Man, i have this on WiiU, and was like "Yea, this looks pretty cool," when i could see a cover pic of Elsa Nova. Then i started playing it, and i swear it, i couldnt stop until i was sadly done. I didn't want this game to ever end. Theres a soft spot in my heart for Metroidvania games.
I did jump into the genre pretty hard after i played this. This is probably still the only one that I've played that is more Metroid. I've been gravitating more to the fantasy setting stories and melee combat games. So Axiom Verge still stands out as a very unqiue experience for me on all fronts
I know the focus of the video is on the many worlds theory and pan-psychism, and in that respect it's a really great video! I love how thought-provoking this game is! But I think there's also some more room to explore interesting aspects of the story if you add in a certain amount of distrust in what the rusulki say; they, like Athetos, are acting in their own self interest, and have no reason to be truthful to Trace. Their explanations are likely couched in truth, but meant to portray themselves as the underdogs in need of Trace's help. I personally am fond of the theory that the Athetos that is the final boss in AV1 is "Plan A", the first Trace clone the rusulki produced, who went rogue thanks to the influince of Katrahaska, and so they produced the second one, "Plan B", utilizing Katrahaska's mind-machines in his creation so they can have better control this time. (see note Plan B) But even if Athetos isn't a clone, it's definitely true that the Rusulki claim to have fished Trace out of the breach...and then later admit this was a lie. So at least some of what they say is verifiably untrue. Also, this isn't relevant to the video, but just a quick note; it's pretty clear that the Sudrans didn't build the Rusulki, since the priests note them "appearing in the sky" one day and are so scared they turn on the breach attractor to force them to the ground, and then bury them as dangerous technology. Even the note where the priestesses release the Rusulki has a tone of distrust; they are not seen as gods, but are simply "the devil you know" against Athetos' plague.
These are interesting dynamics of the story for sure. It's just that, with regards to the ontology of the setting and the message of the game, we don’t have much to go on for how far to consider the Rusalki unreliable narrators. I think it is best to accept the known-falsehoods and embrace the general vibes of distrust as tone-dressing. (In this case at least.)
@@SocraTetris I gotta disagree with this take, from my very first playthrough it was apparent that the Rusalki were not to be trusted - they don't even fully trust each other. They aren't irreproachable agents above employing deceit; it's established both in the notes and the story itself. I just finished AV2 and THAT theme, of conflicting interests and deception, continues. to make things fit together you'd probably have to revise that view, or invent something really convoluted
Stellar video. I really appreciate your thoughts and communication style. I watched the whole thing thinking I was watching a channel with like 500k subs.
@@SocraTetris I think all it is, is that I’m a simple man with a basic brain and this stuff just didn’t process or get retained. I’m dumb is what I’m saying. Lol
You laid a lot of blame at athetos but he doesnt even tell us his whole motivations otherwise the rusalki would kill us. Perhaps his reasons are so clear any trace would succumb to them and agree but for the sake of the trace we play as he doesnt tell us. It felt like Athetos had an "I win" card in his pocket he refused to use. I hope those ideas get some exploration in Axiom Verge 3.
I haven't played Axiom Verge 2, but did trace have any play in that game? Cuz I don't think we can really assume something like that went unstated in AV1. Something I'll have to keep an eye on when I eventually get around to it.
I mean, it's literally proven that the rusalki have lied to trace about athetos using the breach attractor, it's not unreasonable to assume they lied about the pathogens...
@@SocraTetris He does not appear in that game but is mentioned in notes and in the ending implies it is (sort off) a prequel to Axiom Verge 1. and a parallel story too due to some weird time passing differently in different parallal world shananigans.
I kinda think the pathogen that Athetos released was an accident, as in AV2 we see people similarly mutated as a result of contact with the breach. It’s possible the pathogen was a result of athetos trying to continue his work with the breach
@@SocraTetris I think you should definitely play it and come to your own new conclusions. Your analysis of AV1 here is very well done and helped clarify some things on the ontological schools of thought (I have read about Gödel's Incompleteness theorem long ago, which is one reason why this game captivated me). But I think if you played AV2, you might see some things in AV1's story differently, and I'd love to hear your take on it. Thanks for making this!!
