I don't like when certain music gets labeled "pop". I just don't like it. Why? Because in my little world "pop" carries negative implications. I see pop as the opposite of art. Arght is when you follow your sixth sense and ur <3, and create something good, without careful calculations of how to please as many people as possible. When CC (careful calculations) get involved, the art becomes craft. And I have nothing against craft. However, when I want art, I won't take your craft alone as a substitute.
What makes it worse is the current state of pop music. And by that I mean mainstream pop. Apparently there is such thing as "indie pop", where musicians write and arrange their own stuff. I am not talking of those fine gentlemen and gentleladies. No, I mean the SHIT you get on your car radio and the abortion that MTV has become after ~2005.
When you spend years listening to ALL kinds of music, all genres (yes, even that one), songs and instrumentals, and even knowing how music is made, being able to compose, makes you see cheap emotional manipulation for what it is. The same few chord progressions to evoke the same quick emotional responses. The same damn drum samples. Not very imaginary arrangements (you do know what arrangement is, right?...) THE SAME DAMN WORDS ABOUT """ROMANCE""" (it's really fucking) OR YOUR DAMN BROKEN HEART THAT IS NOT WORTH ANYTHING SINCE YOU ARE CREATIVELY BANKRUPT AND LITERALLY DISPOSABLE.
In other words........... please don't call this really cool band I like "pop", they deserve better.
Showing posts with label opinion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label opinion. Show all posts
Saturday, September 28, 2019
Tuesday, July 10, 2018
The SMALL Spyro problem...
NO, this is not well timed clickbait.
Today, gents and ladiesmen, I will bring your attention to the size of Spyro the Dragon. Yes, his size. Spyro, believe it or not, is small.
Now, the reason for Spyro's small size does not matter much. Mayhaps he was shrunk to appeal to tiny humans playing the game at the ripe age of 6. Perpossibly playing as a smaller character works better for a platformer. It even allows for the premise and story of the first game. There are several reasons to make Spyro small, be they logical, stylistic, and market based.
Then what's the "PROBLEM", exactly?? Why am I complaining, having just explained why small Spyro makes sense?
Well, the thing is, Spyro is not just small. He is small because he is YOUNG. And that creates a problem no one thinks about.
The problem arises when you keep making sequels. Unless you're rebooting the franchise all the time (cough, cough), with every sequel some time passes. Spyro MUST age, however slow. What I am getting at, is that at some point Spyro has GOT to grow. Even if he is unusually small for a dragon, he HAS to grow, at least a little.
And despite that being common sense, it is a problem. If Spyro The Dragon™ ever grows up and get bigger*, that will destroy the iconic brand's recognition. Iconic look is the only way to be remembered by an audience who will return to buy your sequels. What if Crash Bandicoot stops being orange and loses his mohawk? What if Mario shaves off his mustache? What if Harry Potter loses his forehead scar? What if Slash takes off his hat and sunglasses?? WHAT IF YOUR FAMOUS CHARACTERS STOPS LOOKING AS YOU REMEMBER THEM?
No no no, we cannot have that!~!
And that, is why you cannot make Spyro The Dragon™ bigger. If you do that, the numerous retards in the audience will get all confused, and not buy the next game. "What the fuck?! Who is that?? I don't recognize that large purple reptile! Where's muh Smol Spyro™???" Or, perhaps, if you are slightly less a retard, "The fuck?! Why is Spyro BIG now? Why did they change him? I don't like when things get different, I don't want this! Take it away, I want my Smol Spyro™ back!!!" And a sequel with a grown up Spyro does not sell. And that is sad.
And so, our little purple dragon will continue to roam the earth (gliding occasionally to reach some gems), cursed to forever remain small, to never grow up. He will never grow old enough to do it with Elora without the risk of jail time. That is why Spyro's iconic small size is a SMALL problem.
* LOS is a reboot and a different canon. Doesn't count.
Today, gents and ladiesmen, I will bring your attention to the size of Spyro the Dragon. Yes, his size. Spyro, believe it or not, is small.
