An Online Article:

About Divine Mortality’s Context in the ‘Real-World’, From the Perspective of Someone in an Alternate Reality without Divine Mortality…

Written by: Erika “Yorginasia”

Outside the video game ‘Divine Mortality’, which was developed in the early 21st century, the real world here is a little different from the Earth you, the reader, are familiar with.

The “real world” which saw the creation, release, and gameplay of Divine Mortality is a place that is stuck in between the 1990s and the future of the 2020s and beyond. The societies of earth here may appear ‘stuck’ in time from our perspective in what we understand is the 2000s, however, there are real scenarios and causes which have led this world into such a state, a reality which is still not far from our own world’s possibilities. Afterall, the planet earth, has remained basically the same for centuries for us humans.

Many governments and various international organizations cooperated with each other at the turn of the century in an effort to regulate the world, by regulating and not regulating the internet. In support of keeping their ongoing plans, legitimacy, and authority afloat, world powers made sure to keep the autonomy of the internet (as if it were an open steppe) free for individuals and the world-wide web. They researched the possibilities of the foreseeable future, especially the effects the internet could have on their societies. So, they made sure to keep the internet free because they understood it was pointless to try to actually regulate the internet. Of course, not all governments and groups followed suite, instead some have enforced firewalls to create their own national spaces in a digital world. Yet, those that did follow the new global order chose to do it for three main reasons. First, as a precaution against the internet influencing the physical world because the physical world is where true power lies. Second, if business companies and individuals seek to fight against governments or other organizations using the internet then it is better to just not bother interfering virtually. Finally, the third reason, various special interest groups and supporters of this international campaign led by the governments saw it as a necessity to keep the internet lax and unrestrained. But this would lead to dangerous profiteering on a mass scale and other harmful things in the background, this inevitable contradiction gave way to a logical solution which also allowed governments to create border control between the real world and the virtual world. With acceptance, unsure whether it was a good thing or a bad thing, most of the people who were aware of these decisions made by the leaders of the international community saw major regional governments create an extensive list of laws which gave them control if a group, company, studio, or even a corporation attempted to utilize the internet for their full potential. The concept for profit maximization using social media, whether in a pervasive way or not, was difficult to lift off the ground for those who weren’t merely individuals, hobbyists, website communities, or anything created purely from within the internet could not easy do whatever they wanted because they understood that the outside authorities were in constant control breathing down their necks. So, since the internet as remained "small" for communities to meet each other but "vast" as it yet has to be explored due to a lack of uniformity, does that mean the actions of the governments worked? And, are the governments truly not interfering with the internet or is this merely an illusion? What about the internet providers, are those companies uninvolved?

Either way, after the start of the 21st century, the internet remained more or less a world of its own, but at the expense of some innovations. That is not to say that technological advances stopped progressing or caught on like they did in our world, but they were simply of a different style because society did not follow the same trajectory. Due to the decisions and beliefs of governments, some organizations, and various interest groups, the early 21st century saw a gradual new period of neo-humanistic culture spawn in major countries around the world, overlapping with the ever-ongoing digital revolution. This neo-humanistic culture in a digital and post-cold war era challenged the ‘what would’ve been’ the natural domination of neocolonialism and fanatically open-market capitalism. Ever since the industrial revolution and throughout the 20th century, there was a proven healthy relationship of information and resource exchange between technological advancements, neocolonialism, and open-market capitalism. These things did not and have not ever gone away, but for various reasons with the support of some governments and organizations, they have been challenged in this neo-humanistic era. Causing new opportunities to exist in places in which people, especially those disadvantaged, would have been led towards linear paths if they wanted to live better by rising higher in society or nurture something which would've served little purpose for profits and thus deeming that activity pointless and not worth funding (basically minor cultural or scientific projects). This would've been a continuation of the healthy yet vicious cycle of resource extraction, manufacturing, service, and research advances that capitalism benefited from. But, in this world the modern age altered causing stagnation in sectors which did not expect stagnation and growth in sectors which were not expecting growth.

