Ok, so I just watched an anime titled Rosario + Vampire, which the plus is actually "to" in Japanese, pronounced "toe", and means "and". Frankly, I'm underwhelmed by it. I don't know why I watch some harem anime, I mean once I figure out that's what it is, since it's somewhat of a cruel reminder that I don't attract anyone while whichever loser the anime is focusing on can attract around four or five, possibly more, girls at once, all of whom are incredibly attractive. Whatever some might say, not all guys want a bunch of girls fighting over them, I frankly would be glad to have a deep connection with one person, and not have a harem or anything like that.
I suppose the big thing that bugs me about them though is that the main character is almost always going to like the first girl the most, because generally she's the sweetest and kindest of them all (not to mention really hot), and no matter what the other girls do, he won't show any more affection for them than he would any other friend. And then there's the awful melodrama between the two, with miss-communication abundant despite the fact the they're supposed to have such a close relationship that realistically they would be able to tell if they other was acting weird or was angry and not just assume they did something wrong or whatever. But it's all futile anyway because most of the anime won't settle the question of who he'll end up with because, A) that would ruin the harem part of it and B) it's so obvious in most cases that it doesn't need to be said, but it just ends with the status quo of the other girls not being able to take the hint.
So what makes Rosario + Vampire different? Well for one it's a monster girl harem anime, the first I've encountered and that was enough to keep me watching. However, it became quickly apparent that my conceptions about this anime were going to be wrong, since I thought with the girls being monsters it might mean there was some more deeper connection between them and their boy-toy, but no, that turns out not to be the case. While they are monsters, they are all human-looking monsters, which means that even in their monstrous state they still always look really attractive and cute. Which is all the more maddening when there are shown to be scary and unattractive monsters around, it's just none of them enter the harem, it's only the ones who looks cute all the time, which wastes a lot of potential for the touchy-feely main character to exercise his sensitivity chops and actually prove that he will accept people for who they are despite how they look. Instead we get a look at a guy who earnestly accepts all the hot monster ladies who always look hot.
Another problem I have with it is that they do go to a boarding-school of sorts for monsters, which should mean that a monster-view of beauty should be prevalent. Instead, we get all the school boys still going gaga over the girls human forms, which makes absolutely no sense. Unless every single monster male has a human fetish (and I don't think that's the case, since there is a lot of talk of eating humans amongst them, and they even want to kill the main character when he's revealed to be only human SPOILER ALERT), then they should all be such perverts when in human form since logically it would be their monster forms that they should be attracted to. It's a serious case of baffling logic, hatred for humans yet oogling human forms, and no one makes any mention of this of course. But I suppose that can only be expected from a fan-service packed anime like this.
Honestly, after all the anime I've watched, I'd have to say if I were a girl in Japan I'd be very nervous, because it seems like all Japanese men (except the four or five genuinely nice guys who populate the main character slot of these kind of anime) are huge perverts and always trying to look at a woman's boobs or panties. Of course the girls just have to wear revealing clothing too, but then get all up in arms when anyone tries to look at them. I seriously don't know if this happens much in real life/Japan, but I would suggest wearing more modest clothing if you really hate perverts that much, because all you're doing with that is encouraging them. Back to the men part though, almost every single guy in these kind of anime is shown to be a huge pervert. They will stare at their classmates and fantasize about them and show no indication they think anything more about them at all, but will fume when the one guy gets attention of any kind because he obviously doesn't deserve it, despite the fact that he's not trying to oogle the girl to death. But then he always will get his fair share of accidental pervert moments, for which he will never be shown any sympathy despite the "close" relationship he has with the victim (or from anyone who happens to see if his love interest likes it). I just can't imagine that all of the guys in high schools in Japan are always obsessing over their females classmates like that, or are constantly trying to oogle them. But that it the impression I've gotten from these kind of anime.
I guess what I find most unrealistic and troubling about this and other anime is that the guy is just kind of handed relationships. He's always just some normal guy who happens to be decent enough to resist the temptation to stare at a woman's chest and the world just kind of rewards/curses him for it by sending women to relentlessly fight for his affection (despite the fact he'll really only give it to one person, and of course he'll never want to try to take it to any other level than just some quality time holding hands). Admittedly Tsukune, the main character in this anime, never really acted like he wanted anything beyond friendship from those girls, but it's just so stupid that each one of them would fall for him, just because he was nice to them. I'm a nice and kind person (shut up I AM!) and I have a lot of friends who would tell you that (or alternatively that I'm kind of an asshole), but that's never led to anyone showing me undying affection (though admittedly I've never come across people who have powers or special abilities and have been denied a lot of true kindness for most of their lives) and so I find it hard to be invested in how much these girls supposedly "love" Tsukune just because he was nice to them (Hell, in one case he was only the second one nice to them, the little witch girl for some reason decided to pursue him even though she spent her whole intro episode obsessing over the vampire girl, though she did admit to wanting a threesome with both characters so... by the way, that witch is like 11, and she is just as sexualized as the 15-17 year old succubus with a huge rack, so tell me someone else feels really weird about an 11 year old having an obsessive older stalker and given frequent panty shots).
