SHORT ARTICLES

Is Baldur’s Gate 3 the symbol of the indie game uprising?
Kang Da-yoon
In the last few years, more and more gamers have begun expressing their beliefs that the gaming industry is past its prime, due to the declining quality of releases, rapidly increasing prices, and terrible working conditions, especially from name-brand studios. This year, their frustrations have come to a head with the full release of Baldur’s Gate 3 (BG3) in August 2023. By all means, BG3 has been a resounding success in all aspects, even winning the Game of the Year award; yet this success is exactly why the simmering tension has come to a boiling point. Larian Studios—the developer of BG3—is an indie studio, which means that they do not have a sponsor or larger game publisher that they answer to. This means that although they are less funded than studios, they also have more creative freedom and control over their work. Indie studios like Larian have often been seen as the underdog in the gaming industry especially when compared to AAA studios such as Bethesda or Bioware, which are often subsidiaries of large game publishers like EA and are hence expected to produce higher quality games. However, due to the steady decline of quality from such AAA studios, gamers have begun looking to indie studios for the holy grail, with BG3’s success only adding to the buzz. But are they right to do so, or is there more nuance to this discussion?To determine whether BG3 is the herald of the indie studio uprising, we must first analyze why it was such a success. BG3 has been lauded for its complexity, amazing graphics, interesting combat, and replayability. Its long, intricate plot with multiple outcomes depending on the player’s decisions as well as its deep and dynamic characters are unheard of in video games, at least not to its extent. Larian Studios also actively engages with its community, responding to player feedback and continuing to publish major updates and patches that other game publishers might label as premium DLC (paid downloadable content). They are so responsive, in fact, that they even “re-shaved” a throwaway Sphynx cat in the game after some players complained about it being given fur in the latest update—a level of attention to detail many AAA studios and even other indie studios lack. This is in clear contrast to AAA titles such as Bethesda’s Starfield, which was heavily criticised by players upon release due to its uninteresting, repetitive gameplay and lack of optimisation, or The Sims 4, which continues to pump out expensive DLC packs for features many players argue the game should have included in the first place. So, are indie game studios the ultimate saviour of the gaming industry? Well, no. Larian Studios did not succeed with BG3 because they were an indie studio; rather, they succeeded due to their passion, receptivity to constructive criticism, and respect for their player base. BG3, just like many other games from all sorts of studios, launched with bugs and flaws; what truly set it apart from others, however, was its rapid adaptation to player feedback and lack of predatory monetization. The true lesson to be learned from the success of BG3 is that quality games produced by a passionate team that is open and willing to act on criticism should be the new standard.
The Hamilton fandom and the problem of “Queer-ification”
Kang Da-yoon
Hamilton is one the most successful and popular Broadway musicals of the past decade. From professional critics to teenagers online, Lin-Manuel Miranda’s 2015 hit has impressed many and swept through the cultural landscape like a hurricane. One of its longest-lasting legacies is its obsessive fandom, whose controversies are considered outrageous, even for the generally divisive fandom culture. Yet, although outlandish at first glance, the Hamilton fandom’s deeds are not an altogether unfamiliar crime; in fact, they represent general fandom problems that have persisted and even gotten worse over the years. In particular, they symbolise issues within fandoms for real people such as celebrities, issues that have only increased in relevancy due to the increase in parasocial relationships to various internet influencers. Among the most infamous of the Hamilton fandom’s creative endeavours is the iconic “Miku Binder Thomas Jefferson” (henceforth MBTJ), a stylised drawing of Hamilton’s Thomas Jefferson as a college student. In this rendition, Thomas Jefferson is seen wearing a chest binder adorned with the face of Japanese virtual idol Hatsune Miku. Some of the information listed about him is that he is transgender and bisexual, which is presented alongside a litany of other quirky traits such as being a furry and being “obsessed with anime. ” MBTJ represents the intersection of many problematic aspects of fandom culture, with the main issue being that of the appropriation and stereotyping of queer identities. Reimagining a fictional character as queer can often be helpful to queer fans, as it remedies the lack of representation and relatability in the source material. However, MBTJ makes this problematic for two reasons. First, it