Untitled

In fact, I'm going to use this to lay out a big Theory of SBURB:

Sessions where the players wind up creating themselves are symptoms of cancerous, atypical sessions: players who *didn't* create themselves feels more akin to the sort of chromosome-mixing that happens during sexual reproduction.

Of the four sessions we've directly witnessed during Homestuck, the Troll session was *mostly* normal except for the influence of Jack at the end, but that influence was directly due to the troll session in the first place. The Beta session, of course, was an absolute disaster, and the Alpha session was a normally-dead null one except for the hack of transplanting a 'viable' battlefield from the Beta session; in a sense this was all one giant, extremely atypical session from all we've gathered of SBURB.

The cherub session was a completely normal SBURB session; it was of an extremely unusual, ultra-hard-difficulty type but nothing within it was unaccounted for by the 'programming'. Presumably, the session the new kids will finally give us an example of a mostly-as-'intended' SBURB session, although I have faith we'll still get some curveballs.

now June Egbert is basically undeniably canon its going to be very easy to tell who’s transnisogynistic by who actively ignores this information entirely.

I used to be a little uneasy because "what, Hussie is just going to make whatever part of the story because someone found a candy bar" then I reminded myself this whole thing started as MS Paint Adventures where entire running jokes were spawned because some yahoo submitted something.

Also, it is important to emphasize that not every transgender person follows the stereotypical Very Special Episode path; some people just felt confused and shitty all their lives until someone pointed out it was even an option. "It came out of nowhere" - yeah, lots of things in Homestuck do that.

Mad about politics again

I'd love to know what the real story behind Exalted: Essence is. In spite of how it's promoted, it's not a simplified or introductory version of Exalted in any meaningful way. It's a roughly equally complicated game which simply fundamentally disagrees with the direction of many of Exalted 3rd Edition's design choices. Even the changes from 2E's setting lore don't quite line up – they're literally publishing two different, mutually incompatible versions of the same game.

Like, there are places where Exalted 3rd Edition and Exalted: Essence use the exact same terminology to refer to completely different game-mechanical concepts, which is absolutely not what you do when you're writing an introductory text. It's what you do when you think the other guy fucked up.

Fair enough on the inconsistent names, but Essence is absolutely a step down from core Ex3 in terms of complexity. "Charm system that can handle all ten core types of Ex3 Exalt in one book" should be your first clue. (A second book adds a few more types and Dragon Kings.)

Like, It is still a pretty crunchy, mechanically detailed game, but it's a notch lower. As an Ex3 fan, I enjoy the additional complications and feel they serve a purpose in the same way one plays chess without much care to how inaccurately it portrays medieval warfare, but the value of having All The Shit in one book is certainly there.

the choice to replace the word 'shaman' in new tarkir is fairly based, since like, that's a specific word with religious meaning befucked by fantasy authors for ages. except, choosing to replace it with druid is like... you guys know that's also a word with religious meaning, right?

like druid is different but its still very much a specific word with specific meaning, already eroded by fantasy bullshit. that and using Athenaeum in the planeswalker's guide blow my mind a little.

I would presume the difference is there are no living druids to complain or buy cards. (There are neopagans who use the term, and that's valid enough, but those range from authentic attempts at reconstruction to nonsense based on racist pseudoresearch done in the 19th century, so...)

I thought it was fairly normal to feel empathy for bad people.

I thought it was common, even.

But after my Elon/Grimes post... now I'm wondering if I was mistaken about that.

I wrote a post about Trump being traumatized after his assassination attempt and a post about his poor adaptation to aging. I expressed sympathy for him in both cases. But I still maintain my white hot hatred of him and wish for him to face consequences.

Elon was abused by his father. Some of the stories are incredibly tragic. Hearing those stories triggers an involuntary response in my emotional systems that I can't stop no matter how much I despise present-day Elon. I also wonder if that abuse never occurred maybe we wouldn't be dealing with this current clusterfuck.

I have never held so much anger towards a single person as I do my brother. But I also see him as a victim of abuse. I know he was once a really good person and he was slowly corrupted. I feel sorry for him. I mourn the amazing person he used to be. And I still love him.

But that doesn't make me any less angry.