Inner Moka is honestly why I kept watching the anime, aside from the fact I tend to get a bit obsessed with any anime or show I start watching. The fact that she seemed to be disinterested in Tsukune aside from him serving as a source of blood for her was interesting for me, especially since she kept having to save him from stupid situations. I thought she might get fed up with the situation at some point, but unfortunately she stuck to her role through the end as a protector who would only come out near the end of the episode (not counting the end of season 2). What was interesting was how she eventually came to love Tsukune at some level, despite that she was initially disinterested in him, being the only character who didn't fall for him at the end of their first episode (if they ever did). Therefore it galls me that the anime treated the situation as if Tsukune actually felt anything for anyone besides outer Moka (though occasionally it implied he did feel something for inner Moka), when he was always obsessing over Moka, never the succubus or the Yuki-onna (snow woman) or the loli witch (thank God!). Don't pretend that this guy is in some kind of moral delimma, and don't pretend he's stringing them all along either, he clearly only cares for Moka in a love kind of way, the other girls are clearly blind to the truth. The only thing he's done wrong is just not say what he feels, which is obvious for anyone who watched even a little of the anime. There's no choice, except for possibly inner or outer Moka, but it's always Moka he's going to choose.
And I guess my final grievance with this and other anime is that it treats me as if I am a huge pervert who wants to stare at cleavage and big naked boobs and panties. I actually had to look away at parts because they would just not stop showing me the panties of these girls. Their skirts are short yet they get pissed when someone sees their underwear, it's like someone getting angry at a neighbor's dog because they were walking around in the neighbor's yard wearing meat-flavored pants. Don't feed the trolls, in other words. I do not want to see these underage girls' boobs and panties, I am admittedly not much older than they are but that still doesn't mean I want their sexy areas presented to me constantly. I honestly wouldn't have much of a problem with it if it were just an occasional happening in a circumstance which would call for it to logically happen, but it's like the audience is being constantly assaulted with these girls' sexy areas like we're unable to get enough of it. I find it insulting, and the only reason I'm not outright offended is because I'm not actually the target audience. I don't know who is but it's someone in Japan and the culture clash would explain maybe why I find such problems with this. There's nothing wrong with fanservice, but this is just going too far, it treads its way to the opposite: I do not want to see these girls' panties, especially not the 11 year old's, I want to see them as characters and people with real personality and emotions, not sexy bodies. I especially hate it when inner Moka gets this treatment because I would expect her to sucker punch or Falcon Kick anybody who dared try to make her wear a skimpy skirt or look at her panties, yet they're shown to us constantly and worse yet one of the intermission scenes actually shows her naked. So much for making a strong female character who doesn't need to expose herself to be sexy. You might argue I'm looking in the wrong place if that's what I'm after, but I have to ask why have a character like this, who constantly tries to teach people where their place is, and yet she's being paraded around naked.
I'm just tired of Anime thinking it's giving me what I want (it isn't) and then calling me out on it by proxy of being one of the pervert boys who the girls will beat up for being perverts. I didn't want to see her panties, but the fact she's getting mad at other people seeing it would mean she doesn't enjoy having her panties looked at, so you're trying to make me feel bad for looking at her panties (and assumingly enjoying it) while in reality I wish you would stop! Don't treat me like I'm a pervert for watching an anime that I thought was going to have more monsters and less panties.
-Subtle
Monday, May 7, 2012
Thursday, April 5, 2012
Mass Effect 3: Thoughts and Musings
Ok, just to get this out of the way, this post is going to have spoilers throughout it. I'm going to be all over the place with the game, so if you don't want to be spoiled about any part of the game, don't read this. (Obligatory mention that this blog is never read by anyone else.)
So, just last week I purchased Mass Effect 3 on the PS3, and today I managed to finish the story mode. I'm just going to start by listing some points that really had a profound impact on me or caught my attention. For reference, my play-through was a male Paragon Shepard.
Steve Cortez... damn. I mean, Shepard really connected with the guy, and I swear one day I'll have another go at a male Shep and those two will get some serious business done up in there.
I don't care for Liara. In the first game, which bugs me that I can't play it on the PS3 and therefore can't truly have the experience of seeing the same Shepard throughout the story (and now I've made this point too long and the sentence is weird), I felt like she and my Shepard had a special connection, and Shepard (from here out I'm only going to refer to him as Shepard since it's the same one I'm imagining through all three games) didn't see Ashley in a romantic light, especially with her somewhat racists tendencies. But by the second game Liara had changed, and she wasn't the same person anymore, she was kind of distant. I personally didn't like the change, and Shepard just drifted away from her. In the third game, it was pretty awkward between Shepard and Liara once he told her he was only interested in being friends.
I loved Jack's hairstyle in the game. I mean, I liked her look before, for some reason shaved heads on women don't bother me, but I just gushed when I saw her again and she had that sweet ponytail. And her character has grown so much! She has underlings and she's training them for the Alliance! She's a good person!
The Thresher Maw totally took down that Reaper on Tuchanka with no problem and it was so freaking awesome to see. I also felt really good about curing the genophage, but Mordin's sacrifice was pretty sad.
My sweet Tali Zorah. Ever since the first game Shepard had a thing for her, but was disappointed that she didn't appear to feel the same. So when Mass Effect 2 came around and Tali revealed she felt the same, they quickly became a couple and their relationship is one of the best things about both games. It's really great because my Shepard did not always agree with her, especially about the Geth, but he was there for her, and it was great to see that she was there for him in the third game. I was so happy when she decided to stay on the team even though I knew she would anyway.
