Welcome to the Playpen, our space for ferrety banter and whimsical snippets of things that aren't quite long enough for articles (although they might be) but that caught your eye anyway.
at 11:58 on 18-11-2012, Arthur B
I thought it was interesting that a lot of the non-fatal options seem to involve reinforcing the social status quo - not in terms of which individual rules the city, but in terms of the general way the city operates.
Specific, spoiler-hidden examples:
This is interesting because it means that it's mildly harder to get a low-Chaos ending without muddying yourself with supporting some of the nastier aspects of the status quo, and you'd probably have to work harder to spare rank-and-file lads if you wanted that outcome. (Is it even possible to get that ending if you kill all your assassination targets?)
For my part, in my first playthrough I went consistently non-lethal on the basis that I didn't think any change that came about as a result of murder and terror would stick, and normalising assassination and violence as a medium of social change and political advancement in Dunwall would only hasten its downward spiral. Better to let Emily sort everything out once I've got her back on the throne.
Also I thought it'd set a bad example for Emily if she knew I were a killer. (On my new high-Chaos playthrough this seems to be bourne out...)
permalink
Specific, spoiler-hidden examples:
Campbell is exiled through the Abbey's own procedures and loses power precisely because of their adherence to their traditions. The Pendletons become slaves in the Pendleton mines, which are then immediately taken over by another Pendleton, so it's business as usual there. Although the social status quo doesn't overtly involve creepy men abducting women, the non-fatal way to get rid of Boyle involves doing a favour for another aristocrat, whereas murdering her in the middle of her party would generally shatter the illusion of safety the aristos are enjoying (particularly if that takes the form of you murdering every single guest at the party for the sake of gutting the aristocracy, as a certain someone might have done on his high-Chaos playthrough). Daud, whilst not acknowledged as part of the status quo, is clearly some sort of big figure in an underground economy at least one important aristo regards as a client. As you point out, sparing Burroughs and Havelock allows the justice system to take care of them in the long run.
This is interesting because it means that it's mildly harder to get a low-Chaos ending without muddying yourself with supporting some of the nastier aspects of the status quo, and you'd probably have to work harder to spare rank-and-file lads if you wanted that outcome. (Is it even possible to get that ending if you kill all your assassination targets?)
For my part, in my first playthrough I went consistently non-lethal on the basis that I didn't think any change that came about as a result of murder and terror would stick, and normalising assassination and violence as a medium of social change and political advancement in Dunwall would only hasten its downward spiral. Better to let Emily sort everything out once I've got her back on the throne.
Also I thought it'd set a bad example for Emily if she knew I were a killer. (On my new high-Chaos playthrough this seems to be bourne out...)
at 04:34 on 18-11-2012, Alasdair Czyrnyj
Hello, everyone. I'm not dead. In fact, I've been mulling over whether or not to bang out something about Dishonored, and I've come to the conclusion that I'm really more interested in mentioning little details I haven't seen anyone mention rather in putting together something more substantial. So, without further ado (and spoilers):
* My decisions regarding who to kill and spare served as further confirmation that I am a sociopath. I decided to kill Campbell, the Pendletons, and Lady Boyle for two reasons. Firstly, the nonlethal options all had a pretty sadistic element to them that suggested to me that choosing them would be admitting that I wanted to destroy these people, but didn't have the balls to do it myself. Secondly, since the goal of the game was to destabilize Burrough's regime, a little properly-applied terror was the way to go. However, the nature of the society suggested to me that the struggle between the Loyalists and Burroughs was a private affair among an aristocratic elites, akin to fights among the nobles of 17th century St. Petersburg; it could get bloody, but there's not much of an ideological difference among the factions, so there's no real need to get them involved. In fact, I generally spared the militia/soldiers in the hopes I could leave them sympathetic for the endgame. (Ironically, if the game had been structured around an ideological conflict, I would have probably been more bloodthirsty, in the name of fomenting revolutionary terror.)
However, after those three, I tended to be less bloody. I spared Burroughs and Havelock, since I figured public trials would get the new regime in better with the public than a quiet murder. I also spared Daud, and I have no idea why. (I guess I find humiliation by sleep-choking to be more satisfying than murder.)