Now, the reason for Spyro's small size does not matter much. Mayhaps he was shrunk to appeal to tiny humans playing the game at the ripe age of 6. Perpossibly playing as a smaller character works better for a platformer. It even allows for the premise and story of the first game. There are several reasons to make Spyro small, be they logical, stylistic, and market based.
Then what's the "PROBLEM", exactly?? Why am I complaining, having just explained why small Spyro makes sense?
Well, the thing is, Spyro is not just small. He is small because he is YOUNG. And that creates a problem no one thinks about.
The problem arises when you keep making sequels. Unless you're rebooting the franchise all the time (cough, cough), with every sequel some time passes. Spyro MUST age, however slow. What I am getting at, is that at some point Spyro has GOT to grow. Even if he is unusually small for a dragon, he HAS to grow, at least a little.
And despite that being common sense, it is a problem. If Spyro The Dragon™ ever grows up and get bigger*, that will destroy the iconic brand's recognition. Iconic look is the only way to be remembered by an audience who will return to buy your sequels. What if Crash Bandicoot stops being orange and loses his mohawk? What if Mario shaves off his mustache? What if Harry Potter loses his forehead scar? What if Slash takes off his hat and sunglasses?? WHAT IF YOUR FAMOUS CHARACTERS STOPS LOOKING AS YOU REMEMBER THEM?
No no no, we cannot have that!~!
And that, is why you cannot make Spyro The Dragon™ bigger. If you do that, the numerous retards in the audience will get all confused, and not buy the next game. "What the fuck?! Who is that?? I don't recognize that large purple reptile! Where's muh Smol Spyro™???" Or, perhaps, if you are slightly less a retard, "The fuck?! Why is Spyro BIG now? Why did they change him? I don't like when things get different, I don't want this! Take it away, I want my Smol Spyro™ back!!!" And a sequel with a grown up Spyro does not sell. And that is sad.
And so, our little purple dragon will continue to roam the earth (gliding occasionally to reach some gems), cursed to forever remain small, to never grow up. He will never grow old enough to do it with Elora without the risk of jail time. That is why Spyro's iconic small size is a SMALL problem.
* LOS is a reboot and a different canon. Doesn't count.
Tuesday, December 26, 2017
Bipolar Geniuses? !
Hi, I'm a guy on the INTERNET! Have you ever seen a man (or woman or bear) be exceedingly smart and insightful on some topic on one day, and then blabber something extremely stupid on another? Say something that really makes you think on Tuesday, and then declare the Matrix sequels smart and deep on Wednesday?
Yes, I am sure you have met at least one person like this: a philosopher at night, a retard at day. Such people are more common than fans of obscure british animated shows. And yet, to call them "regular flawed individuals" would be incorrect, since such regular people are usually not extraordinary in any way, with nothing great about them. Such "average" homosapienses are mediocre at everything, and make up roughly 80% of the world's population.
NO, these are special people, distinguished for being either extremely insightful and wise, or extremely stupid and mentally lazy. I have been thinking... what would I call such people? I don't believe anyone ever devised a word for such strange folk.
Until today.
4 today, I have finally solved this problem that no one ever cared about! From this point, these "sometimes brilliant, sometimes daft" people will be called Bipolar Geniuses™. ©Me, 2017.
No one steal!
More post are coming, as this blog continues to live, despite according to all known mainstream science it should be dead.
Yes, I am sure you have met at least one person like this: a philosopher at night, a retard at day. Such people are more common than fans of obscure british animated shows. And yet, to call them "regular flawed individuals" would be incorrect, since such regular people are usually not extraordinary in any way, with nothing great about them. Such "average" homosapienses are mediocre at everything, and make up roughly 80% of the world's population.
NO, these are special people, distinguished for being either extremely insightful and wise, or extremely stupid and mentally lazy. I have been thinking... what would I call such people? I don't believe anyone ever devised a word for such strange folk.
Until today.
4 today, I have finally solved this problem that no one ever cared about! From this point, these "sometimes brilliant, sometimes daft" people will be called Bipolar Geniuses™. ©Me, 2017.