Rannoch's final mission was just awesome. Taking down that Reaper was pretty terrifying, and I actually died once while doing it. Thankfully Shepard took it down, and it was pretty freaky when it talked to us. Shepard was getting really frustrated with the Quarian and Geth war though, and he meant serious business when he declared that no one else was going to die in that war. He ended conflict between the two sides, and it was made sad when, to upgrade the Geth to actual sentience like that of any other living being, Legion sacrificed himself. It hurt because Shepard had said that Legion was his friend, and he lived by that, trying to unite the races of his love and his friend. Thankfully, there were no other complications, the Geth immediately started helping the Quarians after, impressing Tali.
The final goodbyes to the team members from all three games were some of the most touching parts of the game. It really brought home that all of them stood together, fighting because of Shepard. His speech at the end to his crew was great too, and I was saddened that I couldn't take them all. Especially since there was almost no epilogue, and no way of knowing what happened to them. Which is my biggest complaint about the ending.
I chose to use the Crucible to synthesize all life into a combined state of synthetic and organic. Shepard couldn't destroy Synthetic life because he fought for the Geth, to get them accepted as part of the galaxy. He wouldn't control the reapers because he spent the whole game and part of the last one arguing that using them was abominable, and he said in the end of the second game that he wouldn't let fear compromise who he was. Synthesis was the only one that made any amount of sense for Shepard, even though he gave his life for it.
And for what purpose? I didn't see anything besides Joker and EDI on some kind of paradise point. I don't care about the ending as it is, but I want to know what the heck happened to my sweet Tali! Did she die? And I wanted more time for them... I wanted Tali and Shepard to have a lifetime together, to be happy with each other. When Tali called Shepard her boyfriend it gave me such joy, and to know that Shepard died, and Tali is alone if she's alive... I don't want the story to end that way. Shepard would do the right thing, but it's not what I wanted, even if he would have sacrificed his life, the choice I would have made for him, I would have wanted him to pick an option where he could live with Tali, even if it meant bad things happened.
And I hate how Joker got downsized this game. He barely felt like a presence, and his face looked weird.
-Subtle
So, just last week I purchased Mass Effect 3 on the PS3, and today I managed to finish the story mode. I'm just going to start by listing some points that really had a profound impact on me or caught my attention. For reference, my play-through was a male Paragon Shepard.
Steve Cortez... damn. I mean, Shepard really connected with the guy, and I swear one day I'll have another go at a male Shep and those two will get some serious business done up in there.
I don't care for Liara. In the first game, which bugs me that I can't play it on the PS3 and therefore can't truly have the experience of seeing the same Shepard throughout the story (and now I've made this point too long and the sentence is weird), I felt like she and my Shepard had a special connection, and Shepard (from here out I'm only going to refer to him as Shepard since it's the same one I'm imagining through all three games) didn't see Ashley in a romantic light, especially with her somewhat racists tendencies. But by the second game Liara had changed, and she wasn't the same person anymore, she was kind of distant. I personally didn't like the change, and Shepard just drifted away from her. In the third game, it was pretty awkward between Shepard and Liara once he told her he was only interested in being friends.
I loved Jack's hairstyle in the game. I mean, I liked her look before, for some reason shaved heads on women don't bother me, but I just gushed when I saw her again and she had that sweet ponytail. And her character has grown so much! She has underlings and she's training them for the Alliance! She's a good person!
The Thresher Maw totally took down that Reaper on Tuchanka with no problem and it was so freaking awesome to see. I also felt really good about curing the genophage, but Mordin's sacrifice was pretty sad.
My sweet Tali Zorah. Ever since the first game Shepard had a thing for her, but was disappointed that she didn't appear to feel the same. So when Mass Effect 2 came around and Tali revealed she felt the same, they quickly became a couple and their relationship is one of the best things about both games. It's really great because my Shepard did not always agree with her, especially about the Geth, but he was there for her, and it was great to see that she was there for him in the third game. I was so happy when she decided to stay on the team even though I knew she would anyway.
Rannoch's final mission was just awesome. Taking down that Reaper was pretty terrifying, and I actually died once while doing it. Thankfully Shepard took it down, and it was pretty freaky when it talked to us. Shepard was getting really frustrated with the Quarian and Geth war though, and he meant serious business when he declared that no one else was going to die in that war. He ended conflict between the two sides, and it was made sad when, to upgrade the Geth to actual sentience like that of any other living being, Legion sacrificed himself. It hurt because Shepard had said that Legion was his friend, and he lived by that, trying to unite the races of his love and his friend. Thankfully, there were no other complications, the Geth immediately started helping the Quarians after, impressing Tali.
The final goodbyes to the team members from all three games were some of the most touching parts of the game. It really brought home that all of them stood together, fighting because of Shepard. His speech at the end to his crew was great too, and I was saddened that I couldn't take them all. Especially since there was almost no epilogue, and no way of knowing what happened to them. Which is my biggest complaint about the ending.
I chose to use the Crucible to synthesize all life into a combined state of synthetic and organic. Shepard couldn't destroy Synthetic life because he fought for the Geth, to get them accepted as part of the galaxy. He wouldn't control the reapers because he spent the whole game and part of the last one arguing that using them was abominable, and he said in the end of the second game that he wouldn't let fear compromise who he was. Synthesis was the only one that made any amount of sense for Shepard, even though he gave his life for it.
And for what purpose? I didn't see anything besides Joker and EDI on some kind of paradise point. I don't care about the ending as it is, but I want to know what the heck happened to my sweet Tali! Did she die? And I wanted more time for them... I wanted Tali and Shepard to have a lifetime together, to be happy with each other. When Tali called Shepard her boyfriend it gave me such joy, and to know that Shepard died, and Tali is alone if she's alive... I don't want the story to end that way. Shepard would do the right thing, but it's not what I wanted, even if he would have sacrificed his life, the choice I would have made for him, I would have wanted him to pick an option where he could live with Tali, even if it meant bad things happened.