* Sokolov's paintings really interested me. Stylistically they reminded me a lot of classic Impressionism, with the quick strokes that call attention to the physicality of the paint on the canvas, the lack of tonal gradation, and the focus on capturing the particular qualities of light on the subject. In terms of subject matter it's all wrong; almost all of it is commissioned portraits, with none of the social or leisure art of our world. No Degas and his ballerinas, no Manet at the café, no Morisot with the weekend boaters. To me this suggests that there really isn't anything resembling an art market of the type we are familiar with from history in Dunwall, and that the arts are still heavily based on patronage here.
* Regarding technology and architecture, it's interesting to compare the machinery of Dunwall with that of City 17 from Half-Life 2. Viktor Antonov served as the lead artist for both HL2 and Dishonored; indeed, when the first concept art for the game appeared, I was afraid Antonov was hewing to close to HL2's designs. As it turned out, he (and everyone else who worked on Dishonored) managed to keep the two games visually distinct. In both games, the technology serves as a visual metaphor for oppression and control, but Sokolov's machinery in Dishonored retains a human dimension that Combine technology lacks. Just compare this armored railcar to the Combine APC; one is clearly modeled on military automobiles from the early 20th century, while the other is far more abstracted into solid blocks, more an ideal of a car than a car. Sokolov's machinery is rooted in the human world, with their girders, railings (a nod, perhaps, to the great railway stations born in Europe's industrial age?), and surfaces filled with rivets, welds, and even the patina of rust. Combine architecture, with its panels of blue-black metal, is wholly alien; it pushes its way out of the crumbling environment like toadstools on a log, and you could imagine their edifices sunk in the primordial acid bath of Venus or looming over the icebound wastes of Triton and looking none the worse for wear. Even the most artificial environments of the two games maintain this difference; the lighthouse-fortress of Kingsparrow Island maintains the dimensions of a human-scaled military bunker, while the layout of the Citadel, when stripped of its decoration, resembles nothing so much as the type of abstract landscape of moving planes and paths that could only exist inside a video game (those it also serves as a technological counterpoint to the organic realm of Xen from the first Half-Life; let's not forget that.)
* It's interesting to note what technology is missing from the city of Dunwall. After seeing the trailers, I noted that the city seemed to exist in an industrialized world that was devoid of both gunpowder and rubber. After playing the game, I realized something else was missing: horses. Horses are one of the building blocks of civilization, and not only are there none in Dunwall, there are no places where one could put them.
(On a frivolous note, this thought led me to imagine that Dunwall's location was the sort of place that would lead me to insta-quit a game of Civilization III. Naturally, this led to the thought that the Outsider's interactions with humanity could be an metaphor for how the player of a 4x strategy game interacts with his empire; whispering in the ears of mayors to build pyramids, of generals to seize that Persian port city, of natural philosophers to ponder the mechanics of firearms...)
* People keep saying that the Abbey of the Everyman is a religion, but I feel that is incorrect. From the way it is presented in the game, I think it would be more correct to consider it an ethical system; it has precepts that elaborate an scheme for how humans should act and interact with one another as well as a concept of virtue, but it does not seem to possess anything resembling a "theory of the world", a system that attempts to account for the mystery of existence and mankind's purpose, that is commonly associated with religion. Given this fact, and the fact that most of their energy is directed against people who have received "gifts" from the Outsider, I think it would be better to describe the Abbey as a private militia of Confucian ghostbusters.
* Some of the background details suggest that the world of the game is even more dire that what we see on screen. There's a document that implies (with some justice) that the Outsider may actually be a whale, possibly related to those the people of Dunwall butcher for fuel. There's also a book by Sokolov as well as some chalkboard drawings in one of the Overseer's workshops that imply that the solar system the game's world is set in is slowly being drawn into a great consuming void, one in which all matter will eventually find its final rest. (Personally, I feel this was a missed opportunity for the developers. Imagine looking up into the sky at night and seeing the yellow-white particle fountain of a galactic black hole consuming a wayward sun, foreshadowing the fate of all things).
* I think I like women in moth masks. What is wrong with me.
permalink
* My decisions regarding who to kill and spare served as further confirmation that I am a sociopath. I decided to kill Campbell, the Pendletons, and Lady Boyle for two reasons. Firstly, the nonlethal options all had a pretty sadistic element to them that suggested to me that choosing them would be admitting that I wanted to destroy these people, but didn't have the balls to do it myself. Secondly, since the goal of the game was to destabilize Burrough's regime, a little properly-applied terror was the way to go. However, the nature of the society suggested to me that the struggle between the Loyalists and Burroughs was a private affair among an aristocratic elites, akin to fights among the nobles of 17th century St. Petersburg; it could get bloody, but there's not much of an ideological difference among the factions, so there's no real need to get them involved. In fact, I generally spared the militia/soldiers in the hopes I could leave them sympathetic for the endgame. (Ironically, if the game had been structured around an ideological conflict, I would have probably been more bloodthirsty, in the name of fomenting revolutionary terror.)