Most ironic of all, even some of those top-dogs inside of the governments and corporations that benefited the most from neocolonialism were also the ones who supported the unified international front which sought the ceasing of rapid technogrowth and the macro scaled globalized market which fueled technogrowth... and their pockets. Initially, it appears very counterintuitive for them, those who benefited from the extremely capitalistic institutions, to go against each other. But perhaps, they sought to safely secure their positions while already on the top by keeping the world as it already was. Especially in prevention against the technologically wise young innovators and entrepreneurs from growing too massively from their products, and then challenging the establishment by aiming for their pots of wealth. Nevertheless, at the very least it is understood that those rich supporters of neo-humanistic ideals also supported the trajectory of “micro scale globalization”, in which the globalized world is split up into regional holdings and nodes before being all directly united in a single uniform market.

Interestingly enough, even without the ravagings of neocolonialism and the greedy effects of proper neoliberalism, micro scaled globalization did not help the lesser countries progress beyond from being weak. They remained weak and still poor (but in a different way) because micro scaled globalization brought all countries directly into the same playing field. Which is also where the powerful nations of the world are at, allowing them to benefit from the scenario regardless. Because, in a sense, having all the nations equally sitting on a well defined playing field had automatically created very clear hierarchical differences between each country. Rankings which influenced everyone's perception of one another. This 'new' hierarchy did not go unnoticed by those inside the lesser countries. And whether micro scale globalization is a actually good thing or a bad thing was barely considered. Because on paper, the initial reactions of most people that were aware of this scenario focused their attentions instead on the regime changes in their countries. Previously, globalized elites, native neocolonial affiliates, and corrupt minded populists were generally in control, in both rich and poor countries. But nowadays, there is a different set of individuals who are running the country. There are wannabe dictators using populism for self-power rather than mere profit, an increase of technocrats, democratic traditionalists, and cultural preservationists. Aside from the technocrats, these new types of people in who are running their governments are the types of people that are not as easily swayed by foreign "donations" or other offerings made by macro scaled globalist elites. But on the other hand, they are also the type of people who end up willingly or unwillingly slowing down the progress of technological efficiency and reliance, as well as the adoption of foreign mentalities, and other influences into their societies. And while most of the lesser countries by the 2000s saw their societies begin to adopt and utilize inventions such as the cellphone en masse, this process carefully slowed down to fully complete the process one step at a time. Micro scaled globalization also saw the improvements of bottom-up innovations (but those barely ever reach the funding they deserve), improved quality of material goods, wider healthcare, and culturally rich education. However, there are downsides to this harmony. What benefited the power nations is that they did not face this downside, the downside of a society-wide mentality of something like "don't always try to buy the new best thing, be content with what you have". This is because people in lesser societies quickly became content after having quickly adopted many improvements on mass scale rapidly because their governments instituted a focused hybridization between their cultures and traditions with the technological advances and international ideas of the 21st century. Basically, the quality of life for the majority of the populations greatly improved. They began to receive good quality goods and resources in a fairer manner. But, the content mentalities and style of the societies in the lesser countries is not always good for business. Before in macro scaled globalization, the market was larger and fully open interconnected with the rest of the planet but the resource extract from the lesser countries was a lot more pervasive. This meant that only a small amount of individuals, usually a certain group in society, was able to access and purchase all sorts of goods and resources from the market while the majority of the population couldn't. The difference now is that with micro scale globalization, the majority is able to access the market in a fairer way but the availability of special products and resources is far smaller. This also meant that with neocolonial commerce and transactions between multinational corporations which dominated (and they still do, but at a lesser degree), it allowed for the corrupt individuals within many governments to help facilitate not just new ideas but also new devices into a place which usually wouldn't receive them so easily. Those native corrupt populists or aristocrats still exist, but due to the initiatives of the new global order, their roles in their country's affairs are minimized including their discounted purchasing power they once received from neocolonial dealers. "Good stagnation" now continues, but for how long? Perhaps a chaotic market and world order for faster progression is a preferable alternative?

When the year 2012 was approaching some groups of people, often dubbed as either crazy or ‘stupidly religious’, believed that the world was going to come to an end. Yet, as the year 2012 approached closer less people, including those groups, were crazy about the whole ordeal. They no longer worried about the end of the world because its occurrence seemed more and more preposterous to those that believed in it. The reason behind this is because just as when the future appeared darker and darker because of all the conflicts during the 1990s and the disasters during the 2000s, in actuality most people felt positive about their futures. The world seemed a bit more harmonious than expected. So the amount of people who were insane with the prediction eventually did truly listen and believe the words of the scientists and other experts like historians who were already sober with the fact that no such thing could occur. Even with the former stagnation and lack of funding, culture and social development began to soar in prosperity in the early 21st century around most of the world.