stereotypes queer identities by portraying the “trans and bi” Jefferson as quirky, nerdy, and flamboyant, a far cry from the original figure. By associating queerness with such drastic changes in character, the creator implies that that is the only way queerness can manifest. Second is the issue of forcing queer identities upon real, non-queer or potentially closeted people. Though the person in question is dead in this case and therefore cannot react, in other such cases, it has brought much harm to the people the fans claim to idolise. For example, YouTubers Dan Howell and Phil Lester were “shipped” together (i. e. imagined to be in a romantic relationship) by their collective fandom for a long time, which negatively impacted their actual friendship. They have later stated that it also made them hesitant to actually come out, as that may have exacerbated the problem. On a general note, many other influencers and celebrities have also explicitly stated that speculation on their sexualities makes them uncomfortable, especially when it is for shipping purposes, statements which many fans still tend to ignore. Despite there being more awareness of the problematic handling of queer identities by fandoms nowadays, these issues persist as newer and younger fandoms keep rising. MBTJ, though seemingly unparalleled in its wildness, is a symbol of a fairly common ignorance regarding basic boundaries and respect for both queer identities and real people in many fandoms. Fandoms will never stop being created; as such, we must take extra care to educate the uneducated, and learn from the apparent absurdities of past fandoms.
Overworked and underappreciated: the exploitation of animators in Japan
Ki Min-seo
Anime as a storytelling medium has continued to gain popularity in recent times. The mainstream success of titles like Jujutsu Kaisen, Attack on Titan, and Demon Slayer has cemented the art form as a platform capable of portraying larger-than-life characters that are at once interesting and unique. And yet, as industry standards have risen to the point where choreographed action sequences and movie-like production value are the norm, animators have had to confront increasingly harsh working conditions. Preceding the release of Attack on Titan’s final season earlier last year, studio MAPPA (responsible for adapting the hit manga series) became the subject of heated criticism for its alleged overworking of animators. A tweet made by one of its employees, Teruyuki Omine, noting that he had remained at work for three days straight, spurred both sympathy and anger, as renewed attention was brought upon the exploitation of animators in Japan. This has not been the first time that MAPPA, or other well-known animation studios, have faced criticism over such issues. Part of the problem has been the willingness of studios to undertake numerous concurrent projects: large-scale adaptations set to release on a strict schedule, leaving animators worn out and unmotivated. Many have felt that working overtime has become a requirement—a stark consequence of the burgeoning anime industry and its expectations. While the anime industry has expanded to account for increasing demand and profitability, a report released by The New York Times shines further light on issues prevalent behind the scenes. Beyond strenuous working hours, many animators are forced to get by on less than sustainable wages, which at times can drop to $200 a month—far lower than the average pay in other countries such as the US, where animators are able to earn upwards of $65,000 per year. The anime industry’s lack of commensurate pay has been a practice reinforced by the perception that animators are expendable. So long as freelancers continue to enter the job market, large studios are able to divert their costs to maximize profit. But how long can the anime industry flourish while disregarding the needs of its core workforce? As Jun Sugawara, an advocate for the proper treatment of animators in Japan, states, new talent is likely to grow increasingly scarce as individuals turn to jobs outside of the industry in search of better working conditions. It is important to acknowledge that, in more ways than one, the success that the anime industry has enjoyed has come at the cost of animators’ livelihood and well-being. And although long working hours and tight deadlines have allowed for the frequent release of successful shows, there is a need for animation studios to dial back their expectations. Animators should be given leeway to work at a comfortable pace, rather than feel burdened to churn out results. For their own sake, as much as that of the animators, studios should strive to create an environment wherein employees feel happy and satisfied about the work they are producing—an environment that is both welcoming and conducive to long-term creativity, that allows animators to create their best work possible. If anime is to continue thriving as a medium while upholding current industry standards, we must ensure that those responsible for its production—the animators—see a future for themselves in the profession.