However, after those three, I tended to be less bloody. I spared Burroughs and Havelock, since I figured public trials would get the new regime in better with the public than a quiet murder. I also spared Daud, and I have no idea why. (I guess I find humiliation by sleep-choking to be more satisfying than murder.)
* Sokolov's paintings really interested me. Stylistically they reminded me a lot of classic Impressionism, with the quick strokes that call attention to the physicality of the paint on the canvas, the lack of tonal gradation, and the focus on capturing the particular qualities of light on the subject. In terms of subject matter it's all wrong; almost all of it is commissioned portraits, with none of the social or leisure art of our world. No Degas and his ballerinas, no Manet at the café, no Morisot with the weekend boaters. To me this suggests that there really isn't anything resembling an art market of the type we are familiar with from history in Dunwall, and that the arts are still heavily based on patronage here.
* Regarding technology and architecture, it's interesting to compare the machinery of Dunwall with that of City 17 from Half-Life 2. Viktor Antonov served as the lead artist for both HL2 and Dishonored; indeed, when the first concept art for the game appeared, I was afraid Antonov was hewing to close to HL2's designs. As it turned out, he (and everyone else who worked on Dishonored) managed to keep the two games visually distinct. In both games, the technology serves as a visual metaphor for oppression and control, but Sokolov's machinery in Dishonored retains a human dimension that Combine technology lacks. Just compare this armored railcar to the Combine APC; one is clearly modeled on military automobiles from the early 20th century, while the other is far more abstracted into solid blocks, more an ideal of a car than a car. Sokolov's machinery is rooted in the human world, with their girders, railings (a nod, perhaps, to the great railway stations born in Europe's industrial age?), and surfaces filled with rivets, welds, and even the patina of rust. Combine architecture, with its panels of blue-black metal, is wholly alien; it pushes its way out of the crumbling environment like toadstools on a log, and you could imagine their edifices sunk in the primordial acid bath of Venus or looming over the icebound wastes of Triton and looking none the worse for wear. Even the most artificial environments of the two games maintain this difference; the lighthouse-fortress of Kingsparrow Island maintains the dimensions of a human-scaled military bunker, while the layout of the Citadel, when stripped of its decoration, resembles nothing so much as the type of abstract landscape of moving planes and paths that could only exist inside a video game (those it also serves as a technological counterpoint to the organic realm of Xen from the first Half-Life; let's not forget that.)
* It's interesting to note what technology is missing from the city of Dunwall. After seeing the trailers, I noted that the city seemed to exist in an industrialized world that was devoid of both gunpowder and rubber. After playing the game, I realized something else was missing: horses. Horses are one of the building blocks of civilization, and not only are there none in Dunwall, there are no places where one could put them.
(On a frivolous note, this thought led me to imagine that Dunwall's location was the sort of place that would lead me to insta-quit a game of Civilization III. Naturally, this led to the thought that the Outsider's interactions with humanity could be an metaphor for how the player of a 4x strategy game interacts with his empire; whispering in the ears of mayors to build pyramids, of generals to seize that Persian port city, of natural philosophers to ponder the mechanics of firearms...)
* People keep saying that the Abbey of the Everyman is a religion, but I feel that is incorrect. From the way it is presented in the game, I think it would be more correct to consider it an ethical system; it has precepts that elaborate an scheme for how humans should act and interact with one another as well as a concept of virtue, but it does not seem to possess anything resembling a "theory of the world", a system that attempts to account for the mystery of existence and mankind's purpose, that is commonly associated with religion. Given this fact, and the fact that most of their energy is directed against people who have received "gifts" from the Outsider, I think it would be better to describe the Abbey as a private militia of Confucian ghostbusters.
* Some of the background details suggest that the world of the game is even more dire that what we see on screen. There's a document that implies (with some justice) that the Outsider may actually be a whale, possibly related to those the people of Dunwall butcher for fuel. There's also a book by Sokolov as well as some chalkboard drawings in one of the Overseer's workshops that imply that the solar system the game's world is set in is slowly being drawn into a great consuming void, one in which all matter will eventually find its final rest. (Personally, I feel this was a missed opportunity for the developers. Imagine looking up into the sky at night and seeing the yellow-white particle fountain of a galactic black hole consuming a wayward sun, foreshadowing the fate of all things).