I honestly think it's incredibly important for us to understand the people who are bastards who seek to ruin lives. Hitler as a kid wanted to care for his mom who was dying of cancer. Understanding that pain and even relating to it is important for us to not lose the value that they are human. Making them into monsters puts to much space between reality. And he deserved what he got, if not more.

They can be an enemy you want to see destroyed. That you do not want any positivity towards. I think what happens here is that sometimes understanding the tragedies an absolutely right bastard has experienced; threatens their "righteousness of anger." I, personally, do not think because I have context around another person's life it invalidates my own hatred of them. For some though that flexibility is difficult to come to terms with so they lash out.

if you have any empathy for these people ur literally compliant in what they’re doing. i don’t care that they had a “shitty home life” and they just need a hug from their dad to feel all better. they’re sick horrible people who are willing to DESTROY AND END the lives of thousands to add another dollar to their billions

I want to start by saying this was incredibly hurtful.

I really think you need to read what I wrote again because you grossly misunderstood it. Especially the "hatred" and "consequences" part. I can tell you for certain I am still wishing that bullet didn't just graze Trump's ear.

The absolute gall to tell people they aren't allowed to have emotional responses. How do I stop an involuntary emotion? What magic technique do you have because I'd love to end my depression and anxiety right now.

Errol Musk raised a stepdaughter, then impregnated her, and then married her. He literally drove his current wife to preschool and she called him "Dad".

Here is a recent quote from him.

Imagine being raised by that.

This awful person created another awful person. It's tragic. It's sad. And it makes me feel bad.

Understanding the reason someone turned into a monster is useful. This tells me we need to do a better job of protecting children or else we are going to keep making new Elons.

it’s useful, and it’s good to understand, but it’s also important not to humanize these people when they won’t hesitate a single moment to destroy thousands of lives

I think most of us can agree that evil is born from trauma and the road to hell is paved with good intentions. But the reason we call it evil is that at no moment and in no way it should be justified by our society and collective conscious as

And as cruel as that sounds, there are important reasons for this. It because evil won’t hesitate to dismantle said society, conscious and it’s values from within

This is also called the tolerance paradox. It’s an important observation that was born from the aftermath of WW2

Some things should be dehumanized and given no tolerance, to keep them from spreading

It's possible we are working off different definitions of "humanize" but I think there is nothing more human than stupidity, ignorance, and hurting others. Elon is just a human. He is fueled by trauma and ketamine abuse and is lashing out at the world. He desperately wanted people to like him but wasn't willing to put in the work to be remotely likable. Plenty of people overcome their trauma and make the effort to defy their poor upbringing. Elon made a different choice. And he is responsible for that choice. No awful childhood can justify his actions.

I see the lack of humanization as a much larger problem for conservatives. They have taken away Elon and Trump's status as human beings and elevated them to gods. Elon is an infallible Tech Jesus capable of bending all machines to his will. And Trump is the Grand Business Genius who thinks 90 steps ahead and is playing 8D chess to save our country from immigrants and people with pronouns.

I wish people from that side would humanize them more and see they are flawed, pathetic, and despicable. They are squishy sacks of meat like the rest of us.

I will never excuse their actions or decisions. I consider them well beyond redemption. And I wish every day they never existed.

This is probably a semantic debate. I think we are all on the same page that these people suck and need to go right fucking now.

I actually don't think this is a semantic debate, I think that Frogman is right and "it's important not to humanize people who won't hesitate to (effectively) kill people" is, no shit, protofascist ideology.

No matter how awful, how violent, how genocidal, how "evil" someone is, you have to remember that people are human. You have to treat them as humans, as rational actors who are doing things that they believe will achieve their goals, that their goals are founded in a desire to see *their* version of a better world and not out of some abstract demonic drive to be evil.

The second to last poster is fundamentally understanding the paradox of tolerance in a way that would almost be funny if it wasn't so fucking dangerous. One of the attitudes that you absolutely cannot tolerate if you want the world to be a better place is the dehumanizing of you enemies.

You can't do this because it's saying "there is a version of the world in which it is correct to treat some people as other-than-human, and the rules that apply to humans (the right to a fair trial, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, etc.) do not apply to those people."