The obsession with MBTI
Lee Jae-seo
The topic of MBTI has now become an inevitable part of our daily conversations. It has become so prevalent that people ask for your MBTI the second after your name. From casual meet-ups to formal interviews, it seems as though this topic has fully seeped into society. While this trend may have not been identified yet in other countries, South Korea has been showing unprecedented attention to this specific idea of MBTI. MBTI stands for “Myers-Briggs Type Indicator”, a self-assessed test to determine one’s personality—or categorize oneself into one of 16 groups. As the test taker goes through a list of questions, they are classified into either option for a total of four categories. The first one determines extroversion (E) and introversion (I). The second is sensing (S) and intuition (N), then thinking (T) and feeling (F), and, lastly, judging (J) and perceiving (P). The combination of these eight letters into a four-letter “MBTI”, according to many, determines who you are. So, why are South Koreans so obsessed with this test, and why do they have an incessant desire to categorize their personality? The craving for a sense of belonging and affinity to a particular group is innate in human beings. As a result, such intriguing tests provide a chance for people to sympathize with and relate to those that are similar to them. While the surge in the popularity of MBTI is a recent phenomenon, these trends of categorizing people and making generalizations regarding a particular group have always existed. A famous example is the belief that blood types play a role in shaping one’s personality. Just a decade back, every South Korean was asking for each other’s blood types. If you have type O blood, then you act this way. If you have type A blood, you act that way. All these assumptions made about the relationship between personality and blood type have not been scientifically proven. Rather, science has repeatedly proven the opposite: there is simply no correlation between the two. While most people discussed blood types for fun, some took it to an extreme, religiously believing in false assumptions and enforcing generalizations onto other people. This phenomenon can also be identified in our contemporary society with MBTI. Of course, many use this test to know more about themselves. However, some force a vague characteristic of a specific MBTI onto others, even if they might not align with the descriptions at all. This is the point where the obsession with MBTI can get rather toxic and absurd. Not every tendency attributed to an MBTI type will apply to someone with that MBTI, and if this fact is not accepted, misunderstandings may arise. Furthermore, the MBTI test has become more accessible than ever: with a click of a button, anyone can take it. Nevertheless, it is important to note that this test is not professionally supervised, and in fact, is unreliable as it is only a self-assessment. The MBTI phenomenon has escalated to a point where people view this as a social obsession, as some companies are even asking for MBTIs during job interviews. This means important decisions, such as job placements, may be made solely based on one’s MBTI. This then leads to questions: Is there a chance that the concept of MBTI, which seems so innocuous, can have legitimate harmful social consequences or is it simply a mere fad that is an inevitable result of people’s desire for categorization?
The SNU Quill hosts talks with leaders of S. Korea’s journalism scene
Jung Hyun-kyung
As with any university publication, The SNU Quill perennially ponders the question of branding. What does it mean to exist as a university publication in an increasingly turbulent media landscape where both old and new forms of journalism struggle to maintain survival? With such questions in mind, the editorial staff unanimously voted for “The Boiling Point” as this edition’s theme. After all, we live in a world that is heavily politicized–to exist is to be a political entity. To open up a dialogue about these anxieties, The SNU Quill hosted two workshops for its 80th Edition members. The first workshop was hosted by Choe Sang-hun, the Seoul Bureau Chief at The New York Times and a renowned Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, who won the award for his investigative reporting on the No Gun Ri massacre. This workshop was hosted in Jongno district, central Seoul, at 7 P. M. on 3 May, 2023, and largely operated as an open conversation between the Bureau Chief and the The SNU Quill journalists. In this workshop, The SNU Quill reporters were given a chance to ask Choe pertinent questions with respect to current media trends and the politicized media landscape. He obliged the numerous questions with detailed answers addressing the bureaucratic regulations of media landscapes, occupational stress, the subjection to scrutiny journalists face, the erasure of press freedom and many other topical concerns. In his closing remarks, Choe recommended the book The Universal Journalist by David Randall for novice journalists; The SNU Quill extends this recommendation to our readers. The second workshop was hosted by Cho Chung-un, Editor at the National Desk of The Korea Herald. This workshop was hosted on campus at 5 P. M. 17 Nov. 2023. During the event, Cho offered insights into the inner workings of The Korea Herald and the importance of staying motivated and incentivized as journalists. According to Cho, the most gratifying aspect of journalism is the ability to experience firsthand what others cannot. Cho divulged how the greatest motivating factor for her was her ability to intimately connect with the pressing issues facing Korean society through direct field reporting. Most importantly, Cho imparted a crucial piece of wisdom to The SNU Quill—the importance of focusing on giving our readers unique insights as SNU students.