This is such a well made video. The story of this game has way more depth than a lot of people are giving it credit for. Even though I am too stupid to understand the majority of what you are trying to say in this video (well maybe that just complements the story of this game) I nonetheless, thoroughly enjoyed this video.
A well put together video. Props on your work. I cannot agree with a lot of the things you conclude mostly because of the things you base those conclusions on seem off to me. But I got to say it is a good essay nonetheless.
Wait I don't understand how you get from "cogniti8n being a sub-algorithm" to "pan-psychism being real." Pan-psychism is the idea that consciousness might be omnipresent in the universe as a fundamental attribute of matter (meaning the atoms could be slightly conscious). Now, how does it follow (from the 2nd axiom) that, while cognition isn't guaranteed, consciousness is present in all matter?
That's a video I made many years ago, lividusdigitus. You'll just have to review the video and the argument i made within again. I haven't delved into the details of Axiom Verge's world/lore since i finished the video.
If i had to reinterpret what I was saying then, i would say pan-psychism comes into play first from the first axiom. "all algorithms are universal and valid." Coming from the understanding of what a "Universal" is in philosophy. Ontologically extant forms that are perfect and omni-present. The form of consciousness, the "pattern mind," would thus have to be a universal. Later neo-platonists would liken all discussion of Forms/Universals to God, as god is infinite and the perfection of all things. The first axiom maintains that even is cognition/consciousness isn't being expressed, it is still true. to cognition is a universal regardless of whether a pattern mind is current executing that algorithm that represents conscious self-awareness of reality and ability to change the reality.
@@SocraTetris Oh, I see. So, you're interpreting Universal as Omni-Present, whih would make consciousnes omni-present as well.. See, to me the 2nd part of the 1st axiom: "regardless of wether they're executed" suggests a (pseudo-digital) multi-verse in which consciousness, while True in the Grand Scheme of things, is not always present, as it might not be executed locally. Regardless, interesting video. 👍
I think there are two levels that we can treat hyperstition with. The first is to see a creative work creating an idea that become important to culture and motivates certain actions and inventions. I find this perspective completely valid, because it is how we as a species have directed ourselves through art and science from thw start. The second way to treat hyperstition is the mysticism perspective. That the changed idea fundamentally alters the material realitt directly. And this essentially puts us in the same house as the solipsism and other ideas mentioned in the video. Either the change did not occur, in which case we can't empiracally test for a lack of causation. Or the change did occur, in which case there is no motivation to test for a change or object to test, because the new reality and new thought is now perceived as (and always has been) the norm. The mysticism version is non-falsifiable, and also non-verifiable. I'm curious as to your understanding of hyperstition though!
@@SocraTetris granted I need to study into this more, but this reminded me of the Mandela Effect, that by the time one realises or perceives a Mandela Effect, it’s already in the newly ‘perceived’ reality so it’s difficult to prove, other than a persistent or ingrained memory that suggests other wise. Not sure how this is relevant to this but felt It is somehow. Just discovering this game and I’m intrigued like I’ve stumbled upon a vast and hidden treasure.
The one of the reasons I say the basis of knowledge is the senses is because at the very least we can know that "things" exist, even if they're only thoughts, because in order to even doubt everything something needs to be doing the doubting. So we have "atoms" (things that exist) and "the void". Still leaves alot of stuff we can never know for sure though. The romantic in me says "beauty is truth and truth beauty. That's all ye knows on earth and ye needs to know" but the rationalist sides like "oh shut up" XD
Yknow the Cogito Ergo Sum of Descartes is actually that which divorces the idea of senses from establishing even the existence of atoms by senses in the western tradition. The in Indian tradition, the challenge came down to the idea of Pramana, or that which establishes first principles, and the Buddhist skeptics were quick to challenge the Brahmans and Vedic scholars who assumed the senses to be Pramana. This is why I rarely like to call philisophy the practice of accepting ignorance. Truth is only established in dialogue and cooperative action, because we never really have a good way to ground Pramana objectively, it's simply too tied to subjective experience. So while I believe in objective truths, the closest we get to it is dialogue and cooperative action that results from dialogue. Socrates always asserted that the only thing he knew was that he knew nothing. And he was happy to talk endlessly about any idea, his own or others, because of it, with no (supposedly) dogmatic committments to them. At least until the hemlock poison put a hard countdown timer on his life.