* I think I like women in moth masks. What is wrong with me.
at 01:24 on 18-11-2012, Melanie
I accidentally hit "post" there instead of the quote button, because I am just that smooth.
That was delightful.
Right; to an extent it's hardly even relevant whether the thing they're denying 1)is actually that common, and 2)even exists in the specific source mentioned (if any), because it's a level removed from the actual source. It's about a perception of that source--however distorted--and its use as a touchstone for a certain... flavour, or whatever. The version you get via cultural osmosis even if you've never read/seen it directly.
Going back to fairies, I think it's fair to say that there's some perception of them (or of "disney fairies" specifically!) as tiny, sparkly, tinkly humans with wings who are possibly helpful/good etc. It's just hard to pinpoint exactly where it comes from.
permalink
I've just attempted to play Futilitris. It's like Tetris except... well, you'll see.
That was delightful.
Although interestingly it isn't *really* about the rules from Dracula, so much as about the evolving set of rules which have passed into pop culture canon.
Right; to an extent it's hardly even relevant whether the thing they're denying 1)is actually that common, and 2)even exists in the specific source mentioned (if any), because it's a level removed from the actual source. It's about a perception of that source--however distorted--and its use as a touchstone for a certain... flavour, or whatever. The version you get via cultural osmosis even if you've never read/seen it directly.
Going back to fairies, I think it's fair to say that there's some perception of them (or of "disney fairies" specifically!) as tiny, sparkly, tinkly humans with wings who are possibly helpful/good etc. It's just hard to pinpoint exactly where it comes from.
at 23:55 on 17-11-2012, Arthur B
The thing I find fascinating about this is how long it took me to unlearn all the bits of Tetris technique I've picked up over the years that have absolutely no use in the context of this game's schtick.
permalink
I've just attempted to play Futilitris. It's like Tetris except... well, you'll see.
The thing I find fascinating about this is how long it took me to unlearn all the bits of Tetris technique I've picked up over the years that have absolutely no use in the context of this game's schtick.
at 22:51 on 17-11-2012, Jamie Johnston
I've just attempted to play Futilitris. It's like Tetris except... well, you'll see.
Also Pear and I have been playing a cute MMO game (mostly puzzle-based / walking-around-collecting-stuff-based) called Glitch. But it's making a financial loss so it's closing down very soon. :( Still pretty, though.
permalink
Also Pear and I have been playing a cute MMO game (mostly puzzle-based / walking-around-collecting-stuff-based) called Glitch. But it's making a financial loss so it's closing down very soon. :( Still pretty, though.
at 20:31 on 17-11-2012, Arthur B
Very true, though if they cite any source material at all they almost always cite Dracula, even if they're talking about stuff that doesn't happen in Dracula.
I do suspect we'll get a mild wave of vampires explaining to their victims/newly-vamped spawn/underlings/werewolf lovers that they "aren't like Twilight vampires", but it'll die down once the next vampire craze happens.
Moreover, they don't even fill it in right for Duckula himself because they say he has fangs "sometimes" when it's clear from the intro that they're fake.
permalink
Although interestingly it isn't *really* about the rules from Dracula, so much as about the evolving set of rules which have passed into pop culture canon.
Very true, though if they cite any source material at all they almost always cite Dracula, even if they're talking about stuff that doesn't happen in Dracula.
I do suspect we'll get a mild wave of vampires explaining to their victims/newly-vamped spawn/underlings/werewolf lovers that they "aren't like Twilight vampires", but it'll die down once the next vampire craze happens.
This is supposed to be a list of traits common to *all* vampires in a particular mythos, and while it is true that Duckula *himself* is green, the source material clearly shows a precedent for the Counts of Duckula and their extended vampiric family having feathers in a variety of primary colours.
Moreover, they don't even fill it in right for Duckula himself because they say he has fangs "sometimes" when it's clear from the intro that they're fake.
at 16:29 on 17-11-2012, Fin de siècle
Rule 34, don't fail me now.
permalink
By far the best thing about that list is the inclusion of Count Duckula whose attractiveness is listed: "green-feathered, cartoon duck."
