many ways.

I can’t say where this debate fits- it would seem everyone with a brain would run away from the idea of blind belief. I would guess that it comes from the fact that at some point, the requirements to constantly have this trust and conviction makes it dangerously easy to continue trusting or having faith even when the evidence falls apart in a sort of transition from evidence based faith into blind faith. The bible focuses so heavily on faith it’s easy to take it into levels of blind faith. When evidence isn’t the main focus and faith is called for so intensely, there’s pressure to continue trusting without evidence. With the fear of hell, this sort of faith in god’s existence is practically a cakewalk to understand. Even without such a threat, faith can quickly become used as a sort of heated challenge and test of one’s allegiance, and history alone shows how poorly things can end up when someone’s allegiance is held to a higher level of importance than reasoning itself.

Is our logic circular? – Some thoughts

I wrote this a few days ago in response to many points that I’ve heard made by the presuppositionalist Sye Ten Bruggencate. His tactics of apologetic stem from the idea that god’s existence is necessary for logic and reasoning, and that the foundries of logic can only be accounted for through god.

Along with the coy attempts at confusion via wordplay, Sye tries to twist the idea of the brain in a vat problem of hard solipsism and claim that, in essence, the atheistic worldview cannot account for knowledge. Oi vey.

You can’t use your logic to prove your logic

A rare gem in the apologetic library, arguments for god through the critique of logic and reasoning itself tend to try and catch you off guard with confusing rhetoric. In conversation, the main ideas that try to be conveyed by the proponents of the argument essentially define the concept of god into existence. The arguments commonly starts with the proponent claiming that the nonbeliever couldn’t possibly make sense of logic by claiming that without god, the nonbeliever must resort to using circular reasoning to justify the use of their logic “You can’t use logic to prove your own logic, it’s circular!”

By doing so, the proponent tries to put any bystander into a conundrum by convincing them that there MUST be something outside of logic that validates it: god.

While for the first few times I agreed with that statement in my rebuttal, I’ve grown to use a more rigorous approach. For one, logic and reasoning aren’t actual entities in and of themselves. At best, they are conceptual tools the human uses to work their way through the world they live in. From prediction to communication, reasoning skills are necessary tools to using and understanding everything mentioned. Can a hammer be “true” in the same way a statement is true? Hammers can only be describe by their usefulness, not by it’s truthfulness. As an object, the only things true about a hammer are its properties. As a tool, the function of the object is to be used for a goal, and in this sense logic is definitely a tool. When we “use” logic in the world, we’re using this conceptual tool to make predictions about reality, and by the results we get from reasoning things out we can confirm that it gives us useful results, validating the continual use of said tool.

So yes, we can’t use our logic to prove anything but the usefulness of itself. Though, understanding logic as a tool, why would we?

What does it mean to be useful, by the way? While it ultimately depends on the goal of the tool, the usefulness of logic comes from when the conclusions there in reflect reality and can be used to make predictions and rules for how to act. Fire is hot, so don’t touch fire if you don’t want to feel pain. What goes up must come down. These statements come from understanding things about reality and logically concluding how to act based on those facts and personal desires.

One of the things about the argument worth thinking about is how easy it is be caught without the ability to defend the argument because it touches on a subject that is intrinsic to our nature as thinking creatures. It plays off of the ignorance people have to the functions of our brains and tries to force this ignorance in our faces, claiming that our inability to rebut is because there IS no rebuttal. Secondly, how did the arguer get to this position in the first place? Mind you, the basic claims embedded in the arguments boil down to god being the source of logic and reasoning because without god, there would be no logic or reasoning. It attempts to justify itself by throwing a strawman in your face; the declaration that logic cannot justify itself through logic without mentioning any other justification for using/having logic makes it seem like there couldn’t possibly be another way to rectify the created problem without god. Of course this isn’t so. Just like any other tool, the true justification for continued use in a tool is results and nothing else.

Another fairly crucial red herring in this argument comes from the ubiquity of our own uses of logic. The argument makes the layman pause and wonder exactly how could they verify logic without using logic in the process, insinuating that there must be a way outside of logic to do so. We use logic for everything, in every step of the process of thinking. To illustrate why there is no problem with using logic for everything including justifying the continued use of logic, consider the human eye. Just like logic, our eyes are tools that we use to understand the world around us. But how do we know that our eyes are valid? The same goes for all five senses: the use of these senses have no justification in the same sense that the use of logic has no basis. The information gathered from our senses are taken at face value because there is nothing else to base our actions on outside of the experiences from the perceptions of other people. What we consider “real” is a model of the world we base on the consistencies seen in what we already experience. Hallucinations are things that give one (or more) of our senses information inconsistent to the rest of our body and inconsistent with the sensory inputs of everything else. As such, the best way to figure out when one is hallucinating is whether or not our experiences are consistent to our own internal models of the world and with help of others to compare sensory input from. (Or technology, input from which we also interpret through our senses)