No one steal!
More post are coming, as this blog continues to live, despite according to all known mainstream science it should be dead.
Thursday, June 8, 2017
X-perience
Hey you!
Yes, you! Have you ever wanted to sound smart? But never bothered actually becoming smart? Want to impress people with your smart talk? Wanna talk smart, don't you?
Well, do I have a solution for you!
The secret to sounding smart is actually very simple! Just say "experience" a lot. You don't have to know what it means, just use it in dialogue, often. See example:
"In my experience, never before have I experienced such an experience. My last summer's experience was quite an experience, and I wish every one of you could experience my experience!"
Now, what are you waiting for? Go, and experience the adoration of thousands of easily impressionable sheep!
Yes, you! Have you ever wanted to sound smart? But never bothered actually becoming smart? Want to impress people with your smart talk? Wanna talk smart, don't you?
Well, do I have a solution for you!
The secret to sounding smart is actually very simple! Just say "experience" a lot. You don't have to know what it means, just use it in dialogue, often. See example:
"In my experience, never before have I experienced such an experience. My last summer's experience was quite an experience, and I wish every one of you could experience my experience!"
Now, what are you waiting for? Go, and experience the adoration of thousands of easily impressionable sheep!
Friday, July 15, 2016
Ruminating on the pack mentality (and wulfs)
(this rant will piss off every dog lover)
So, it has come to this.
I am finally writing another post, 3 months after.
So, pack mentality.....
One day, when thinking about dogs, and how they are "man's best friend", I asked myself the inevitable question: "Or are they?"
Dogs seem to love you unconditionally, and are willing to do any work for you for a meager price of food and shelter. How noble of them............... or is it?
Well, ask yourself a question: why do wolves form packs? Is it because they love each other so damn much? Is it because they are oh so nice? Or is it because of much more pragmatic, and, frankly, pathetic reasons?
I will be frank, and say what I think right here. Wolves are weak cowards. They are weak because they cannot support themselves. They are cowards because they are afraid for their own skin. "Safety in numbers" is a recurring phrase for a reason. Wulfs stick together because it is safe. And because it makes it easier to hunt. Understandable, but not respectable.
And there is nothing shameful for being weak on your own. However, it is shameful when those are your only reasons for being social. Yeah, I am part of the group, because on my own I cannot accomplish jack shit!
It would be understandable, and even admirable if wolves formed packs after realizing their individual weakness as hunters and general survivors. It is noble to not be afraid to admit you're weak, and it is a sign of intelligence to decide to stick together with someone else for strength in numbers. But wolves just had to fuck everything up, by throwing in a bonus – the Alpha System.
For you see, it's not all egalitarianism all the time inside a wulf pack. There is the 1%, those slightly below, and those considered the dredges of society. And everyone in the 99% are constantly scheming to overthrow (see: kill) the alphas. There are constant in-fighting, and frequent changing of the guard. Wulfs pretend to be loyal out of cowardice, but when presented with a chance, dig their teeth in. PRETTY MUCH LIKE PEOPLE, ACTUALLY.
The pack is comprised of aggressive assholes who treat everyone else like shit and demand the best and the most resources, and submissive cowards below them who are only pretending to agree with the system, to hopefully one day kill the leader and become the 1%. Assholes, and cowards.
And the dogs are so nice to us because, through their limited intelligence, they believe they are still the same wulfs of 10,000 years ago. Dogs still see the world through the old pack-o-vision, and see their masters as the alphas. Dogs pretend to like us because they are anti-egalitarian by nature. In dogs' world, there are only kings and servants, and you are one or the other. And sadly for them, we, the humans, are way smarter than them, and it is pretty much impossible for them to overthrow us, their two-legged masters. So they are stuck in the endless cycle of servitude.
Dogs don't love us, they just think we are the alpha wulfs. And that is the sole point of this rant.
And yes, some dogs seem to be capable of genuine sympathy for their owners. I met some like that.
They are in the minority, sadly.
So, it has come to this.
I am finally writing another post, 3 months after.