And that means you're saying there are conditions in which people *can* lose those rights and that's where the whole thing starts. "People who hurt children don't deserve rights/kill all pedophiles > the LGBTQIAs are trying to recruit your kids > queers are all pedophiles because they want to recruit and destroy your kids > trans people don't deserve rights." "Terrorists don't deserve rights > all Arabs are terrorists > you can't do war crimes against a population with no civilians > gazans as young as 4 are hamas > it's not a war crime to bomb a hospital it's a legitimate attack against a terrorist stronghold." "Criminals have violated the law and don't deserve the same rights as the rest of us > crossing the border without permission from our government is a crime > all undocumented migrants are criminals > it's okay to separate criminals from their families and put them in cages and offshore prisons"

Elon Musk is a shitty, shitty person but by dehumanizing him, by refusing to recognize that he is just as human (with dreams, hopes, trauma, longing, love, fear, and family) as you are, you are trying to differentiate him from you. You are trying to say "that's not human. That's not like me, I'm not like that, that's a monster and monsters don't deserve to be treated like people."

And people who think that way are very good at finding monsters. Maybe the monsters who don't deserve rights are all the Republicans in congress. Maybe the monsters are all the pardoned J6ers. Maybe the monsters are all republicans generally. Maybe it's everyone who *tolerates* republicans so it's everyone in red states. And that's how you get people saying "they fucking deserved it" after the Texas freeze the same way people are saying "they fucking deserved it" after the LA fires. "Suck it up, that's what happens when you vote for [my political opponents], you deserve what's coming to you because you're all monsters."

The worst person you can think of, the most genocidal dictator, the most vile racist supporter of apartheid, the most prolific murderer - these are all humans, they are not special, they are not unique, and you would do well to remember it because you're not special either. It's imperishable to recognize the humanity of those people because to do so is to recognize that NOT being like that is a choice. YOU could become like them. YOU could do some great harm in the name of your best vision of the future.

Look around at the world right now. Look at the online crackdowns on queer expression, on trans joy. Do you know how we got to a place where it's easy to ban and hide and silence trans women in the name of "content violations"? It's because of a bill meant to protect children from being sexually abused. "Of course I support SESTA/FOSTA, I'm not a monster like those pervert freaks, nobody has to tolerate sex on their platforms" - one of the major, major tools that is being used to silence, isolate, and harass queer people online was voted in by Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris.

We have to recognize the humanity of the people who do awful things because it is a vital reminder that we, humans, maybe even good people, can easily do awful things ourselves.

Anyway. Absolutely bugfuck insane that "it's important not to humanize bad people" is a take that people will say out loud in 2025.

There are people who are decrying the attack on USAID who have loudly and proudly said that Florida doesn't deserve hurricane relief because of its abortion ban. "Florida doesn't care about women so I don't care about Florida." Great! Cool! That's the exact same logic used by Trump to withdraw from the WHO.

Absolutely. Like, the paradox of tolerance isn't a paradox when you understand it as a peace treaty, not some sort of ethical demand.

Recognizing that your enemy is human, with all that entails, is important. That doesn't mean they aren't still your enemy, but in the real world you have to work and live with all sorts of people. You have to give people a chance to accept the treaty, rather than dumping every dirtbag humor teenager or family member with internalized bigotry they never really thought about in the same bin as people actively trying to make your life worse.

Of course, if they don't take the treaty, if they are gleefully declaring themselves your enemy, deal with them swiftly and without reservation. That doesn't have to mean violence, maybe you just cut that person out of your life and refuse contact. But recognize they aren't mythical monsters, they are people, and but for grace there go you, had you lived a different life.

what do you mean elon musk did a nazi salute on live tv at the united states presidential inauguration twice and is now erasing the evidence off the internet by replacing the footage with the crowd cheering instead?

would be a shame if people reblogged this, wouldn’t it?

I want you to remember:

The fascists hate you too and they just will pretend otherwise until after they've killed the rest of us, before they turn on you.

Thanks to whoever tried, but I knew they'd never allow it.

Let's do it the old fashioned way. Spread it far and wide.

Doing it old-fashioned way

6 to 1! Okay, I wanted to do some more fanart, so here's Iris. I have an unused pose that I am going to repurpose to do another 1000xresist piece, so look forward to that if you want!

I suppose the main theme would be every card either establishes a win condition or contributes towards one. Each contribution card would have a number of attributes that certain win condition cards would require you have enough of.