And I hate how Joker got downsized this game. He barely felt like a presence, and his face looked weird.
-Subtle
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Advertising Sucks
Ok, there are few things that so easily get on my nerves as commercials. I mean, I'm watching something, and it gets interrupted by a lot of ads, most of which aren't meant for me, and the ones that are aimed at my age and race are generally not interesting either. I understand that the revenue from the commercials helps keep the station going, and I can accept that, it's necessary. But there are just so many commercials that are so mind-bendingly stupid that I can't help but to just think that humanity's potential as a species just drops a little whenever one is made. Now, I could fill the rest of this post with a rant on Kidz Bop or Progressive commercials starring Flo, both of which I hate with a passion, but that seems to come more to a personal preference (though the people that like either have no taste). No, the commercial I'm going to rant about today is a Lunchables commercial, there most recent one, selling their Peanut Butter and Jelly boxes. You can click on this link to watch it if you have some morbid curiosity: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4Y9v7lkjVU
Now, I'll first start off with something that doesn't really bother me all that much but has made me think. Why the heck would anyone buy a boxed lunch of a peanut butter and jelly sandwich? A five year old can make one on their own, provided you don't mind a completely peanut butter and jelly kitchen, so why would anyone want to buy a crappy pre-packaged sandwich? But that's not the advertising's problem, that's a problem with the company. The commercial has a whole other problem.
So this kid and his friends are walking down the hall, and his friends are telling him that he's got to do something great for the lunch time announcements, because apparently that's something that happens in schools now and is "prime-time" according to one of the kids. So the kid who's going to be doing it, I guess his name is Paul judging by the end of the commercial, sit outside the office and noms on his stupid gross pre-packaged peanut butter and jelly sandwich. After one bite a light bulb flickers on in his head and he knows what he's going to do: he plays the Peanut Butte Jelly Time song from his music player over the PA system during lunch. After which he strides into the Lunchroom to cheers and applause from the students as the announcer says, "Lunchables: Feed your great ideas".
What? Is this for real? This commercial is claiming that this kid playing a song someone else wrote, produced, sang, etc. over the PA system during lunch is a great idea, not to mention he did nothing else, so why would the school let him do it? This is not a great idea, this is barely an idea, it's just some kid who played some song on the announcements. It wasn't creative or smart, it was just stupid! Oh the best bit is at the end when his two friends from earlier call him Peanut Butter Paul and that a legend is born. I can't even express how much I think this blows. You're calling a kid who played a popular song from years ago on the PA system during lunch, nothing else mind you, once a legend? Just what about this whole situation is a great idea? He's not a DJ, he didn't do anything aside from ruin any conversation you were having at the time.
Why couldn't this kid have been working on a project or something and been struck with inspiration on how to make it work or even what project to do? Why did they decide that song over PA system was a great idea to feed? I just can't stand the stupidity of this commercial.
Ahhh. It feels good getting another rant out, despite the fact that no one even knows about this blog. Well, Subtle is out. Peace.
Now, I'll first start off with something that doesn't really bother me all that much but has made me think. Why the heck would anyone buy a boxed lunch of a peanut butter and jelly sandwich? A five year old can make one on their own, provided you don't mind a completely peanut butter and jelly kitchen, so why would anyone want to buy a crappy pre-packaged sandwich? But that's not the advertising's problem, that's a problem with the company. The commercial has a whole other problem.
So this kid and his friends are walking down the hall, and his friends are telling him that he's got to do something great for the lunch time announcements, because apparently that's something that happens in schools now and is "prime-time" according to one of the kids. So the kid who's going to be doing it, I guess his name is Paul judging by the end of the commercial, sit outside the office and noms on his stupid gross pre-packaged peanut butter and jelly sandwich. After one bite a light bulb flickers on in his head and he knows what he's going to do: he plays the Peanut Butte Jelly Time song from his music player over the PA system during lunch. After which he strides into the Lunchroom to cheers and applause from the students as the announcer says, "Lunchables: Feed your great ideas".
What? Is this for real? This commercial is claiming that this kid playing a song someone else wrote, produced, sang, etc. over the PA system during lunch is a great idea, not to mention he did nothing else, so why would the school let him do it? This is not a great idea, this is barely an idea, it's just some kid who played some song on the announcements. It wasn't creative or smart, it was just stupid! Oh the best bit is at the end when his two friends from earlier call him Peanut Butter Paul and that a legend is born. I can't even express how much I think this blows. You're calling a kid who played a popular song from years ago on the PA system during lunch, nothing else mind you, once a legend? Just what about this whole situation is a great idea? He's not a DJ, he didn't do anything aside from ruin any conversation you were having at the time.
Why couldn't this kid have been working on a project or something and been struck with inspiration on how to make it work or even what project to do? Why did they decide that song over PA system was a great idea to feed? I just can't stand the stupidity of this commercial.
Ahhh. It feels good getting another rant out, despite the fact that no one even knows about this blog. Well, Subtle is out. Peace.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Motion Control
Ooh, fun topic today. But first, I'm pretty sure no one reads this, which is why I'm so open on my opinions, but just in case, I've been gone so long because I just started college, and I have almost no free time anymore. Yeah, you probably know what that feels like, presuming you are an adult, but if you're still in High School or younger, then multiply your workload by, let's say five. Yeah, and then try to put in the time you sleep, hang out with friends, and not to mention all the chores you'll have to do yourself because your roommate just sleeps and plays on the computer all day.