This is all a long winded explanation to establish one thing: the continued use of our senses also being completely unjustified by the standards set by the arguers who insist that the use of logic and reasoning cannot be justified without god. Logic, like our senses, are a part of the tools we use to understand and work with the information that those very senses bring in. In many ways, our logic and senses work together to make a model compiling everything we experience into one holistic one, and we use all six tools to correct mistakes that individual tools can make, as well as other people. “Mistakes” like making a logical prediction of what will happen in the future and getting it wrong, or making a logical statement of fact about the world we’re in. “Wrong” being that the results from the logical quandary were not consistent with the sensory input we received. Though certain people upon understanding this claim that there must be a source from which all can be confirmed outside of all six of these tools, they would be hard pressed to present one outside of positing a deity that in itself remain undemonstrated and usually not demonstrable by its own definition. To the rest of us who understand that we have no choice but to work with the tools we have, how is it that we know our logic is useful? Through comparison to the reality that it pertains to!

As a final point, all of this can be made to rewrite the circular statement posited into one that works without relying on :

Instead of “I can use my logic to validate the validity of my logic” we have “I can use the results from thinking logically to further justify using logic” which is no less different than “I can use the results of this hammer (used for the purpose of pounding in nails) to justify the continued use of this hammer”

I’ll list some of the claims I’m intrinsically making to reach my conclusions so that you guys can see if I’ve made any real mistakes here:

1)I’m claiming that reality is nothing more than the combined input of all our available senses compiled together to make a cohesive whole.

• Therefore, we use logic to predict the very things we perceive and pull information from our senses to form logical conclusions

2)I’m claiming that logic is a conceptual tool

• Therefore, logic can’t be “true” in the sense that we refer to statements being true. Conclusions reached by thinking logically can be true but requires further reflection with reality (our senses) to be true- Can a hammer be “true” ?

3)By 2 I’m also claiming that logic being a tool means that questions of validity should be treated as questions of usefulness (Again, can a hammer be “valid”?)

4)Given the nature of what we call reality (my prescribed definition, that is) and how we get information about reality and truth, via 1, if we are but brains in a vat being fed information artificially, no one, not even a christian, could know this. Even the idea that the claimed manifestation of god could come from knowledge that some brain in a vat could be fed.

-Some ridiculously fleshed out thoughts from a bard, clacking away. And the keys go tick.

Been a while: Part 2

This is going to be a short post. I’m going to get back into the grooves of writing regularly; while I’ve had a functioning laptop for a while now, work and general personal stuff got in the way like it usually does. Yay.

I’ve been formulating my thoughts about a lot of topics for the past month, though, so I hope to have those out and about once I can finalize them. The best way to start would be to hit the “big three” arguments for god and show my stance on those three, as talking about religion will likely involve me pointing back to those posts for reference.

I’m going to do the same for my current positions on race and gender/feminism. Though doing so won’t be all that easy to formulate, as I have much to learn about the these topics, I’m definitely eager to set a foundation to this blog so that any future reader will get my stance and understand where I’m coming from. 

Let’s get the wheel rolling again!

 

PS

As of a month ago, I was let go from Pixel Dynamo. It wasn’t on harsh terms, though, and I hope to either rejoin them or get back into the games journalism field in other ways.

So it’s been a while

The past two weeks have been an interesting set of weeks and ended in ways I really wish it wouldn’t have. But in retrospect maybe I would have wanted it to? I dunno.

Writing for Pixel Dynamo has been a lot of fun, even if it’s been simple news reporting. It’s not too time consuming although the beginning was a little rough. I mean, this is literally the first time I ever really wrote anything in the format and now that I’m doing it as a trend it’s been interesting.

I’d have been able to blog more if it wasn’t for the fact that wifi at home has seriously been an issue, slowing down the process of writing articles down a lot. Plus, since I want to write on media like anime and cartoons, if I can’t even load the page I doubt I’ll ever be able to progress in the ways that I want to, which sucks. But such is life and I’m coping.

Coping could be the alternate title, actually. My dad just discovered I’m an atheist, though I’m certain that it wasn’t too hard to guess over the past month. The conversation started off with asking about why I don’t see design in the world. I said I didn’t even know how you can see design, given that most of what we call design is “designed” because we know who designed it. I’m planning to write out my take on design later, but that’s a conversation I really enjoy thinking about, whatever the conclusion.