So, pack mentality.....
One day, when thinking about dogs, and how they are "man's best friend", I asked myself the inevitable question: "Or are they?"
Dogs seem to love you unconditionally, and are willing to do any work for you for a meager price of food and shelter. How noble of them............... or is it?
Well, ask yourself a question: why do wolves form packs? Is it because they love each other so damn much? Is it because they are oh so nice? Or is it because of much more pragmatic, and, frankly, pathetic reasons?
I will be frank, and say what I think right here. Wolves are weak cowards. They are weak because they cannot support themselves. They are cowards because they are afraid for their own skin. "Safety in numbers" is a recurring phrase for a reason. Wulfs stick together because it is safe. And because it makes it easier to hunt. Understandable, but not respectable.
And there is nothing shameful for being weak on your own. However, it is shameful when those are your only reasons for being social. Yeah, I am part of the group, because on my own I cannot accomplish jack shit!
It would be understandable, and even admirable if wolves formed packs after realizing their individual weakness as hunters and general survivors. It is noble to not be afraid to admit you're weak, and it is a sign of intelligence to decide to stick together with someone else for strength in numbers. But wolves just had to fuck everything up, by throwing in a bonus – the Alpha System.
For you see, it's not all egalitarianism all the time inside a wulf pack. There is the 1%, those slightly below, and those considered the dredges of society. And everyone in the 99% are constantly scheming to overthrow (see: kill) the alphas. There are constant in-fighting, and frequent changing of the guard. Wulfs pretend to be loyal out of cowardice, but when presented with a chance, dig their teeth in. PRETTY MUCH LIKE PEOPLE, ACTUALLY.
The pack is comprised of aggressive assholes who treat everyone else like shit and demand the best and the most resources, and submissive cowards below them who are only pretending to agree with the system, to hopefully one day kill the leader and become the 1%. Assholes, and cowards.
And the dogs are so nice to us because, through their limited intelligence, they believe they are still the same wulfs of 10,000 years ago. Dogs still see the world through the old pack-o-vision, and see their masters as the alphas. Dogs pretend to like us because they are anti-egalitarian by nature. In dogs' world, there are only kings and servants, and you are one or the other. And sadly for them, we, the humans, are way smarter than them, and it is pretty much impossible for them to overthrow us, their two-legged masters. So they are stuck in the endless cycle of servitude.
Dogs don't love us, they just think we are the alpha wulfs. And that is the sole point of this rant.
And yes, some dogs seem to be capable of genuine sympathy for their owners. I met some like that.
They are in the minority, sadly.
Tuesday, February 9, 2016
I blame the INTERNET (and myself).
You probably heard a lot of complains, a lot of moans about things getting worse, about everything being shit. You heard complaints about #KidsTheseDays who cannot spend 5 waking minutes without checking their status on a touch phone, and being willfully ignorant about actual knowledge.
You might even have heard about the entire Western Civilization going to Hell in a regular basket.
Assuming any of that is true, and things in the western world really ARE getting worse, there are only 3 options.
–Blame yourself.
–Blame someone/something else.
–Do Both.
I personally do believe that things in the western world have been going downhill, and that people are becoming increasingly apathetic and willfully ignorant. People are refusing to think for themselves, refusing to question things, refusing to DO things; refusing to live as brave independent people, and not cowardly sheep following either RELIGION of SCIENCE to wherever those take us (spoiler: it's destruction).
I believe that the West have been getting more and more sick for some time. And of the three options listed above, I pick the 3rd, the last one.
Blaming yourself is always a good option, and is an important step in growing up, and becoming MATURE ADULTS™.
HOWEVER, blaming yourself BY ITSELF, only leads to self hatred (and suicide). You can only blame yourself for making the wrong action (or not taking actions at all), believing the wrong idea, or allowing someone to keep you down.
So, for the shit that has been happening to the West, and myself personally, I blame myself for allowing THE INTERNETS to turn me into a slob, eager for instant gratification.
We have become chronically afraid of missing something important, for missing some hot new content, for falling out of the loop. We are afraid of not being in the know. And that is why we are always online, always checking IF WE MISSED ANYTHING (spoiler: we almost never do).