The SNU Quill hosts first on-campus event
Lee Da-eun
On a brisk morning on 7 Nov, 2023, members of The SNU Quill gathered at Jahayeon, marking the first on-campus event of the semester. A large group, representing the diverse facets of the club—writers, editors, photographers, designers, and adept event planners—eagerly volunteered to help SNU students learn more about Quill. The event unfolded across three distinct zones, each designed to capture the attention of passersby. The first zone encouraged students to follow The SNU Quill on Instagram by offering snacks. Those who agreed to share event photos on their social media were treated to a Polaroid snapshot with a picturesque view of Jahayeon in the background. Friends and lovers readily came together to smile for the camera, adding a personal touch to the event. Transitioning into the second zone, participants engaged in a lighthearted challenge: silently counting to 35 in their minds. The top two individuals who counted closest to the actual 35-second mark were later sent coupons for fried chicken, and one lucky person was drawn at random for a free cafe drink. The choice of 35 seconds symbolized 35 degrees Celsius, the hottest temperature of the past summer, representing the theme of this edition— boiling point. The third zone marked a collaborative effort between The SNU Quill and COZA, a company that sells slumber-inducing drinks developed by researchers at Seoul National University. Participants were encouraged to follow COZA’s social media account and upload reviews on their own social media to receive complimentary sleep drinks. This zone was key to promoting COZA products as well as ensuring participants were aware of the role of The SNU Quill on campus. As the sun gradually warmed the chilly fall morning,The SNU Quill's on-campus initiative served as a testament to the club's commitment to fostering engagement within the university community. In hindsight, while the months of planning and setup did present some challenges, the campus event was ultimately successful in helping a good number of SNU students learn about The SNU Quill. All in all, the blend of creative activities, strategic partnerships, and the genuine enthusiasm of all those involved created a vibrant tapestry of core memories.
Climate Justice March: chant to fight the crisis
Lee Jae-seo
The world is burning. Climate change is now an indisputable fact which has been supported by countless scientific experiments and research. This global crisis has various implications such as food insecurity, rising sea levels, and extreme weather conditions. More and more people are becoming victims of this catastrophe. While South Korea is not a country known for its strides in combating this, there have been recent cases where Korean citizens have raised their voices to demand change and policies on mitigating climate change. The “Climate Justice March” is where these voices shined through. The first official march against climate change in Korea took place on 21 Sept. 2019, and was named “Climate Crisis Emergency Action. ” Then, followed the “9. 24 Climate Justice March. ” A year later on 23 Sept. 2023, the most recent march called 9. 23 Climate Justice March'' was held at Seoul Metro’s City Hall station. It involved event booths, an open mic where people could share their climate change-related experiences, and the march itself. I learned about this event through social media and decided to participate. Before entering the event, I had no expectations of what the march was going to be like. I simply thought that this would be a general outcall to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and to mitigate further environmental destruction. But mere minutes into the march, I noticed that there were many diverse groups, each with a distinct vision. The labor union fought for the improvement of deadly working conditions in the extreme heat. The disabled community expressed their frustrations about their difficulties in evacuating during floods and demanded proper adaptation strategies. There were even families that participated together to preserve a future for their children. Elementary school children and teenagers were also spotted fighting for their future. While the demands of each individual differed, they marched together as one. This was a beautiful yet disheartening scene, since the underlying reason behind this apparent unification was climate change’s widespread effects. During the march, I observed a group of elementary schoolers walking and leading chants such as “inequality is a disaster, equality is needed to live together!” and “stop nuclear power and switch to renewables!” These were some of the many