Well, anyway, Motion Controls in the consoles. So we're looking at a three way war between Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony and their motion control devices. The Wii has had this since it launched, and by far sold the best, at least I believe that to be so since I couldn't find one for months before snagging one online. By now Nintendo has learned how to do some good motion control games, experience is key to these things and they have it. Plus, you know Mario and Zelda, the two reasons I bought the Wii instead of the PS3 in 2007.
It's actually been war since 2006, but it's become more personal as the two losing combatants upgraded their weapons to mimic the more victorious console. The Xbox 360's Kinect and the PS3's Move. Awful names, but that's not important. What is important is that the two companies who were losing are taking heat for these new innovations to their systems. Why would they, though? Wouldn't trying to imitate the best selling console mean they would be producing a better experience for gamers?
That question is a little condenscending I'll admit, but in case you don't know, hardcore gamers are taking offense to the two hardcore companies that let them play hardcore games, like Halo, CoD, GoW, etc, now trying to invite casual gamers to play along with them. Essentially, it feels like they've just released the Microsoft Wii and the Sony Wii. And to be fair, Sony, it looks like the Wii. At least Kinect had the decency not to copy the controller. The gimicks for these devices are: for the Playstation Move, it allows you to play the Wii on the PS3. There's probably more to it than that, but that's about all I know about it. Kinect, however, allows your body to be the controller and what you do is done in the game, and I think they've had this on the PS2 actually, but not as fun as it will be apparently.
There are some problems with these devices though, namely that anyone who wanted to play casual games the companies are marketing had four years to pick up a Wii, and probably did so. Second, Kinect has the added disadvantage of being on the most hardcore console dominated by Cod and Halo sales, not the fluffy cute oh-the-whole-family-can-play-soccer-without-leaving-the-house game powerhouse. Let's just think for a second, would a family who wanted to do physical activity like that want to pay several hundred dollars for the console, Kinect, and games, or just go out and do things outside together and get the same result for cheaper? Even if they wanted some family games, the Wii is much cheaper, and have a long list of games for it that are probably going to be better than what Kinect or Move can offer, at least at the start.
Now, you've probably heard this before, and either agreed or dismissed it, because you're human (hopefully), but what I would like is for Kinect and Move to bring about games that are fun. Not fun for the family, not fun for the hardcores, but just fun. I mean, with both these devices, there are things we can play that couldn't be played before. Tell me, does a game where you have to walk on the moon and try to get used to the physics while dodging asteroids and space aliens shooting lazers sound like a fun Kinect game? Maybe, maybe not, but wouldn't it be an interesting alternative to Call of Honor Medal of Wars 43? How about playing a ninja throwing shurikens and handling an assortment of gadgets with different movement controls while battling hoards of zombie pirates? Playing as a MONKEY on Kinect, wouldn't that be something to see? Or shall we just try to bury these devices before they can show us what they can really do?
Well, anyway, Motion Controls in the consoles. So we're looking at a three way war between Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony and their motion control devices. The Wii has had this since it launched, and by far sold the best, at least I believe that to be so since I couldn't find one for months before snagging one online. By now Nintendo has learned how to do some good motion control games, experience is key to these things and they have it. Plus, you know Mario and Zelda, the two reasons I bought the Wii instead of the PS3 in 2007.
It's actually been war since 2006, but it's become more personal as the two losing combatants upgraded their weapons to mimic the more victorious console. The Xbox 360's Kinect and the PS3's Move. Awful names, but that's not important. What is important is that the two companies who were losing are taking heat for these new innovations to their systems. Why would they, though? Wouldn't trying to imitate the best selling console mean they would be producing a better experience for gamers?
That question is a little condenscending I'll admit, but in case you don't know, hardcore gamers are taking offense to the two hardcore companies that let them play hardcore games, like Halo, CoD, GoW, etc, now trying to invite casual gamers to play along with them. Essentially, it feels like they've just released the Microsoft Wii and the Sony Wii. And to be fair, Sony, it looks like the Wii. At least Kinect had the decency not to copy the controller. The gimicks for these devices are: for the Playstation Move, it allows you to play the Wii on the PS3. There's probably more to it than that, but that's about all I know about it. Kinect, however, allows your body to be the controller and what you do is done in the game, and I think they've had this on the PS2 actually, but not as fun as it will be apparently.
There are some problems with these devices though, namely that anyone who wanted to play casual games the companies are marketing had four years to pick up a Wii, and probably did so. Second, Kinect has the added disadvantage of being on the most hardcore console dominated by Cod and Halo sales, not the fluffy cute oh-the-whole-family-can-play-soccer-without-leaving-the-house game powerhouse. Let's just think for a second, would a family who wanted to do physical activity like that want to pay several hundred dollars for the console, Kinect, and games, or just go out and do things outside together and get the same result for cheaper? Even if they wanted some family games, the Wii is much cheaper, and have a long list of games for it that are probably going to be better than what Kinect or Move can offer, at least at the start.