We have become spoiled by the promise of instant access and no waiting. We curse our INTERNET connection when downloading our movies and games illegally (because why work for money if that is hard and takes time?) Don't work! Don't wait! Do not do hard things! Do not discipline yourself! DO NOTHING BUT CONSUME EVERYTHING ALL AT ONCE RIGHT NOW!
Looking at myself, I make myself sick sometimes.
And I am not the only one.
LOOK IN THE FUCKING MIRROR.
P.S. Satyrday updates will return very soon. I promise to not take very long now.
You might even have heard about the entire Western Civilization going to Hell in a regular basket.
Assuming any of that is true, and things in the western world really ARE getting worse, there are only 3 options.
–Blame yourself.
–Blame someone/something else.
–Do Both.
I personally do believe that things in the western world have been going downhill, and that people are becoming increasingly apathetic and willfully ignorant. People are refusing to think for themselves, refusing to question things, refusing to DO things; refusing to live as brave independent people, and not cowardly sheep following either RELIGION of SCIENCE to wherever those take us (spoiler: it's destruction).
I believe that the West have been getting more and more sick for some time. And of the three options listed above, I pick the 3rd, the last one.
Blaming yourself is always a good option, and is an important step in growing up, and becoming MATURE ADULTS™.
HOWEVER, blaming yourself BY ITSELF, only leads to self hatred (and suicide). You can only blame yourself for making the wrong action (or not taking actions at all), believing the wrong idea, or allowing someone to keep you down.
So, for the shit that has been happening to the West, and myself personally, I blame myself for allowing THE INTERNETS to turn me into a slob, eager for instant gratification.
We have become chronically afraid of missing something important, for missing some hot new content, for falling out of the loop. We are afraid of not being in the know. And that is why we are always online, always checking IF WE MISSED ANYTHING (spoiler: we almost never do).
We have become spoiled by the promise of instant access and no waiting. We curse our INTERNET connection when downloading our movies and games illegally (because why work for money if that is hard and takes time?) Don't work! Don't wait! Do not do hard things! Do not discipline yourself! DO NOTHING BUT CONSUME EVERYTHING ALL AT ONCE RIGHT NOW!
Looking at myself, I make myself sick sometimes.
And I am not the only one.
LOOK IN THE FUCKING MIRROR.
P.S. Satyrday updates will return very soon. I promise to not take very long now.
Thursday, December 24, 2015
Why Santa Claus makes no sense (and needs to go away).
We lie to our children like total scumbags. And when they grow up, they take after us, because we are fucking stupid, and totally incapable of learning from others' past mistakes, or growing to become better than our parents. We are stuck in an endless cycle of mediocrity, unable to improve due to our inherent stupidity.
But this is not what this cheery Christmas article is going to be about.
No, it is about why Santa Claus, as a concept, makes no fucking sense.
Who is Santa Claus? Well, he is an old seemingly immortal man who lives on the North Pole, and gives presents to worthy children on Christmas Day. He delivers all Christmas presents by himself.
What is Christmas all about? Well, if you don't get über religious about it, Christmas is about sharing, and giving. Giving presents (of various kinds). On Christmas you give presents.
SEE THE PROBLEM YET??
Well, in case you don't, allow me to put it this way: Santa Claus destroys the Spirit of Christmas by existing. If Santa was real (WHAT DO YOU MEAN HE ISN'T REAL YOU JERK), that would mean all presents on Christmas would be from him. That, in turn, eliminates any reason for sharing and giving. Why give presents yourself, when some fat man from the north pole can just do it for you, and do it better? Cause Santa knows what everyone wants, and delivers stuff on time, never late. You cannot beat Santa. He is friggin perfect.
And you can never beat friggin perfect, let me tell you that.
So, in order for gift giving and the whole kindness thing to take place, Santa Claus needs to go away. Either you are nice, or somebody is being nice for you. In my OPINION, there is no middle ground here. It is either Santa Claus, or you. And I would rather be nice and give gifts by myself, rather than rely on someone else to do those important things for me.