chants written on pamphlets that were handed out before the march. These children went as far as to passionately chant for the impeachment of South Korean president Yoon Suk Yeol, which came across as a shock. The people surrounding these children were also surprised at their enthusiasm and followed the chants that they led. I heard an elderly person say to them that they would become bright leaders who would bring significant change to Korea’s future. Seeing these children, who were young but unafraid to voice their opinions, gave me hope for South Korea’s fight against climate change. I also gained motivation to learn from them and to fight to my fullest. Some may question the effectiveness of these marches and whether or not they create real change in policy-making. However, the 30,000 participants did not go unnoticed by the media. Even after the event, there were a myriad of social media posts and articles used to inform even more people of this event. The physical and online voices of citizens combined undoubtedly had social influence—further pressuring authorities to implement change. While there’s still more to be accomplished, the Climate Justice March set a promising stage for leaders to fight against climate change in South Korea.
Psychobabble: Gaslighting and the Significance of Pop Psychology
Kang Da-yoon
“You know that’s gaslighting, right?” Originating from a 1944 film of similar name, the term “gaslighting” has become a widespread popular (pop) psychology phenomenon in recent years. Even becoming Merriam-Webster’s “word of the year” in 2022, the word has seamlessly integrated itself into our common vernacular across many cultures and languages, and it is here to stay. However, should we so easily accept such a loaded term into our daily discussions? According to the American Psychological Association (APA), “gaslighting” refers to psychological manipulation that intends to convince another person into doubting their own experiences and beliefs. The APA considers the term a colloquialism only occasionally used in clinical literature, but the serious meaning it holds remains the same regardless. Yet, in pop psychology and daily life, the word often merely refers to much simpler acts of deception or even just disagreements in general. If someone is lying, that is “gaslighting. ” If someone brings up a counterpoint to your argument, that is also “gaslighting. ” There is no doubt that the popularisation of the term is what has caused these outrageous misuses; like a bad game of ‘telephone,’ each loose usage of the word results in an even looser usage. These instances are easily found on social media or even in casual conversations with friends and are so easily encountered that many people who come across the word for the first time may be observing an instance of wrong usage. There are significant consequences to widespread misinformation about gaslighting. Although someone might not know the specific definition of the term, they are most likely aware of its serious implications. This leads to anyone being able to levy false accusations of manipulation (“gaslighting”), and many believing such serious accusations due to their faulty understanding of the term. Moreover, such accusations often lead nowhere, especially when false, as it puts the opponent in a defensive position and potentially eliminates the chances of having any productive conversations about the argument or behaviour at hand. On the other hand, throwing around accusations of gaslighting can cause the accusation itself to lose meaning; if one is called out for “gaslighting” over every little disagreement, one is bound to begin to take the word less seriously, eventually becoming so used to it that it no longer holds any water. With such consequences, it is no wonder that some think the term should have never been popularised. Yet, the fact remains that “gaslighting” has entered the mainstream, and it is here to stay. In fact, I believe that in this case, the benefits outweigh the costs. Despite the word being overused, it is ultimately a good thing that it has become more easily accessible. The popularisation of the term has allowed many people to identify the emotional manipulation they have fallen victim to, and consequently has freed many from its grasp or helped them take the first steps towards escaping abuse. Moreover, knowledge of the concept implants a necessary wariness in us that increases the chances of recognising and avoiding being gaslit. That being said, we must work to correct misuses of “gaslighting” and ensure that it is not thrown around lightly. Only then can we stand assured that the popularisation of the word retains these positive effects.
