The Phantom Stranger said:
I thought I read that Elden Ring and Dark Souls were jewish fantasy games which showed an Aryan god being killed(sounds scary, an actual aryan god being killed is super scary to even think about, its like someone defeated Gojo in JJK
) and that Dark Souls contained perverted versions of our gods.
So why would they try to cancel Elden Ring?
They want to cancel Elden Ring and Baldur's Gate 3 because they're complete games at release with tons of content, and lazy software houses nowadays don't want that becoming the new standard. No need to read too much into it.
Other than that, both Elden Ring and Dark Souls don't feel blasphemous to me as they're not really portraying Our Gods as enemies (like Diablo, God of War, Dante's Inferno, etc), for starters, both mythologies in those games work in weird ways, often very much differently than real life, and I find hard to find parallels.
Let's take Lord Gwyn, for example. He just looks like Zeus and he has a lightning "Sun" spear, but other than that, does he really have anything to do with Zeus enough for his portrayal to become blasphemous to Zeus Himself? Also, even if he is the final boss, he's not evil. It's still unclear to me why he's hostile to the player, but as far as I know he didn't have evil intentions.
Don't get me wrong, I said these games aren't blasphemous entirely, but there sure are SOME blasphemous things (although they are minor and tied to secondary optional characters).
In Elden Ring, I think that the portrayal of Rykard, Lord of Blasphemy (pun not intended) and Mohg, Lord of Blood might be mockery of Father Satan (one is a Demigod who fed himself to a gluttonous Serpent God, one simply looks like the "devil"). Although I'm not sure of it, and if that's not the case, Rykard could be an unconscious parallel to what could happen to someone who raises their Kundalini too soon, who gains too much power without enough wisdom.
Elden Ring's past lore was also written by George RR Martin, writer of the books from which Game of Thrones was adapted. Although I've heard they end differently, but I am not positive. Also, I don't know if this is good or bad. I haven't even seen GoT.
Another strange recurring theme in these games is how it seems that the writer (Myiazaki) strongly portrays the pursuit of immortality as something wicked, and that nature is cyclical and nothing should last forever or bad things start to happen, but I don't know if that is really what he wants to say, as there are always beings who indeed are eternal and it's no issue for them (like Dragons in both Elden Ring and Dark Souls, and The Outer Gods of Elden Ring). It almost seems like he's against mortals trying to achieve a higher state and become immortal, and so he creates these wicked rituals like Dragon Communion or the Carp thing from Sekiro. This all sounds very bad but then we have Elden Ring where yes, Dragon Communion exists, but also the main quest to become Elden Lord exists, which has been described as a parallel to the Magnum Opus. And becoming Elden Lord is portrayed as just.
So I can't decide whether he really just doesn't like the idea of a mortal ascending mortality, or if he wants to say that one has to gain wisdom and face certain challenges to achieve it. If it's the second, then it's a very good line of thought, and it's what distinguishes Our Gods from our enemies--Our Gods achieved immortality through righteous evolution, while our enemies through unnatural means.
A man can hope, but I really don't know what he really thinks. I sure hope it's the second way, and when discussing these games and themes with normies, I try to push the second line of thought (immortality is good when you have wisdom).