MERRY FUCKING CHRISTMAS! :D
But this is not what this cheery Christmas article is going to be about.
No, it is about why Santa Claus, as a concept, makes no fucking sense.
Who is Santa Claus? Well, he is an old seemingly immortal man who lives on the North Pole, and gives presents to worthy children on Christmas Day. He delivers all Christmas presents by himself.
What is Christmas all about? Well, if you don't get über religious about it, Christmas is about sharing, and giving. Giving presents (of various kinds). On Christmas you give presents.
SEE THE PROBLEM YET??
Well, in case you don't, allow me to put it this way: Santa Claus destroys the Spirit of Christmas by existing. If Santa was real (WHAT DO YOU MEAN HE ISN'T REAL YOU JERK), that would mean all presents on Christmas would be from him. That, in turn, eliminates any reason for sharing and giving. Why give presents yourself, when some fat man from the north pole can just do it for you, and do it better? Cause Santa knows what everyone wants, and delivers stuff on time, never late. You cannot beat Santa. He is friggin perfect.
And you can never beat friggin perfect, let me tell you that.
So, in order for gift giving and the whole kindness thing to take place, Santa Claus needs to go away. Either you are nice, or somebody is being nice for you. In my OPINION, there is no middle ground here. It is either Santa Claus, or you. And I would rather be nice and give gifts by myself, rather than rely on someone else to do those important things for me.
MERRY FUCKING CHRISTMAS! :D
Wednesday, July 22, 2015
One more reason to not to respond to attention whores.
We've all been there, haven't we? You read an article, and you read it, and you finish reading it, and you go all the way to the bottom............. to the comment section. You look through them, to see what other ppl are thinking....
....... and then you see it. Some smartass who thinks he is changing the world with his hot OPINIONS. His comment is so stupid, so angering, so factually incorrect, SO MAKING YOU CLICK THAT REPLY BU-......... but no, you must stop! Do not reply!
"But why? I must show that idiot that his position is wrong and he is factually incorrect!"
Well, that is not the smartest course de actionsé. Arguing with an idiot who thinks he is fighting a war in the comment section, will only fuel the fire; it will only strengthen the idiot's believe that there is a war. Why wouldn't there be? But of course there is! You are right there, fighting a war with him, with your comment!
Smartasses in comment sections think they are fighting a war against something BIG and evil. By replying, you reaffirm their belief that there is a force to be fought (your comment). By not replying, by ignoring the fuck out of them, there is a slight chance they might consider the possibility that they are fighting against nothing, that there is nothing to win, nobody to fight.
By ignoring angry idiots you just might help them become slightly less idiotic.
....... and then you see it. Some smartass who thinks he is changing the world with his hot OPINIONS. His comment is so stupid, so angering, so factually incorrect, SO MAKING YOU CLICK THAT REPLY BU-......... but no, you must stop! Do not reply!
"But why? I must show that idiot that his position is wrong and he is factually incorrect!"
Well, that is not the smartest course de actionsé. Arguing with an idiot who thinks he is fighting a war in the comment section, will only fuel the fire; it will only strengthen the idiot's believe that there is a war. Why wouldn't there be? But of course there is! You are right there, fighting a war with him, with your comment!
Smartasses in comment sections think they are fighting a war against something BIG and evil. By replying, you reaffirm their belief that there is a force to be fought (your comment). By not replying, by ignoring the fuck out of them, there is a slight chance they might consider the possibility that they are fighting against nothing, that there is nothing to win, nobody to fight.
By ignoring angry idiots you just might help them become slightly less idiotic.
Tuesday, July 21, 2015
SIlent Hill for Pretentious Smartasses Part 2 (long awaited by nobody).
Alrighty then, let's jump into it. If you haven't read part 1, go read that first before proceeding.
Are the events of Silent Hill 1-3 real? Those who prefer to think that they aren't, are in for quite an offense. I'll start with the supporting characters.