@@SocraTetris Philosophy as the practice of accepting ignore is an interesting idea. Reminds me of Niet-chan's who "philosophy is rejecting false arguments" thing.
I wouldnt really think of it like that. Niet-chan's version was almost the epitome of biased dogmatism that was quick to reject disagreement. "Rejecting what is wrong" in practice isnt mucj different than "rejecting what I dont already believe beforehand". Embracing ignorance is lovingly welcoming disagreement, benevolently understanding why someone disagrees. and building ideas once agreement is reached.
I honestly dont even think there is such a thing as Niet-chan's philosophy anymore. He is the entry point for so many young bucks, they come to it through his fiction or dont have the tools necessary for evaluating it. So people end up seeing his philosophy as exactly the opposite of what je actually believed. It becomes unproductive to spend time correcting false accounts of his philosophy. For example, the athiest crowd uses Nietszche as the poster child for a vindicating, revolutionary, anti-religous sentiment as being good for humanity. Nietszche actually thought the loss of belief in God was terrible, but inevitable, and described what he thought was a way to establish human meaning in god's absence. But the sentence "God is dead, and we killed him." Is a STRONG rallying cry
Man, i have this on WiiU, and was like "Yea, this looks pretty cool," when i could see a cover pic of Elsa Nova. Then i started playing it, and i swear it, i couldnt stop until i was sadly done. I didn't want this game to ever end. Theres a soft spot in my heart for Metroidvania games.
I did jump into the genre pretty hard after i played this. This is probably still the only one that I've played that is more Metroid. I've been gravitating more to the fantasy setting stories and melee combat games. So Axiom Verge still stands out as a very unqiue experience for me on all fronts
Me during the whole video : "Oh yes certainly. I don't get it but yes I understand"
yo, sometimes i go watch my old videos and i'm glad, "Dude uses way too much jargon. i don't get this shiz anymore."
I know the focus of the video is on the many worlds theory and pan-psychism, and in that respect it's a really great video! I love how thought-provoking this game is!
But I think there's also some more room to explore interesting aspects of the story if you add in a certain amount of distrust in what the rusulki say; they, like Athetos, are acting in their own self interest, and have no reason to be truthful to Trace. Their explanations are likely couched in truth, but meant to portray themselves as the underdogs in need of Trace's help.
I personally am fond of the theory that the Athetos that is the final boss in AV1 is "Plan A", the first Trace clone the rusulki produced, who went rogue thanks to the influince of Katrahaska, and so they produced the second one, "Plan B", utilizing Katrahaska's mind-machines in his creation so they can have better control this time. (see note Plan B)
But even if Athetos isn't a clone, it's definitely true that the Rusulki claim to have fished Trace out of the breach...and then later admit this was a lie. So at least some of what they say is verifiably untrue.
Also, this isn't relevant to the video, but just a quick note; it's pretty clear that the Sudrans didn't build the Rusulki, since the priests note them "appearing in the sky" one day and are so scared they turn on the breach attractor to force them to the ground, and then bury them as dangerous technology. Even the note where the priestesses release the Rusulki has a tone of distrust; they are not seen as gods, but are simply "the devil you know" against Athetos' plague.
These are interesting dynamics of the story for sure. It's just that, with regards to the ontology of the setting and the message of the game, we don’t have much to go on for how far to consider the Rusalki unreliable narrators. I think it is best to accept the known-falsehoods and embrace the general vibes of distrust as tone-dressing. (In this case at least.)
@@SocraTetris I gotta disagree with this take, from my very first playthrough it was apparent that the Rusalki were not to be trusted - they don't even fully trust each other. They aren't irreproachable agents above employing deceit; it's established both in the notes and the story itself. I just finished AV2 and THAT theme, of conflicting interests and deception, continues. to make things fit together you'd probably have to revise that view, or invent something really convoluted
Stellar video. I really appreciate your thoughts and communication style. I watched the whole thing thinking I was watching a channel with like 500k subs.