The other point was, of course, morality. I can say I did a bad job on making my point on it when we talked, and the whole “authority” thing irked me. It’d take a lot more than I think I’d be able to articulate in person in order to settle why I disagree with the premise of authority so much. But I never did get to point out the biggest point: Morality in itself can’t lead people to believe that a god exists. The statement “You can’t have morality without god” fails before it’s uttered if it’s being used when we’re still talking about god and his existence. It’s like saying “You can’t have crop circles without aliens” Both statements are contingent on the existence of god or aliens and this point must be proven first to make the statement “You can’t have X without Y”

Essentially, we live in a world where people have morals. IF god exists, then he was the cause of it. (well, specifically, if the christian god exists or any god purported to be the cause of morals exist) If he doesn’t, then we necessarily got our morals elsewhere. My dad also briefly mentioned that faith precedes belief. While it’s finally nice to stop wondering about how my parents would apply faith, this point isn’t to hard to address the problems to. Of course, this depends on his definition of faith. He can’t say faith means belief, unfortunately that much is clear. If he means trust, I have a post about why trust cannot precede belief coming up that would clear things up. Though the point is kind of obvious; how often do we ever trust something without first having evidence or at least believing that something is real? Well, at least, how can we do so and not understand how susceptible to delusion and confirmation bias we would be. Just because I trust something doesn’t mean it’s true no matter the conviction.

The larger point is that religion is the only place where faith then applies. I mean really, no one has faith that their car will run if they haven’t seen it run before. Or at least trust the people building it, which would also be based on even more evidence through the experiences of previous cars made by the same company. It’s totally justified to assume/have faith that the car will run. And even if you don’t have faith, the car’s running is neither guaranteed or at all affected by my having faith. Instead of worrying about conviction, try it out. Drive it around. Use the “test drive” option before you buy. Anything but put yourself in a position where you must have faith without evidence when you don’t need to.

Another concern is that my dad has an issue with me cursing, and I could write an essay about my views on cursing. Though the point he made still stood; I really ought to work on leaving the cussing out of the really thoughtful posts, as it may not be the place. Especially if my audience is people who do not like to read cursing.

So yeah, I have a lot to write on and hopefully I can use the weekend to knock some of these issues of the table. Hopefully I can express where I stand with all these things well enough so I don’t end up circumlocuting and dancing around points, because man I think I sounded more unsure about morality than I honestly am.

Me and Pixel Dynamo

So I’m going to be writing for a gaming journalism website. I’m going to try for three posts a week up on this blog but it’ll be a squeeze outside of weekends given my priorities right now.

Which basically is: hunt fer some news and right about it twice a day. Honestly as “demoralizing” as some think it, I look forward to the challenge of writing and re-immersing myself into a world I only view from a consumer standpoint.

Honestly, the hold up on posts will settle come a week’s time when I’m assimilated into the world of reporting.

So we’ll see!

-A happily busy bard

Men’s Rights and Feminism

hessianwithteeth

I had a discussion earlier about feminism and the Men’s Rights Movement. I do not support MRA’s, because they are largely a hate group. Too many MRA’s are fine with threatening women with rape and violence and do nothing more productive than troll feminist groups. I don’t think they’ll ever do otherwise. For one, all of their legitimate grievances, such as the fact that women get custody of children more often than men when it comes to divorce, are also concerns to feminists. Feminists actually lobby to change these laws and practices, but MRA’s seem to be too busy blaming them on feminism to do anything. And for another, the best known MRA groups/representatives are all very extreme and make it difficult for moderate MRA’s to accomplish more than legitimizing a hate group. They don’t, likely because they aren’t able to, make the group more agreeable or more productive. As…

View original post 306 more words

The Christian ‘Victory’

(Video link above)

 

In many ways, I feel for the speaker in this youtube video. Here he stood, in a position where he’s being directly told not to mention god or his beliefs in his high school graduation speech. As a staunch believer, he defies these oppressive credences and proclaims his faith in triumph.

It’s a situation I don’t doubt has happened before. Was the administration right to deny this person the right to talk about religion in his speech? In some ways, yes. We don’t know where he goes to school, but I assume this was a public school. Addressing things as if that were the case, there doesn’t really need to be mention of religious views in the senior speech. He’s in a setting where you can’t just say that the majority believes what you believe, and in respect staying silent about things so close to the hearts of many is wise.

Of course, it was a little silly to try and censor any speech that even mentions the word god, though no one can say how stringent the rules were in reality. For all we know it might’ve been that the student in question was planning on saying as much about god or more in his speech than what he did say in actuality.