So, you think Silent Hill is all in youre heade? Okay. Explain the supporting characters then. How can the other people you interact with exist, if it's all in your mind? And you might be saying something like "oh, those people are just representations of [ blah blah Freudian Psychology 101 ]".
Well, if all those people in Silent Hill 2 are somehow in the head of the protagonist, that raises certain questions:
–How? How can people live inside your head? How can you have that? I personally never heard of anyone who has people living in his/her head. Yes, we all heard of insane people who have people living in their heads (or so they claim). Well, I never did, and so refuse to believe.
–If SH supporting characters are really representations of protagonist's guilt, then what about those characters who do not represent fucking anything?? In the favorite game of the "in your head" proponents, Silent Hill 2, Laura does not represent shit. That contradicts the "all in your head" directly.
–Supporting characters' backstory. In the much beloved SH2, Angela was raped. Eddie was abused for being fat. What does that have to do with James Fucking Sunderland?? Was James fat? Was James raepd? NO. What do those backstories represent symbolically (there is that word again) in relation to James? FUCKING NOTHING. How can these people be imaginary, if their backstories have nothing to do with James? The answer is, they cannot.
–If everyone is imaginary, how can your imaginary characters know information you never learned? Eddie told James Laura's name. Angela told James about the monsters, before James ever saw one. Maria feels like she was meant to protect Laura, which reflects the feelings Mary had for the girl; James never knew they were friends. All those supporting characters in SH2, at least at one point, knew something James did not. That would indicate that they cannot be imaginary, and must be real people.
Okay, I hope these are some convincing arguments to convince you that the events of Silent Hill 2 did not happen in James's head. If you are still not convinced, then wait for part 3!
Are the events of Silent Hill 1-3 real? Those who prefer to think that they aren't, are in for quite an offense. I'll start with the supporting characters.
So, you think Silent Hill is all in youre heade? Okay. Explain the supporting characters then. How can the other people you interact with exist, if it's all in your mind? And you might be saying something like "oh, those people are just representations of [ blah blah Freudian Psychology 101 ]".
Well, if all those people in Silent Hill 2 are somehow in the head of the protagonist, that raises certain questions:
–How? How can people live inside your head? How can you have that? I personally never heard of anyone who has people living in his/her head. Yes, we all heard of insane people who have people living in their heads (or so they claim). Well, I never did, and so refuse to believe.
–If SH supporting characters are really representations of protagonist's guilt, then what about those characters who do not represent fucking anything?? In the favorite game of the "in your head" proponents, Silent Hill 2, Laura does not represent shit. That contradicts the "all in your head" directly.
–Supporting characters' backstory. In the much beloved SH2, Angela was raped. Eddie was abused for being fat. What does that have to do with James Fucking Sunderland?? Was James fat? Was James raepd? NO. What do those backstories represent symbolically (there is that word again) in relation to James? FUCKING NOTHING. How can these people be imaginary, if their backstories have nothing to do with James? The answer is, they cannot.
–If everyone is imaginary, how can your imaginary characters know information you never learned? Eddie told James Laura's name. Angela told James about the monsters, before James ever saw one. Maria feels like she was meant to protect Laura, which reflects the feelings Mary had for the girl; James never knew they were friends. All those supporting characters in SH2, at least at one point, knew something James did not. That would indicate that they cannot be imaginary, and must be real people.
Okay, I hope these are some convincing arguments to convince you that the events of Silent Hill 2 did not happen in James's head. If you are still not convinced, then wait for part 3!
Friday, July 3, 2015
In Defense of Sequels.
if you go on the INTERNET, and look around, you will quickly find a sizable amount of humans united around the common goal of hating sequels. According to them, sequels are bad and need to stop.
Well, why they say that is not hard to figure out. Sequels are produced only to make money, after the original did. Or at least that is the common belief. That is hard to argue with. The biggest makers of movies (hello, Hollywood) are run by Big Bad Corporations, which in turn are not run by artists, but by corporate people who do not care for quality storytelling. They will finance utter shit, as long as it makes money. From the corporate leaders' point of view, as long as there is profit, the movie can be fucking anything. Unfortunately for them, the actual movie audience doesn't give a damn about that point of view.