Aw, that's kind of you! We'll get there, haha
Good video, dude. Just want to say good choice of backing music. Rogue Galaxy's "Star Wars But Also Anime" was fun.
Glad someone could recognize it! Thanks for watching, kncotton!
My brain cannot process what I just heard.
That's not a problem. Try my Ghost in the Shell video, and then come back to this one
@@SocraTetris I think all it is, is that I’m a simple man with a basic brain and this stuff just didn’t process or get retained. I’m dumb is what I’m saying. Lol
You laid a lot of blame at athetos but he doesnt even tell us his whole motivations otherwise the rusalki would kill us. Perhaps his reasons are so clear any trace would succumb to them and agree but for the sake of the trace we play as he doesnt tell us. It felt like Athetos had an "I win" card in his pocket he refused to use. I hope those ideas get some exploration in Axiom Verge 3.
I haven't played Axiom Verge 2, but did trace have any play in that game? Cuz I don't think we can really assume something like that went unstated in AV1. Something I'll have to keep an eye on when I eventually get around to it.
Trace does play a role in AV2, although he is not the primary focus of the story.
I mean, it's literally proven that the rusalki have lied to trace about athetos using the breach attractor, it's not unreasonable to assume they lied about the pathogens...
@@SocraTetris He does not appear in that game but is mentioned in notes and in the ending implies it is (sort off) a prequel to Axiom Verge 1. and a parallel story too due to some weird time passing differently in different parallal world shananigans.
This is a really clear explanation. Good way to review before playing AV2!
Glad you enjoyed it, Mike!
I kinda think the pathogen that Athetos released was an accident, as in AV2 we see people similarly mutated as a result of contact with the breach. It’s possible the pathogen was a result of athetos trying to continue his work with the breach
I havent played AV2, so i can't say. I think i would look mote tk AV1 for clues about something like Athetos's intents
@@SocraTetris I think you should definitely play it and come to your own new conclusions. Your analysis of AV1 here is very well done and helped clarify some things on the ontological schools of thought (I have read about Gödel's Incompleteness theorem long ago, which is one reason why this game captivated me). But I think if you played AV2, you might see some things in AV1's story differently, and I'd love to hear your take on it. Thanks for making this!!
This is such a well made video. The story of this game has way more depth than a lot of people are giving it credit for. Even though I am too stupid to understand the majority of what you are trying to say in this video (well maybe that just complements the story of this game) I nonetheless, thoroughly enjoyed this video.
glad you liked it fedjamagga
this game kicks ass
indeed it does
This IS a very cool game.
A well put together video. Props on your work. I cannot agree with a lot of the things you conclude mostly because of the things you base those conclusions on seem off to me. But I got to say it is a good essay nonetheless.
lol, much appreciated. And just think about the things for awhile i guess. Maybe they'll grow on you. No idea, because this is very vague.
Wait I don't understand how you get from "cogniti8n being a sub-algorithm" to "pan-psychism being real." Pan-psychism is the idea that consciousness might be omnipresent in the universe as a fundamental attribute of matter (meaning the atoms could be slightly conscious). Now, how does it follow (from the 2nd axiom) that, while cognition isn't guaranteed, consciousness is present in all matter?
That's a video I made many years ago, lividusdigitus. You'll just have to review the video and the argument i made within again. I haven't delved into the details of Axiom Verge's world/lore since i finished the video.
If i had to reinterpret what I was saying then, i would say pan-psychism comes into play first from the first axiom. "all algorithms are universal and valid." Coming from the understanding of what a "Universal" is in philosophy. Ontologically extant forms that are perfect and omni-present. The form of consciousness, the "pattern mind," would thus have to be a universal. Later neo-platonists would liken all discussion of Forms/Universals to God, as god is infinite and the perfection of all things. The first axiom maintains that even is cognition/consciousness isn't being expressed, it is still true. to cognition is a universal regardless of whether a pattern mind is current executing that algorithm that represents conscious self-awareness of reality and ability to change the reality.
@@SocraTetris Oh, I see. So, you're interpreting Universal as Omni-Present, whih would make consciousnes omni-present as well..