I independently had this same thought a few days back so I’d love to figure out how this would work

The principal design challenge isn't making sure every card contributes to some plausible win condition: it's avoiding the introduction of accidental hard counters. When a TCG has a universal win condition, like "reduce the other guy's Fun Points to zero", then as long as you don't fuck up and introduce something which makes "reduce the other guy's Fun Points to zero" stop being a valid win condition, the scope of the damage you can do is inherently limited. When there's no universal win condition, conversely, every single gimmick you introduce runs the risk of doing horrifying things to the meta by creating a hard counter to some broad class of win conditions that you didn't spot in time.

Idk, given the uncertainty inherent to the core design, I kinda think that sort of chaos would be half the point. Or at least half the fun.

In theory, sure. In practice, having half of your high-level matches predestined to end in a stalemate before the first card is drawn because each player's deck puts a spike in the other's win condition and there's no universal win condition to fall back on doesn't make for a terribly exciting tournament scene.

I don't know, I feel like that sort of rock/paper/scissors hard counter thing is already a thing in a lot of tcg high-level play (examples are all mtg because that's what I have experience with)

Like if I'm playing dredge and my opponent pulls out a turn zero Leyline of the Void, the 2% chance that I could technically win by beating down with my 3-mana 1/2 doesn't really add actual variance.

If there were enough win-cons, counters to them would be important pieces you'd have to remove, with more streamlined decks having better hate cards (but attempting to win before they could be countered) and more generalist decks aiming to eventually assemble SOMETHING with the knowledge that their opponent wouldn't have the deckspace to counter all of their goals

(And of course there would be some prison decks, but what is a prison deck if not another sort of alternate win condition? Some of my favorite mtg decks that I've seen have the eventual goal of stopping your opponent from being able to ever cast another card)

Again, this sort of analysis implicitly depends on the existence of one or more universal win conditions as a fallback. Without that, being too permissive about hard counters is likely to result in a situation where most high-level matches end in a stalemate because nobody has any achievable win conditions at all.

(I suspect a lot of folks are missing that nuance because they're implicitly assuming that we're only removing one of the standard Magic: The Gathering style universal win conditions, depleting one's opponent's Fun Points, while keeping automatic loss on deck-out. "You lose if you deck out" is, in fact, a universal win condition – it's just framed from the opposite direction – so if we're serious about having only deck-specific win conditions, we have to ditch that one too!)

Yeah that's a good point, I was still definitely thinking of "you lose if you run out of cards" as a given (which now that you point it out, of course that's still a default win condition)

I'm tempted to argue that it wouldn't really be a concern if you added enough win cons (because then there wouldn't be a reasonable way to counter ALL of them), but I'm also realizing that if even like 30% of decks were both streamlined enough to be locked out AND playing hate cards to lock even their own strategy out, games would end in a draw enough to be problematic. And that's really the best case scenario

Perhaps. The point I'm making is not that it's impossible, full stop; it's that there are actually a couple of very good reasons why this type of play has historically been restricted to non-collectible TCG-likes, and that making it work in a true TCG context with the requisite incremental drip-feed of new gimmicks is a genuinely hard design problem.

The closest I can think of is I half-remember a CCG during the big 90/00s boom that might have done the 'all the win conditions are on the cards' but the 'default' condition was printed on a card that came with every deck, or suchlike.

I suppose it wouldn't be impossible to work out a TCG-style version of Fluxx, but that would entail, you know, playing Fluxx, which much like Munchkin was a fun idea the first couple of times I played it that started wearing out its welcome with a hundred different cross-IP branded versions.

If we simply to go 'a game where alt win conditions were highly encouraged', the original Legend of the Five Rings CCG seemed to print a new alt win condition every set for awhile there....

Zeldalike where the final boss has a separate phase with the mechanics of every dorky little minigame you've played up to that point, reskinned as part of an epic battle for the fate of the cosmos. Fishing minigame phase. Digging minigame phase. Cooking minigame phase. Fashion contest minigame phase.

its not a zeldalike but Mario & Luigi Superstar Saga literally did this and I was honestly laughing myself ragged that the final boss had a spell of Mandatory Jump Rope Minigame

True, though the impact is somewhat blunted there because the Mario & Luigi series has a weak distinction between its combat mechanics and its minigame mechanics at the best of times. To get the full effect it really needs to come right out of nowhere.

If we broaden it a little past strict Zeldalikes, but games that are in the same general area (RPGs and the like), Decarnation might count?