But the developments of new inventions and innovations of new technologies followed a less diverse pattern. There was simply too much focus on certain products and ideas versus others. The earlier agreements and research initiatives by governments and other organizations in their international scaled cooperation, some would say, hindered technological progress. Because what people hoped for in the fields of science, engineering, and other technologies was a lot less diverse than what was hoped for. That is not to say that the rate of new inventions truly stagnated. Nor did the pace of new innovations slow down very much from the expected projected amount if the future kept allowing the gluttonous free ranging capitalism to help feed top market companies that dealt with electronics, digital wares, software’s, and all sorts of other technologies. Instead, the difference between our world and this ‘stuck in the 2000s’ world is simply a difference of style, aesthetic, availability, and the imaginations of the mind. In this world, the attention of certain technologies rises higher than others. Such as the computer. While the world order’s economy is still a free market, you would think that without the availability of higher rates of resources and materials necessary to build and innovate computers then their complexities and advancements would be far less than our own? Well, because this world’s governments are composed of people slightly different from ours, their goals and interests are slightly different from our own. Each year, the list of their extensive international agreements in cooperating with each other to secure and regulate things like the internet, while dominating fully in the physical world, grows ever larger. Among the many processes that go on behind the scenes, the availability of resources and computer parts remain in more or less streamlined succinct supply.

This world in which design and ideas for invention, innovation, and art differ slightly from OUR own still creates profoundly great effects. The advancement of the computer in this world is relatively equal to what we are familiar with, but in some ways, it is more advanced and some ways it is less advanced. This applies to all sorts of things. Including, the mental attitude of their societies. With the background support of governments and organizations, many people in most parts of the world were able to purchase their own personal computers earlier on at a fair price, and most importantly, on mass. Computer culture became the normal in most of the world, but yet, this does not mean the rest of the world is “advanced” in other aspects of life. Such as instant telecommunication on the spot, since cellphones remain common post 2010 while smartphones have taken a far slower pace in gaining popularity. Many societies, especially in lesser countries, weren’t pressured into adopting technological advances, even if those technological advances would clearly speed up efficiency in things, like once again, telecommunication. The main reason behind this is due to the mentality of the majority of people within those societies, the mentality of “if it’s not broken, don’t fix it”. But that mentality is able to sustain itself because the actions of the world order was able to provide large portions of populations around the world with their needs and also their demands. Multiple generations grow up with and get accustomed with this comfort. This comfort also decreases diversity and interest to new subjects, making those people uncomfortable with something that's not 'traditionally computer'. However, because of a slightly ‘conservative’ mentality in these populations, those same populations still experience an ongoing (slowly boiling) friction between two types of people within their population. Those who gladly adapt to new technologies and are thrifty with them, versus those who adapt within a comfortable range of hybridizing technology with what they already know, while still not habitually using them. It took a little bit longer for gamers to become less ostracized for their lifestyles because “unless your profession requires the constant usage of computers then it’s no good for you to stare at the screen for this long!”, sort of deal that society nags on others. In general, the elderly remains accustomed to older technologies and have been barely influenced by the newer ones. And for kids, it remains uncommon for them to interact with the internet a lot each day, but a good number of them possess their own cellphones with simple abilities in them. Abilities such as capturing decent photos or videos, playing small-sized arcade games downloaded unto their phone from a mobile net store, and some other types thing activities with most importantly, the function of calling and texting. But the cellphones lack the variety of applications that we are now used to on smartphones, thus the need for kids or adults to use their phones frequently is not prominent among most people.

But back to Divine Mortality,

This was all written to provide context into the “real world” outside of Divine Mortality. Almost everything about that world resembles our own, except for specific differences such as the lack of smartphones or prevalence of modern social media, a world like that is a lot closer to a real possibility in our future than you might expect. Including the creation of Divine Mortality.

The focus of dreaming about what could be done inside of a video game shouldn’t ever be restrained.

“What is something unique we could develop? What new route can we take, different from we’re at now?”

or

“In the year 2004 we believed wouldn’t this ____ be super cool in the future?”

I write this in hopes that Divine Mortality or something like it, a dream MMORPG while not perfect, could be taken on by those of you who are willing to develop a revolutionary awesome game using and embracing good vibes, good energy, and bright hope for the future!