As a former believer, I understand how much of an opportunity to be the ideal christian seemed to be presented when it came down to the wire and he had to decide whether or not he was going to defy the administrations wishes. But how he ended up handling it was the very thing that even a very lenient speech editor couldn’t let slip by, as lightly religious as it still was. The speech starts off essentially talking about how there will be times when people will be told to do things against their own conscience and beliefs, and that his speech was a perfect example as he had three drafts rejected for the mention of god in them. But, as he points out, we should be acting in ways that we believe is morally good and not for others. Ending with a verse, he blessed the audience in the name of the god of the christian bible.

I wouldn’t have had much of a problem with the speech, though in the end it is still too religious in a moment where you just can’t assume the religion of your audience. The problem I do have is how it’s already becoming the staple example of fighting against religious oppression when the “oppression” was a general policy probably meant to respect the beliefs of everyone. Even in my old high school, where the percentage of christians in the school almost definitely match the amount of muslim and sheik beliefs, no mention of religion is ever made simply because outside of the passing reference, is it really a necessary part of the speech? Also, is the christian religion being oppressed? It’s like the time when an atheist fought to eliminate mandated prayer became the day “prayer was taken out of our schools” as if nobody was allowed to pray anymore. I definitely sympathize with the level of backlash christians have gotten for the rise in gay politics, if only because I can see how sincere most of the responses can be, as sincere a simply bigoted response can be at times. But this is nothing short of an illusion of oppression in many instances. Outside of peer pressure, at least. And even as a atheist I can say that while sex isn’t wrong, pressuring to have it is terrible. But again, outside of this, christian theology is probaly one of the most priveleged parts of the nation in a broad stroke.

At the end of the day, this wasn’t the huge levels of preaching I expected it to be, though it is honestly enough for any editor to say that it should be changed. One of the recurring points I lean on is the idea that this would be a different scenario if the speaker was a muslim or anything else. School graduation speeches are a place to tell parents and students about moving on and growing up, about setting goals and achieving them. Sure, a passing mention on religious beliefs are fine, but it’s hardly a victory against oppression to feel the need to break policy made not to oppress but to allow for respect.

-A nonbelieving bard with the completely “insane” ability to sit through speeches containing some religious perspective

Legend of Korra’s latest trailer

Holy Crap?

There’s already an entire trailer on LoK Book three out?

I think it is worth pointing out how siked I am for the upcoming season Avatar: Legend of Korra. The idea of change at such a fundamental level leaves so much open for this new season of Legend of Korra and while I still think there is a lot of possible story to animate in the Pre-Korra side of things, opening up this whole new paradigm is going to be exciting. I can’t say much of what I can expect from the trailer, outside of Zuko and Tenzin’s brother, Boomey, learning how to airbend. But the new enemy, or what I suspect will be the enemy, seems to be coming from the same line of work that Sparky Sparky Boom Man the assassin comes from. From that short clip around the two minute mark I almost thought he was earthbending AND firebending. I have no clue if he was and what I should have seen from the clip but the interesting theory I have will be elaborated in a new blog post about a cool new plot device idea: mixing elements. They certainly the freedom to work with this anyway, but I have no clue if this was truly suggested.

Either way, the trailer did what it was supposed to do: pique the shit out of my interest. Unlike E3, I KNOW I won’t be disappointed with more Korra. Now that the writers seem like they have a better idea on pacing, coupled possibly with less of a constraint on length, I think potential for an adventure on the scale of the first series is not just feasible, but needed to really set the ground work for how this new cross between spirit world natural world comes to life.

Check out the trailer and let me know what you think it was about, the youtube link unfortunately lacks in a comment section for kid friendly reasons I’d guess.

-An excited self proclaim Bard hoping for some awesome Korra and maybe element blending

I’ll leave a space here for an edit linking to future articles about my theories and general feeling on the path of the Avatar universe and series as a whole.

Assassin’s Creed Unity: Skeptics Checklist

I don’t want to act like the be all end all of Ubisoft’s newest Assassin’s Creed game with the making of this post. Hell if I’ll be even close, let’s be entirely clear here. I’m fucking small-time. Flea in in the pea soup on a raft in the ocean on a speck in the galaxy.  This is just a small disclaimer: Just because I’m acting cynical doesn’t mean I’m not excited for this game. But I want to try my best to give a sort of realist position on the looks of the game to start a conversation about the potential pitfalls of this game before hype makes such a thing impossible.