Rule 34, don't fail me now.
at 15:43 on 17-11-2012, Dan Hemmens
@Robinson:
I've not read it but it doesn't surprise me at all - the "these aren't the fairies you remember" conversation has always pissed me off for *exactly* this reason - I can't think of a *single* fairy in *any work of fiction* that I have *ever experienced* that actually *has* fit the image that people keep insisting they're supposed to fit. Even Tinkerbell in the Disney version of Peter Pan is clearly quite a nasty piece of work (she sells Wendy out to the Pirates in a fit of sexual jealousy, for fuck's sake). You could *just about* count the Blue Fairy from Pinocchio or the Fairy Godmother from Cinderella (but not the ones from Sleeping Beauty, since they're set against a Bad Fairy who is *clearly fucking scary*) but that really is it.
Still, it's nice to have a source for *quite how long* fantasy authors have been making this speech.
@Arthur
This is, indeed, insanely common to the point of being an obligatory genre trope. Although interestingly it isn't *really* about the rules from Dracula, so much as about the evolving set of rules which have passed into pop culture canon. Nobody bothers to deny that vampires physically age and use blood to make themselves grow younger (which clearly occurs in Dracula) or that they cling to ceilings, but they do deny that they burn up in sunlight which Dracula vampires don't.
Like Melissa, I do wonder if "Sparkle in Sunlight" will pass into vampire "fanon" although in all honestly I suspect it won't, simply because it is so specifically associated with a major megafranchise.
@Kyra
Which, once again, goes to show how *sloppy* and *inattentive* wikipedia contributors are. This is supposed to be a list of traits common to *all* vampires in a particular mythos, and while it is true that Duckula *himself* is green, the source material clearly shows a precedent for the Counts of Duckula and their extended vampiric family having feathers in a variety of primary colours.
Furthermore, using Duckula himself as an example of common vampire traits in that particular mythos is inherently flawed, since the text contains very little information about the traits Duckula *would* have possessed, had the resurrection ritual been completed correctly. This extrapolation from a single, unrepresentative datapoint is unforgivably poor scholarship.
permalink
I know it's been ages since we made fun of fantasy authors who still think they're being totally revolutionary by portraying fairies as all dark and edgy and telling their characters "these aren't the cutesy fairies you get in picture books," but I was a bit surprised earlier today to find this exact same conversation crop up in T. H. White's The Sword in the Stone.
I've not read it but it doesn't surprise me at all - the "these aren't the fairies you remember" conversation has always pissed me off for *exactly* this reason - I can't think of a *single* fairy in *any work of fiction* that I have *ever experienced* that actually *has* fit the image that people keep insisting they're supposed to fit. Even Tinkerbell in the Disney version of Peter Pan is clearly quite a nasty piece of work (she sells Wendy out to the Pirates in a fit of sexual jealousy, for fuck's sake). You could *just about* count the Blue Fairy from Pinocchio or the Fairy Godmother from Cinderella (but not the ones from Sleeping Beauty, since they're set against a Bad Fairy who is *clearly fucking scary*) but that really is it.
Still, it's nice to have a source for *quite how long* fantasy authors have been making this speech.
@Arthur
I don't know, but come to think of it a hell of a lot of vampire stuff dating back a fair way includes a bit where someone explains which rules from Dracula the vampires follow and which they ignore.
This is, indeed, insanely common to the point of being an obligatory genre trope. Although interestingly it isn't *really* about the rules from Dracula, so much as about the evolving set of rules which have passed into pop culture canon. Nobody bothers to deny that vampires physically age and use blood to make themselves grow younger (which clearly occurs in Dracula) or that they cling to ceilings, but they do deny that they burn up in sunlight which Dracula vampires don't.
Like Melissa, I do wonder if "Sparkle in Sunlight" will pass into vampire "fanon" although in all honestly I suspect it won't, simply because it is so specifically associated with a major megafranchise.
@Kyra
By far the best thing about that list is the inclusion of Count Duckula whose attractiveness is listed: "green-feathered, cartoon duck."
Which, once again, goes to show how *sloppy* and *inattentive* wikipedia contributors are. This is supposed to be a list of traits common to *all* vampires in a particular mythos, and while it is true that Duckula *himself* is green, the source material clearly shows a precedent for the Counts of Duckula and their extended vampiric family having feathers in a variety of primary colours.