The Controversy of Free Speech on College Campuses
Ki Min-seo
Freedom of speech in itself is not a rarefied concept. Yet, recently, people have struggled to determine what constitutes free speech at all. Between Donald Trump’s incendiary post-election remarks, which incited thousands to storm Capitol Hill, and Elon Musk’s divisive decision to reinstate banned accounts on Twitter, many have expressed strong opinions about what others should and shouldn’t be allowed to say. Now, free speech has re-emerged as an issue that takes center stage on college campuses around the United States. It might seem natural to many that college campuses—spaces meant for debate, education, and the exchange of ideas—are the natural battleground for free speech issues. Indeed, one of America’s most well-known social movements, the Free Speech Movement, took place on UC Berkeley’s campus in the 60s. Fighting then for their rights to freedom of political and religious activity, students were emboldened to organize demonstrations that led to the eventual dissolution of restrictions on free speech. But amidst a growing political divide, issues today that are part of the free speech debate have been subject to exceeding partisanship and hostility. The University of Chicago has long since been regarded as a stalwart patron of free speech. Its famous Chicago Statement, drafted in 2014, cemented the institution's “[commitment] to free and open inquiry in all matters. ” Tensions to do with free speech escalated in June, however, when a lecturer faced backlash for their seminar titled “The Problem of Whiteness. ” Dr. Rebecca Journey received online harassment and hate mail after Daniel Schmidt, a student enrolled in her anthropology seminar, tweeted, “Anti-white hatred is now mainstream academic inquiry. ” Mr. Schmidt’s actions, though censured by faculty on campus, were not met with formal repercussions from the university. Increasingly, universities have struggled to define the boundaries of free speech. And while the University of Chicago lent its full support to Dr. Journey and her seminar (which eventually began a quarter-semester late), there’s also something to be said about the institution’s refusal to reprimand Mr. Schmidt. Free speech, by nature, opens up conversations on important issues to polarizing perspectives—perspectives that are valuable, insofar as they promote further discussion and understanding between different factions. Although Mr. Schmidt may not have spoken out of malice, the harmful effects of his comments nearly prevented Dr. Journey from commencing her seminar. What we must understand about free speech is its purpose: to create a space for constructive discourse, where every person feels acknowledged and heard regardless of their political standing. When free speech starts to border on persecution and the censorship of others, it betrays this very principle. Granted, how a university chooses to regulate free speech is within its own right; but the promulgation of universities’ decisions will affect whether free speech is preserved on college campuses for years to come.
Obituary: ‘Live on the right path, and that path will always win’
The SNU Quill Editorial Team
In memory of the late Chairman Lee Jong-hwan. The SNU Quill relays its deepest condolences to the grieving family of late Chairman Lee Jong-hwan, founder of Samyeong Chemicals, the Kwanjeong Lee Jong-hwan Education Foundation, and Seoul National University’s Kwanjeong library. Chairman Lee Jong-hwan passed away at Seoul National University hospital last September at the age of 94. The late Lee founded the Kwanjeong Lee Jong-hwan Education Foundation in 2000 and has since provided over 270 billion won ($ 201 million) in scholarship for students throughout South Korea. He lived by the motto “Though I cannot be an angel in making money, I will strive to become one in spending it. ”Lee donated 60 billion won in 2014 to construct Seoul National University’s Kwanjeong Library. The library, now a landmark of SNU, is eight stories tall and equipped with the latest education technology. Lee was recognized for his altruism and was awarded the highest honor by the South Korean government. “I enrolled in 2018, and spent most of my time during each exam week at the Kwanjeong Library. It is very sad to hear that such an altruistic person has passed away, and I am forever thankful that he had helped us study in such a good environment,” said a SNU senior surnamed Lee. According to local news reports, Lee’s last words were “live on the right path, and that path will always win. Learn to forgive each other. I am sad to leave without seeing one of my students win the Nobel Prize. ” A memorial hall was set up in the Kwangjeong library in September 2023.