Now, you've probably heard this before, and either agreed or dismissed it, because you're human (hopefully), but what I would like is for Kinect and Move to bring about games that are fun. Not fun for the family, not fun for the hardcores, but just fun. I mean, with both these devices, there are things we can play that couldn't be played before. Tell me, does a game where you have to walk on the moon and try to get used to the physics while dodging asteroids and space aliens shooting lazers sound like a fun Kinect game? Maybe, maybe not, but wouldn't it be an interesting alternative to Call of Honor Medal of Wars 43? How about playing a ninja throwing shurikens and handling an assortment of gadgets with different movement controls while battling hoards of zombie pirates? Playing as a MONKEY on Kinect, wouldn't that be something to see? Or shall we just try to bury these devices before they can show us what they can really do?
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Tolerance
I hate quite a lot of people, as I've said on this blog before. That is because people are annoying, they grate on my nerves and cause me to lose sanity. But that is only based on personality, a person-by-person basis. There is no one group of people I hate for having a trait beyond their own control, whether that be skin color, sexual orientation, gender, or nationality.
No wait, I lied, there is one group like that, intolerant asses. If you are a racist, sexist, or discriminate based on superficial, I hate you. You're sending us backward in time, not forward. I can think of plenty of reasons to hate someone, but for something beyond their control is not a reason. At the moment, I get really angered when people discriminate against homosexual people. Or Bisexual people for that matter. No, I'm not gay, or bi, I'm straight. As an arrow. But that doesn't mean I have to speak out against them, or dislike them.
As far as I know, being gay or bi doesn't mean that they're possessed and mean to eat out my heart should I turn my back on someone. All it means is they prefer something I don't sexually, and since I prefer not to talk about that in the first place, it doesn't bother me all that much. I am sure that it doesn't mean they are evil, and I think it's safe not to point a gun in their faces because of it.
Just stupid things like that can ruin lives. Can anyone think of a good reason why the Holocaust should have happened? No? Because the Jewish people were scapegoats, and because of their religion, they were subjected to that inhumanity. Now, I hope most people this day and age wouldn't go to such extremes like that, but I know not everyone would. There's one person at least who would have everyone of a certain nationality, color, sexuality, treated like that because of that one specific trait.
That is fucking unacceptable. We need tolerance, we need to accept the differences in people and still see them as equals. We've made progress, but we're nowhere near finished. I'd like to see the day where people of all different sorts could sit around and be friends, discuss issues, and be civil toward each other.
I'm pretty sure I could write more about this, but my point is this: accept others for who they are, then decide if thing they have control over bug you. I don't like loud people, or arrogant people, but that can be anyone.
-Subtle
No wait, I lied, there is one group like that, intolerant asses. If you are a racist, sexist, or discriminate based on superficial, I hate you. You're sending us backward in time, not forward. I can think of plenty of reasons to hate someone, but for something beyond their control is not a reason. At the moment, I get really angered when people discriminate against homosexual people. Or Bisexual people for that matter. No, I'm not gay, or bi, I'm straight. As an arrow. But that doesn't mean I have to speak out against them, or dislike them.
As far as I know, being gay or bi doesn't mean that they're possessed and mean to eat out my heart should I turn my back on someone. All it means is they prefer something I don't sexually, and since I prefer not to talk about that in the first place, it doesn't bother me all that much. I am sure that it doesn't mean they are evil, and I think it's safe not to point a gun in their faces because of it.
Just stupid things like that can ruin lives. Can anyone think of a good reason why the Holocaust should have happened? No? Because the Jewish people were scapegoats, and because of their religion, they were subjected to that inhumanity. Now, I hope most people this day and age wouldn't go to such extremes like that, but I know not everyone would. There's one person at least who would have everyone of a certain nationality, color, sexuality, treated like that because of that one specific trait.
That is fucking unacceptable. We need tolerance, we need to accept the differences in people and still see them as equals. We've made progress, but we're nowhere near finished. I'd like to see the day where people of all different sorts could sit around and be friends, discuss issues, and be civil toward each other.
I'm pretty sure I could write more about this, but my point is this: accept others for who they are, then decide if thing they have control over bug you. I don't like loud people, or arrogant people, but that can be anyone.
-Subtle
Friday, June 25, 2010
Geek Culture
On this blog my hopes are that the few people who may stumble upon it will be rich and pay me to write nonsense for them. That's not likely to happen but a man can dream. My other reason is that I hope I can make people think about issues rationally and present viewpoints that I think make sense. You don't have to agree with anything I say, but there needs to be logic and rationality behind an argument, not just passion and anger.
Emotions have their place, but not in a debate about delicate subjects. Sometimes logic and rationale are not going to have a place in a debate, especially one over ethics and morals, which can differ greatly between cultures and even within a culture. After all, people who follow Hinduism don't eat cows, Americans raise cows to be eaten. Americans (for the most part) don't eat dogs, yet some cultures within the Asian continent do. No one can win a debate about whether any one of those stances is right or wrong.
I'm getting too far from my point though, which is that in a debate one should strive to put logic and reason into their argument, thus strengthening their stance, and allowing the other side to evaluate their own stance. Debate is virtually meaningless though. A discussion can lead to solutions or action, whether they be good or bad, but a debate, in my mind, concerns an issue with varying stances on what is acceptable with enough people involved on each side to where none will give in, an exercise in futility. It has its place, but it's not for deciding anything.