See, to me the 2nd part of the 1st axiom: "regardless of wether they're executed" suggests a (pseudo-digital) multi-verse in which consciousness, while True in the Grand Scheme of things, is not always present, as it might not be executed locally.
Regardless, interesting video. 👍
glad you enjoyed it! :)
You should really look into the concept of “hyperstition”. AV game is that concept, incarnate
I think there are two levels that we can treat hyperstition with. The first is to see a creative work creating an idea that become important to culture and motivates certain actions and inventions. I find this perspective completely valid, because it is how we as a species have directed ourselves through art and science from thw start.
The second way to treat hyperstition is the mysticism perspective. That the changed idea fundamentally alters the material realitt directly. And this essentially puts us in the same house as the solipsism and other ideas mentioned in the video. Either the change did not occur, in which case we can't empiracally test for a lack of causation. Or the change did occur, in which case there is no motivation to test for a change or object to test, because the new reality and new thought is now perceived as (and always has been) the norm. The mysticism version is non-falsifiable, and also non-verifiable.
I'm curious as to your understanding of hyperstition though!
@@SocraTetris granted I need to study into this more, but this reminded me of the Mandela Effect, that by the time one realises or perceives a Mandela Effect, it’s already in the newly ‘perceived’ reality so it’s difficult to prove, other than a persistent or ingrained memory that suggests other wise. Not sure how this is relevant to this but felt It is somehow. Just discovering this game and I’m intrigued like I’ve stumbled upon a vast and hidden treasure.
The one of the reasons I say the basis of knowledge is the senses is because at the very least we can know that "things" exist, even if they're only thoughts, because in order to even doubt everything something needs to be doing the doubting. So we have "atoms" (things that exist) and "the void". Still leaves alot of stuff we can never know for sure though. The romantic in me says "beauty is truth and truth beauty. That's all ye knows on earth and ye needs to know" but the rationalist sides like "oh shut up" XD
Yknow the Cogito Ergo Sum of Descartes is actually that which divorces the idea of senses from establishing even the existence of atoms by senses in the western tradition.
The in Indian tradition, the challenge came down to the idea of Pramana, or that which establishes first principles, and the Buddhist skeptics were quick to challenge the Brahmans and Vedic scholars who assumed the senses to be Pramana.
This is why I rarely like to call philisophy the practice of accepting ignorance. Truth is only established in dialogue and cooperative action, because we never really have a good way to ground Pramana objectively, it's simply too tied to subjective experience.
So while I believe in objective truths, the closest we get to it is dialogue and cooperative action that results from dialogue. Socrates always asserted that the only thing he knew was that he knew nothing. And he was happy to talk endlessly about any idea, his own or others, because of it, with no (supposedly) dogmatic committments to them. At least until the hemlock poison put a hard countdown timer on his life.
@@SocraTetris Philosophy as the practice of accepting ignore is an interesting idea. Reminds me of Niet-chan's who "philosophy is rejecting false arguments" thing.
I wouldnt really think of it like that. Niet-chan's version was almost the epitome of biased dogmatism that was quick to reject disagreement. "Rejecting what is wrong" in practice isnt mucj different than "rejecting what I dont already believe beforehand".
Embracing ignorance is lovingly welcoming disagreement, benevolently understanding why someone disagrees. and building ideas once agreement is reached.
@@SocraTetris oh no I rarely agree Niet-chan I just find his philosophy interesting XD
I honestly dont even think there is such a thing as Niet-chan's philosophy anymore. He is the entry point for so many young bucks, they come to it through his fiction or dont have the tools necessary for evaluating it. So people end up seeing his philosophy as exactly the opposite of what je actually believed. It becomes unproductive to spend time correcting false accounts of his philosophy.
For example, the athiest crowd uses Nietszche as the poster child for a vindicating, revolutionary, anti-religous sentiment as being good for humanity. Nietszche actually thought the loss of belief in God was terrible, but inevitable, and described what he thought was a way to establish human meaning in god's absence. But the sentence "God is dead, and we killed him." Is a STRONG rallying cry
Yep, what HE said.
?