Everything I type is just my own personal opinions and precautions I’m taking to stay as as safe a buyer as I can be while still appreciating E3 content and trailers. With a little spin to give a sort of prediction of this new title in the grand series.

So, I’ve seen every trailer to date and I think that it goes beyond saying that the gameplay and graphics of the newest installment of the Assassin’s Creed series look like the answer to many of the problems that permeated literally every game to date. The problem is, we were showcased only a handful of the new.  I got to see some snazzy graphics and super tight cooperative play in one trailer (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62QxAJegws8), which I enjoyed a lot. But it’s hard not to notice how much more smoothly every movement was, from a purely gameplay aesthetic. The female narrator’s presumed character was graceful for the most part, making me think this whole thing was scripted or practiced a shit ton. Fine, that’s the most obvious conclusion ever. It’s worth pointing it out, though, since cooperative play could easily have been shown in it’s most optimal visage: four skilled assassin’s leaping through and coordinating their attacks. I’ve played AC3’s wolf pack: it’s indeed awesome and while admittedly small scale, we should all remember or look up gameplay of this match mode. While ideally it’d be a badass mode to play, not only are most of the players incompetent but Assassin Creed’s modus operandi has been creating the godliest assassination game ever created. This leads to a show offy narcissistic feel in multiplayer modes, and more often than not people act in ways to show off to their coop players who’s the man in stead of discretion and utmost concentration. My prediction is that Coop without friends is going to be Wolfpack all over again if not to slightly less worse degree. Sure, the mode itself isn’t flawed but Assassin’s Creed’s style is almost too narcissistic to work with others. Hopefully I’m wrong, but yeah.

Coop still looks awesome but hopefully the parameters for enjoyment doesn’t crash in response to how many stupid noobs are going to accompany you in a mission. Another trailer was totally single player in experience. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izoa3d3rMYs) In this one we get to see one of ACU’s most proudly claimed improvements: making descent as free flowing and precise as ascent has been. I’m just going to reserve judgement on how well functionally this works until we play, but we’ll see eh? It looks very nice though. The other two things mentioned here that got me smiling was disguises and stealth, but it’s about fucking time that any semblance of stealth makes into a game about killing people as a way of life! It’s like if Call of Duty finally announced that grenades and explosives have found their way into the game as if it’s innovative and not just improving the feel of a realistic shooter. So while I’m psyched to see these things finally find their spot in a console Assassin’s Creed game, I’m pissed it took so long. Also, given how game changing these two modes are I wish we’d have seen more of it. Hell, disguises was only vaguely mentioned so for all I know it might be far more contrived than it should be, becoming some sort of disguise QTE instead actually allowing your character to feel the brunt of being human by not dressing like a bloody mass murderer and having limited equipment within certain disguises. This is my biggest gripe about the series I love so much, after all. For all it could have been from the start, Ubisoft sold and traded off to make your assassin feel as unkillable and godly as ever. Fighting was easy as all hell, climbing was shown to comprise of nothing more than a few button presses, and you were allowed to just be fully loaded at all times as if non discreet weaponry and badass hooded clothing was just the norm. I feel like the quicker Ubisoft abandons catering to the power fantasy demographic, the better the games can be. We’ll see if the two sneaky features become integrated enough to feel like anything more than a short aside from the usual power thirsty feel of the game.

The new weapon, the phantom blade, is basically a silenced range kill so it’s welcome but not so innovative, and Eagle Pulse’s necessity will only be revealed with gameplay from actual players. Honestly I could do without the Eagle sense entirely and go for more subtle indicators simply because it again adds to the wrong narrative I’ve wanted Assassin’s Creed to follow. Instead of being a quick witted assassin, you’re a god with the name of assassin. Odds are my narrative is a dream few care for or Ubisoft cares little for this far into the franchise. So honestly I suspect stealth and disguises to be minimal and eagle pulse to be a little crazy in scope and use. Coop is going to be a subjective experience given the sort of “power fantasy” play style Creed openly invites online, and I won’t go into graphics much.

We were all there to see what happened to Watch Dogs, I won’t hold my breath mainly because it isn’t a big deal to me in the first play though honesty is just fundamentally important.

Verdict? Well, no shitting around on this one. Wait for some gameplay footage and reviews like always, and form your own opinions on it. I personally would have done the same anyway but I’m questioning whether or not I should give in a little to my hype or justlet it ride out.

Again, this is all my own opinion and of course I know these are just on some silly trailers. But I think it’s worth noting that these trailers are for trying to sell us the idea of innovation whilst I’m not sure ACU or AC as a series can hold up to the sort of curse of iteration I feel they’re forced to go with.

-A skeptic self-proclaimed bard.