I'm off track again, seeing as how the title of this post is Geek Culture. What I mean to say next will offend some, but I will explain my reasonsing to the best of my ability. Geeks are not rational when it comes to what they like, which can be films, anime, video games, pets, political issues, and whatnot. Now, this is not to say everyone else is exempt from it, but (American)football fans, for example, tend to get obssessive about real teams and real people. That can impact real life, and whether a player gets moved to a different team can have drastic effects on the season (and that may have just shown I know little about football). Geeks, on the other hand, get obssessive about whether or not the guy with ridiculous hair in a particular anime will end up with the perky and always smiling girl next door, or the action girl who wears leather and smirks when she isn't scowling. (By the way, if that sounds like any particular anime you know of, I swear that just came off the top of my head.)
They aren't real, and while there may be similarities between obsessions like that, real life will count more. Ok, to be fair, I do care more about relationships between animated people than I do about most real life celebrities, but then I don't go and make hate fics toward a character, killing them off or pushing them aside so I can write a story about the couple I like. I don't spend time patrolling forums and being an annoying prick to people who disagree with me, and worse, bully them for it. Because the internet provides anonymity, people can be just a big a dick as they want to, which means being the biggest dick in the world over whether or not the Star Wars prequels count as canon because they happen to be somewhat worse than the original trilogy. I'll have you know the first Star Wars movie I saw was Episode Three, and I liked it, enough to watch the other five movies
Nostalgia is a real villain when it comes to this crap. The internet proclaims that the Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time and Final Fantasy VII were the single two greatest games of all time. I've played both of them somewhat, and not only do I think Twilight Princess is a superior Zelda game (heck, I like Windwaker more), but FFVII actually made me realize that I don't like Final Fantasy at all. And that's not to say I don't like any JRPG, because I've played some that I enjoyed quite a lot. But it's nostalgia that makes people blind to the truth that these things aren't new anymore, there have been improvements and some people will have differing opinions.
I can sum up my message to my fellow geeks in this sentence: Get over yourselves. You are not always right, your opinion matters no more than mine, just because you agree with a majority does not mean that you all are correct, nor does it mean the minority is. Stifiling opinions is facist and does not let the world grow, so if you claim someone is an idiot with no taste because he happens to like Super Mario Sunshine more than 64, or at all, you are being detrimental to society. So if you do engage in that kind of activity, don't be confused as to why the rest of humanity is so messed up.
Also, to online gamers, please stop being such bastards. Just because you spend a lot of time learning how to play a game to the equivalent of being a master of martial arts does not mean you should be a complete jack ass when a new player wants to try his hand playing online. But more on that sooner or later, with my message of accepting others, because boy do some people need that slapped into their brains.
-Subtle
Emotions have their place, but not in a debate about delicate subjects. Sometimes logic and rationale are not going to have a place in a debate, especially one over ethics and morals, which can differ greatly between cultures and even within a culture. After all, people who follow Hinduism don't eat cows, Americans raise cows to be eaten. Americans (for the most part) don't eat dogs, yet some cultures within the Asian continent do. No one can win a debate about whether any one of those stances is right or wrong.
I'm getting too far from my point though, which is that in a debate one should strive to put logic and reason into their argument, thus strengthening their stance, and allowing the other side to evaluate their own stance. Debate is virtually meaningless though. A discussion can lead to solutions or action, whether they be good or bad, but a debate, in my mind, concerns an issue with varying stances on what is acceptable with enough people involved on each side to where none will give in, an exercise in futility. It has its place, but it's not for deciding anything.
I'm off track again, seeing as how the title of this post is Geek Culture. What I mean to say next will offend some, but I will explain my reasonsing to the best of my ability. Geeks are not rational when it comes to what they like, which can be films, anime, video games, pets, political issues, and whatnot. Now, this is not to say everyone else is exempt from it, but (American)football fans, for example, tend to get obssessive about real teams and real people. That can impact real life, and whether a player gets moved to a different team can have drastic effects on the season (and that may have just shown I know little about football). Geeks, on the other hand, get obssessive about whether or not the guy with ridiculous hair in a particular anime will end up with the perky and always smiling girl next door, or the action girl who wears leather and smirks when she isn't scowling. (By the way, if that sounds like any particular anime you know of, I swear that just came off the top of my head.)
They aren't real, and while there may be similarities between obsessions like that, real life will count more. Ok, to be fair, I do care more about relationships between animated people than I do about most real life celebrities, but then I don't go and make hate fics toward a character, killing them off or pushing them aside so I can write a story about the couple I like. I don't spend time patrolling forums and being an annoying prick to people who disagree with me, and worse, bully them for it. Because the internet provides anonymity, people can be just a big a dick as they want to, which means being the biggest dick in the world over whether or not the Star Wars prequels count as canon because they happen to be somewhat worse than the original trilogy. I'll have you know the first Star Wars movie I saw was Episode Three, and I liked it, enough to watch the other five movies
Nostalgia is a real villain when it comes to this crap. The internet proclaims that the Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time and Final Fantasy VII were the single two greatest games of all time. I've played both of them somewhat, and not only do I think Twilight Princess is a superior Zelda game (heck, I like Windwaker more), but FFVII actually made me realize that I don't like Final Fantasy at all. And that's not to say I don't like any JRPG, because I've played some that I enjoyed quite a lot. But it's nostalgia that makes people blind to the truth that these things aren't new anymore, there have been improvements and some people will have differing opinions.
I can sum up my message to my fellow geeks in this sentence: Get over yourselves. You are not always right, your opinion matters no more than mine, just because you agree with a majority does not mean that you all are correct, nor does it mean the minority is. Stifiling opinions is facist and does not let the world grow, so if you claim someone is an idiot with no taste because he happens to like Super Mario Sunshine more than 64, or at all, you are being detrimental to society. So if you do engage in that kind of activity, don't be confused as to why the rest of humanity is so messed up.
