printi :>

tag for my unhinged ramblings is #printi screams into the void, and tag for answering asks is #the void screams at me

also please feel free to ask me stuff, i love yapping

also also drawing requests always open. i may or may not do them but i never have ideas of what to draw. if you want to see me draw something you may ask and you might receive

the triple affirmative criteria make me so mad and always have. like.

-affirmative that a solution is possible. ok. makes sense. no problems there

-affirmative that the solution is portable. now. we can take the word portable to mean one of two things. either literally "can be moved" which is?? kind of a dumb thing to have as a requirement? like i know void fluid baths were a thing and the ancients are self important assholes and it is in character for them to not want to bother taking a pilgrimage but like come on. its not that deep. we can solve that issue later. are you seriously gonna rule out a method of ascension just because it cant be delivered to your front door. OR we take it to mean "can be ported to anything", like, "can be used on anything" which DOES make a lot more sense as a very important requirement to have. BUT THEN THERE IS

- affirmative that a technical implementation is possible and generally applicable. first of all that is TWO criteria in one line. i have no issue with the first part, yes it is indeed very important that a theoretical solution doesnt require conditions beyond the current technological capabilities of the iterators. but. if we go with the second interpretation of "portable" then portable and generally applicable mean the same thing?? so then i am forced to use the first definition of portable, that it can be moved, and like thats. stupid

why are they phrased like this. seriously. it makes me mad. you actually have FOUR conditions (solution exists, it can be moved, it is technically possible, it can be used for anyone/anything) but one is really stupid and boring and then the last two more interesting ones are crammed into the last line. whyyyyy

tw: printi hating on the watcher (while glazing downpour at the same time) again

so. as i have said i am finally writing my funny little essay about my interpretation of rain world + downpour and for this i had to go reread some of the pearl dialogue (and opening the wiki is marginally easier than opening the actual game (i am writing it on my phone like a loser)) and i so i open the pearl dialogue page on the wiki and i see theyve added the pearl dialogue for the watcher.

so i go you know what. why not. lets finally go read the watcher pearl dialogue. maybe they did add something that might be of interest to me after all.

what. do you MEAN. the way you read pearls in the watcher is you have a machine read them to you

ok moon and pebbles are also machines reading them to you, let me rephrase. what do you mean you have a machine with no name and no other function (and also a seemingly mechanical machine which already pisses me off, the rain world ancients did everything with bioengineering that was a very interesting thing about them) just show you exactly what is written on the pearl and that is it. what do you MEAN.

the watcher just continues to have absolutely no understanding of what made rain world and downpour great huh?

ok. ok yes seeing the actual images written on pearls is on the surface a cool idea.

but there is SO MUCH MORE that CAN be done and that IS done in basegame and downpour with the way pearls are read to you there!!

sure the pearls tell us about the world and its history but the pearl dialogue is also!! such important characterisation!! for moon and pebbles!!!

because moon and pebbles arent just machines they are people and they have thoughts and they dont just show you whats written on the pearls, they read you what they consider important or what they think youd understand and describe and explain the content of the pearls to you and sometimes also tell you their own feelings and opinions about what that pearl is! and that is so interesting!!

moon reads you the garbage wastes pearl and from the pearl you find out the fact about the world that pebbles in his youth (as presumably all iterators do) was thinking of a method for global ascension, and from moons reading, her comments on the sides, you find out that she cares for pebbles, (she calls his idea "quite good" despite the fact that she knows many people would disagree) that she is concerned for him (she gets sidetracked telling you whatever she knows/remembers about his illness), and that moon takes an interest in the various creatures shes met and observed since her collapse (she warns you about garbage wastes and tells you about the scavengers). she also comments about how the place where you found this is pebbles' waste department and about how he tried to scramble the data, which also tells you a bit about him, moon says the idea is good but pebbles has thrown it out and tried to make it so it cant be read, he thinks its a terrible idea (he doesnt have a lot of confidence in himself) and is frustrated with his work (because either, again, he doesnt have confidence in himself and thinks all his ideas are dead ends, or some other reason, like maybe he doesnt really see the point in it). THERE IS SO MUCH YOU GET ABOUT THE CHARACTERS THAT IS ONLY VAGUELY RELATED TO THE ACTUAL CONTENTS OF THE PEARL

downpour doubles down on this by giving pebbles his own readings of the same pearls. you get the same thing for him as basegame does for moon, what he chooses to tell you of each pearl and what he chooses to add is great characterisation. but now you also get to compare what each of them chooses to tell you, you get further characterisation for both of them through the ways in which theyre different.

the wall pearl, for example. moon straight up reads you the part about how the iterators citizens have the obligation to- basically to be nice to them- and then basically sighs and says she never really liked them but had to put up with them and respect them (and she still tries to respect them to this day). pebbles only reads you a small part which he calls "amusing", he tells you exactly why these people were mad at him and says he didnt take them seriously and found them maybe mildly entertaining. moon doesnt tell you they called pebbles an abomination or explain the context at all because she loves pebbles and she knows those people were wrong and she doesnt want to remeber that or for you to know about it (she basically sighs and goes yeah thats how they were, there was nothing we could do about it). pebbles does tell you this (he also notes that he doesnt have it archived and it was transported by hand, so basically that they intentionally hid this from him) not because he genuinely finds it amusing but because it is on his mind, he is deeply aware what these people thought of him and as hard as he tries to not let it bother him and to say it doesnt matter anymore, it is on his mind (especially at the point in time artificers campaign is set. he is trying so hard to not fall into considering himself a failure and a terrible person because that wont help him fix the situation hes caused, and remembering that his parents always thought that of him is not helping). and not only do you get to see what their thoughts on their creators are, but this pearl also makes both of them very uncomfortable, and the way they deal with that is. basically the same, trying to not have any feelings about it and move on, except moon is much better at actually doing that

so why. why are the watcher pearls read by an impartial unthinking machine. you are losing 70% of what made the pearl dialogue interesting.

i genuinely thought (when i was told they added pearls to the watcher) that they would either have the echo or the rot prince read them to you (or both! both is good!). we know ancients could read and write on them as easily as iterators (some of the white pearls are like, a childs drawing or a shopping list, stuff youd have to easily be able to access without some fancy machine), and seeing an ancients perspective on some pearls could be interesting! weve seen the iterators read them to us, they are made to answer questions so its natural for them to try to explain what it is, and most pearls are in some way relating to ancient history and culture which the iterators are not necesarrily all that interested in. it could be cool to see an ancient child talk about what a certain pearl reminds them of and to see a perspective from actually inside that culture. alternatively, the rot princes readings could have maybe given some hints about what he actually is, again seeing his perspective on. anything. at all. what is that guy seriously

on a less serious and much shorter note i am also mad that most of the watcher pearls are text written by ancients but it doesnt have their style of capitalisation. the difference in energy between "I therefor ask you to Do Anything in your Might to stop the House (We both know which House) from Further Obstruction!" and "The dimming pallor of our star does concern, yes, and some sollution must be found." the difference between the ways you read those in your head!!! the utter lack of character!!!! these are not my pompous self important ancients who ruined the entire world for their own comfort!! like yeah the echo monologues dont have the weird capitalisation, they Did Not speak like That, but all their writings in basegame and downpour do! both of the pearls i qouted here are some sort of official request from one individual with political power to another regarding the ethical and practical implications of a decision theyre about to make but the difference in character between them!!!