It's not an epic battle for the cosmos, but the fate and sanity of the protagonist ultimately comes down to how well you can perform in a rhythm game, insofar as the story won't progress if you can't do it.

Have the guts to look them all in the eye and warn them first.

So I’ve checked with the vet, and apparently the fact that my cat likes to eat phone books isn’t putting her in any danger – she’s not suffering from a dietary deficiency, and the local phone books are printed with a non-toxic vegetable based ink, so she’s not going to poison herself.

The fact remains that I have a cat who likes to eat phone books.

Not even paper in general: phone books specifically.

What the hell.

I want everyone in the notes who’s boggling at the concept of printed phone books in the year 2021 to think carefully about the events of the past 24 hours, and see if they can arrive at any conclusions regarding why an information technology professional such as myself might insist on keeping a printed phone book next to their wired landline.

I love posts like this, cuz it’ll take like 2 weeks to become incomprehensible when people forget that all of Facebook’s shit went down for half a day

The only thing folks are going to be uncertain about regarding this post in the future is which particular instance of some vital segment of online infrastructure shitting itself to death it’s referring to. Given the increasing monopolisation of online services by outfits whose corporate culture renders effective disaster preparedness impossible, it’s a safe bet this time won’t be the last!

Heck, the “tech enthusiast eagerly buys up every half-baked gizmo, the IT professional has a landline, a trusty old Laserjet printer, and a shotgun to use on anything that even MENTIONS ‘Internet of Things’ on the box” is an old joke with plenty of truth to it. If you know about these things, you know how easy it is for them to break.

ok so people are making fun of this but adding this with other anti-global warming tactics will work

This isn’t adding ice just for the sake of denial, it’s adding to the Earth’s albedo. This in turn actually makes the Earth’s climate cooler, and then more ice will be produced naturally because of this.

It isn’t a process we need to continue forever, in fact it’s one that needs to be calculated so that we don’t do it TOO MUCH. The only worry would be cooling down too much.

So yes, this is a good idea. It simply isn’t the only thing we should do because we still have gross pollution.

For the love of god do it . anything just do it. Give us hope.

Here’s the thing: Most environmental catastrophes humans have ever or are currently creating can be fixed. It’s not just a matter of “oh no, things are ruined, and maybe we can stop the degradation so that things don’t get any worse, but we’re stuck with how things are.” There are some things we can’t do, like bringing back extinct species. But there are a lot of other things we can definitely do, many of which are being done right now. The problem is that most of our willpower and effort is spent on bullshit tiny things that won’t solve the problem (individual recycling, etc.) and not on the large-scale things that can and will make a large-scale difference.

Ice caps are melting? Guess what! We know how to make ice. It’s not that hard. Designing mostly-automated robot ships to go to the poles and rebuild the ice caps is well within our current technical capabilities. We just need to fund it.

Deforestation on a massive scale? Destruction of other biomes? Guess what! We know how to plant trees. We know how to plant grasslands. We know how to take barren, lifeless land and turn it back into a viable biome. It’s not that hard. In a lot of cases, if there’s neighboring areas where that biome still exists, all you have to do is dump a few tons of biomass (plant clippings, food waste, etc.) on the barren land and stand back and wait. The biomass will provide nutrients and keep the topsoil from blowing away, and the plants and animals from the neighboring biome will move in. In two decades, even if you don’t do anything besides dumping the biomass on it, you won’t be able to tell what was the barren area and what was the still-existing biome.

Coral reefs dying? Now, coral reefs are a bit more fragile than most biomes, but guess what! We still know how to replant/rebuild them, and in fact are working on that in places affected by coral reef die-off! And we’re learning how to do it better every day.

Desertification? Guess what! We know how to turn desert back into green space. They’re doing it on a large scale in China and sub-Saharan Africa. There are several different techniques, none of which are even very technology-intensive. It takes money and time and labor, but it’s perfectly doable. We know this because we’ve done it.

Plastic in the ecosystem, particularly in the ocean? Guess what! There’s a lot of people working on this, both on “how to remove plastic from the ocean” and “how to reuse/recycle it more efficiently.” And the techniques are improving by leaps and bounds every year. This is a solvable problem. These are all solvable problems.