Also, to online gamers, please stop being such bastards. Just because you spend a lot of time learning how to play a game to the equivalent of being a master of martial arts does not mean you should be a complete jack ass when a new player wants to try his hand playing online. But more on that sooner or later, with my message of accepting others, because boy do some people need that slapped into their brains.
-Subtle
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Video Games As Art
Well this issue is already becoming old, but I thought I'd throw in my opinion out there on the internet. So, Mr. Roger Ebert, extraordinary film critic, claims that games will not be 'art', or at least not in our lifetime. To which I have to say, "So what?"
Ok, I'm a gamer, and have been playing since I was old enough to hold the controller and press the necesarry button on the NES. I love video games and think they are a great experience. Let me repeat: Experience. Does art include experience? If not, then the video game is not an art form. Let's face it, there are aspects of a game that can be considered art: the story, the levels, or the music can all be art, but the thing we play it for is the game, the parts where we decide what happens. And I'm not convinced falling into the lava pit ten times in a row is art.
Now, this is not to say that art cannot include movement, because we have dance and theater, both respected art forms that include real people doing things. The main crux is the actions they perform. So why not video games? Because, if I don't find the movement of my character pleasing, the blast from a gun outstanding, or the clashing of swords jaw-dropping, it's not art. Ok, good art at least. And that's the only art anyone cares about anyway.
I may not have explained myself as clearly as I need to, but I want to ask you now, why should we care whether a video game is art anyway? As far as I'm aware, the video game is a game, and the thing that matters most is that it's fun to play. The artistic potential of a game is second to this, so why is it now such a big deal? I'm honestly asking this. Is it because we feel gameplay is as good as it will ever get? Because if so, that's awfully depressing. I was expecting to be able to run up a wall and slash a guy's head off all under my own power and not in a cutscene or quicktime event.
Or are we so concerned because this presents another way for non-gamers to put our video games down? "Oh, now it's corrupting our children and it's not even art like Edgar Allen Poe, and he gave us nightmares. Let's destroy the video games now and laugh as all the gamers cry." Yeah, I'm pretty sure that games not being considered art won't kill the whole medium. It's depressing to be attacked from so many angles, but look at it this way: games have never been so prevalent within our culture, so many people have a console or handheld (or even iPhone apps) that if video games were banned there would probably be some huge backlash from all corners. Even the people who only have a 360 to play Madden would probably be pissed.
Just calm down and think about whether or not games as an art form is really all that important. And Mr. Ebert, while I respect your opinion, without a basis from actually experiencing a videogame by playing it, it's not very informed. Because video games are an experience, and whether you can count that as an art form or not, you won't know until you play something. And there are quite a lot of films that I wouldn't consider good art, though they are pretty entertaining.
So, please people, calm down and discuss this, or any issue, rationally. Whoever shouts the loudest won't win an argument, they just look the most foolish. Put some thought into your opinions, and don't lose your credibility by panicking and getting angry. Animals fight each other, but humans can debate, which will you act like?
-Subtle
Ok, I'm a gamer, and have been playing since I was old enough to hold the controller and press the necesarry button on the NES. I love video games and think they are a great experience. Let me repeat: Experience. Does art include experience? If not, then the video game is not an art form. Let's face it, there are aspects of a game that can be considered art: the story, the levels, or the music can all be art, but the thing we play it for is the game, the parts where we decide what happens. And I'm not convinced falling into the lava pit ten times in a row is art.
Now, this is not to say that art cannot include movement, because we have dance and theater, both respected art forms that include real people doing things. The main crux is the actions they perform. So why not video games? Because, if I don't find the movement of my character pleasing, the blast from a gun outstanding, or the clashing of swords jaw-dropping, it's not art. Ok, good art at least. And that's the only art anyone cares about anyway.
I may not have explained myself as clearly as I need to, but I want to ask you now, why should we care whether a video game is art anyway? As far as I'm aware, the video game is a game, and the thing that matters most is that it's fun to play. The artistic potential of a game is second to this, so why is it now such a big deal? I'm honestly asking this. Is it because we feel gameplay is as good as it will ever get? Because if so, that's awfully depressing. I was expecting to be able to run up a wall and slash a guy's head off all under my own power and not in a cutscene or quicktime event.
Or are we so concerned because this presents another way for non-gamers to put our video games down? "Oh, now it's corrupting our children and it's not even art like Edgar Allen Poe, and he gave us nightmares. Let's destroy the video games now and laugh as all the gamers cry." Yeah, I'm pretty sure that games not being considered art won't kill the whole medium. It's depressing to be attacked from so many angles, but look at it this way: games have never been so prevalent within our culture, so many people have a console or handheld (or even iPhone apps) that if video games were banned there would probably be some huge backlash from all corners. Even the people who only have a 360 to play Madden would probably be pissed.
Just calm down and think about whether or not games as an art form is really all that important. And Mr. Ebert, while I respect your opinion, without a basis from actually experiencing a videogame by playing it, it's not very informed. Because video games are an experience, and whether you can count that as an art form or not, you won't know until you play something. And there are quite a lot of films that I wouldn't consider good art, though they are pretty entertaining.
So, please people, calm down and discuss this, or any issue, rationally. Whoever shouts the loudest won't win an argument, they just look the most foolish. Put some thought into your opinions, and don't lose your credibility by panicking and getting angry. Animals fight each other, but humans can debate, which will you act like?
-Subtle
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