Furthermore, using Duckula himself as an example of common vampire traits in that particular mythos is inherently flawed, since the text contains very little information about the traits Duckula *would* have possessed, had the resurrection ritual been completed correctly. This extrapolation from a single, unrepresentative datapoint is unforgivably poor scholarship.
at 15:21 on 17-11-2012, Kyra-Wardog
By far the best thing about that list is the inclusion of Count Duckula whose attractiveness is listed: "green-feathered, cartoon duck."
permalink
at 12:37 on 17-11-2012, Andy G
There is a *very* extensive list of vampire traits on Wikipedia, I'm sure nobody will be surprised to know.
permalink
at 12:21 on 17-11-2012, Arthur B
I don't know, but come to think of it a hell of a lot of vampire stuff dating back a fair way includes a bit where someone explains which rules from Dracula the vampires follow and which they ignore. ("So, running water and garlic are fine, crucifixes per se are fine but a holy symbol of any kind waved about by someone with true faith will cause me problems, and sunlight and stakes through the heart are big no-nos.")
permalink
How long before vampire books introduce vampires by specifying that they aren't stupid sparkly baseball-playing vampires? Is this already happening?
I don't know, but come to think of it a hell of a lot of vampire stuff dating back a fair way includes a bit where someone explains which rules from Dracula the vampires follow and which they ignore. ("So, running water and garlic are fine, crucifixes per se are fine but a holy symbol of any kind waved about by someone with true faith will cause me problems, and sunlight and stakes through the heart are big no-nos.")
at 01:36 on 17-11-2012, Melanie
How long before vampire books introduce vampires by specifying that they aren't stupid sparkly baseball-playing vampires? Is this already happening?
Actually, I don't really mind the whole this-isn't-the-disney-version-this-is-how-[insert imaginary creature or concept here]-REALLY-are/is spiel authors do sometimes. I see it as just a little infodump about what their version of [insert imaginary creature or concept here] is like--even if something similar to their version does seem to be more common than otherwise in the genre they're working in.
permalink
Actually, I don't really mind the whole this-isn't-the-disney-version-this-is-how-[insert imaginary creature or concept here]-REALLY-are/is spiel authors do sometimes. I see it as just a little infodump about what their version of [insert imaginary creature or concept here] is like--even if something similar to their version does seem to be more common than otherwise in the genre they're working in.
at 20:30 on 16-11-2012, Robinson L
I know it's been ages since we made fun of fantasy authors who still think they're being totally revolutionary by portraying fairies as all dark and edgy and telling their characters "these aren't the cutesy fairies you get in picture books," but I was a bit surprised earlier today to find this exact same conversation crop up in T. H. White's The Sword in the Stone. Apparently, fantasy authors have been pulling out this "not-so-nice fairy" stuff for a lot longer than they probably know.
permalink
at 17:40 on 16-11-2012, Andy G
An unusual approach to Kickstarter fundraising by John Waters (audio is NSWF).
permalink
at 22:00 on 15-11-2012, Kyra-Wardog
I, too, am bating!
(I also just saw a game advertised on Steam which seemed to be called Soil Survivor. But it turned out to be Sol Survivor. I'm not sure whether to be relieved or disappointed).
permalink
(I also just saw a game advertised on Steam which seemed to be called Soil Survivor. But it turned out to be Sol Survivor. I'm not sure whether to be relieved or disappointed).
at 11:29 on 15-11-2012, Axiomatic
Hooray! I await the next instalment with either bated or baited breath.
permalink
at 23:17 on 14-11-2012, Shimmin
Trailer!
Coming up next on GOGathon... I actually finish not one, but two games!
And then mercilessly criticise them for many, many paragraphs nevertheless, because I mean, what were you expecting?
permalink
Coming up next on GOGathon... I actually finish not one, but two games!
And then mercilessly criticise them for many, many paragraphs nevertheless, because I mean, what were you expecting?
at 20:38 on 14-11-2012, Kyra-Wardog
They all scare the crap out of me, to be honest. Rocco has the mad staring eyes of a cold stone killer.
permalink
at 20:17 on 14-11-2012, Fishing in the Mud
I'm concerned that there's a jet of water where Rex's left eye should be.
permalink
at 19:26 on 14-11-2012, Ibmiller
I wish I were that old woman - then maybe I would be awesome and not be afraid of underwater hairless dogs :)
permalink
at 17:44 on 14-11-2012, Melanie
I can certainly feel my sanity wobbling when I look at that.
permalink
Coraline is so terrifying I've put her forward as inspiration on the YSDC Call of Cthulhu forums.
I can certainly feel my sanity wobbling when I look at that.
at 11:10 on 14-11-2012, Kyra-Wardog
Clearly that is a high level old woman, with many points in Axe.
permalink