So if you’re crushed by the weight of the coming environmental catastrophe … don’t be. These are all solvable problems! We can stop things from getting worse, and we can fix the things we’ve broken. The issue is political, not practical.

On the political side, of course, is the need to tighten up environmental regulations across the globe. (What’s the statistic, that 90% of pollution is caused by 100 corporations?) And then of course, we need to fund these programs on a large enough scale.

In some ways the political aspect is the hardest, but consider this: we are at a tipping point. Things are changing about the way politicians talk about climate change and ecological degradation. More ordinary people are concerned about this, which means more pressure on politicians. One of the ways that things are changing is that people–even conservatives–are starting to talk about “job opportunities in new green fields” and switching the conversation so that it’s not “rainforest vs. jobs” makes political action a lot more possible. And no, it’s not going to happen on its own, but it can happen.

This is a solvable problem.

I *needed* this. Climate change has had me feeling SO helpless, having a list of things that can actually potentially be done is beautiful

Saving Curly Brace in Cave Story may not be objectively the most difficult side quest, but basically everything about how it’s set up offends my game design sensibilities, so it’s The Worst™ by default.

@booxmowo replied:

Okay, so.

Keep reading

To be fair, another game published by Nicalis (Cave Story was originally an indie game that they bought by taking advantage of its creator not being good with English), The Binding of Isaac, does this exact same bullshit with some of its secrets. (Spoilers for the entire game and DLC below the cut)

Keep reading

As pointed out, it’s very different for a roguelike, for an action you’re likely to take as a player anyway (try to speedrun) as opposed to a highly obscure sequence in a lengthy shooty platformer where you can’t try again.

No, if you wanted to use Binding of Isaac as an example, you should have brought up the original procedure to unlock the lost which required four *highly specific* deaths in order, and the last run couldn’t even use a seed to make it easier with a known good run for that fate. (It is far easier now.)

One of the big reasons I write the kind of games that I do is because I truly love stupid dice tricks, but so much of the real innovation in tabletop RPG mechanics is tied to settings that are defined by a lurid preoccupation with degradation and misery, and character building frameworks that expect a nearly voyeuristic level of personal disclosure, which – taken together – seem determined to find out how many deep-seated traumas they can make their players relive in the span of an evening’s play.

So I take those stupid dice tricks and use them to build games about jellyfish committing real estate fraud.

I want to play that game, what’s it called?

It’s currently in development, but if you want to give the playtest version a spin, you can find it here:

https://penguinking.com/jellyfish-felonies/

re: the 'preoccupation' thing in the notes: there's a lot of games with really cool dice tricks that are all about focusing on basically miserable experiences and really digging deep into them. There is nothing wrong with this, they often center disadvantaged, underrepresented groups and this is great. But at the same time, *even members of those groups sometimes just wanna goof off and have fun*. It’s why I still play Exalted, ornate system and all: The world permits you to have characters like that, but it’s in more of a high ancient world fantasy adventure direction that encourages throwing goddamn clusterbombs of dice and taking out entire armies single-handedly.

I really appreciate how, while Serious Gamers have been having Serious Discussions about what the genre nomenclature should be for the 2D Legend of Zelda games and their various imitators, the community-driven tagging systems on various online storefronts have simply settled on calling them top-down metroidvanias. Like, you had your chance, Serious Gamers, and you let it pass you by – the mob has spoken! It’s all metroidvanais now!

@kemayo replied:

Honestly, the perfect game for me would probably be one that plays like A Link to the Past in the overworld, but switches to a Super Metroid style platformer inside caves and dungeons. Every item and upgrade works in both modes and has distinct top-down and side-scrolling functionality. There are boss fights of both types, and the final boss somehow contrives to switch modes between phases.

(Yes, I’m aware that Link’s Awakening plays with the idea a little, but its side-scrolling gameplay is really half-baked, even in the remake, and doesn’t do anything interesting with it outside a handful of one-off setpieces. I want to see someone do a proper job of it!)

Am I misremembering Zelda 2 doing that exact thing?

The Adventures of Link has precisely the opposite problem: its overworld gameplay is so thin it’s practically nonexistent. Basically, the franchise has one decent side-scroller with terrible top-down gameplay, and several decent top-down puzzlers with very perfunctory side-scrolling segments, but not once has it put the good bits of both together!

What I’m hearing is NES Rygar is very close to the perfect game.