And the general public knows that. People know that sequels are only made to sell more tickets.
BUT WAIT! That is not true!
... at least not entirely.
Allow me to introduce you to the glorious World of Exceptions. World of Exceptions is visited 1643 times less than Disney World, and therefore is seldom known. But it does exist! And it contains some of the rarest pieces of knowledge, the stuff of legends, the stuff self-proclaimed wise men (and women) want to get. And one of the things you'll find in the World of Exceptions is that sometimes, SOMETIMES, movies are made because the filmmakers actually legitimately for realz want to.
But why would a film maker want to make a sequel? Why not leave every movie self-contained?
Well, I'll tell you why. Because sometimes there are more stories left to tell in the established universe. Because sometimes plot threads are unfinished. Ever heard of Shrek 2? Empire Strikes Back? Back to the Future 2? Sometimes the directors/writers want to keep going. Sometimes they want to make more, not because it'll make money; because it would be cool to make more. Because those sequels would be so great if we ever manage to make them!
And if I still haven't gotten through to you, let me put it like this. Imagine movies as really long episodes of an ongoing series. Imagine movies and their sequels as serials. Imagine movies as long chapters of one book.
And I am not saying all movies need sequels. Most movies had sequels forced upon them. However, some movies deserve sequels. Some movies need sequels, or else they would remain unfinished forever.
I know you might be burned by Hollywood and its many clones around the world. I know you probably hate sequels. But please do not hate all of them! Please visit the World of Exceptions.
Well, why they say that is not hard to figure out. Sequels are produced only to make money, after the original did. Or at least that is the common belief. That is hard to argue with. The biggest makers of movies (hello, Hollywood) are run by Big Bad Corporations, which in turn are not run by artists, but by corporate people who do not care for quality storytelling. They will finance utter shit, as long as it makes money. From the corporate leaders' point of view, as long as there is profit, the movie can be fucking anything. Unfortunately for them, the actual movie audience doesn't give a damn about that point of view.
And the general public knows that. People know that sequels are only made to sell more tickets.
BUT WAIT! That is not true!
... at least not entirely.
Allow me to introduce you to the glorious World of Exceptions. World of Exceptions is visited 1643 times less than Disney World, and therefore is seldom known. But it does exist! And it contains some of the rarest pieces of knowledge, the stuff of legends, the stuff self-proclaimed wise men (and women) want to get. And one of the things you'll find in the World of Exceptions is that sometimes, SOMETIMES, movies are made because the filmmakers actually legitimately for realz want to.
But why would a film maker want to make a sequel? Why not leave every movie self-contained?
Well, I'll tell you why. Because sometimes there are more stories left to tell in the established universe. Because sometimes plot threads are unfinished. Ever heard of Shrek 2? Empire Strikes Back? Back to the Future 2? Sometimes the directors/writers want to keep going. Sometimes they want to make more, not because it'll make money; because it would be cool to make more. Because those sequels would be so great if we ever manage to make them!
And if I still haven't gotten through to you, let me put it like this. Imagine movies as really long episodes of an ongoing series. Imagine movies and their sequels as serials. Imagine movies as long chapters of one book.
And I am not saying all movies need sequels. Most movies had sequels forced upon them. However, some movies deserve sequels. Some movies need sequels, or else they would remain unfinished forever.
I know you might be burned by Hollywood and its many clones around the world. I know you probably hate sequels. But please do not hate all of them! Please visit the World of Exceptions.
Wednesday, May 20, 2015
How to get thumbs up on your INTERNET comments.
If you have been trying to solve this ages old secret, you came to the right place. I will tell you, dear reader, how to get upvoted in online places.
Way #1: Mention something a lot of other people like, and say you like it too.
Way #2: Use the latest, hottest meme you know, and meme it like there's no tomorrow.
Way #3: No, there is no 3rd way.
And, there you have it!3 2 sure ways to get your online comments upvoted.
P.S. I also heard rumors of another way to get thumbs up, but did not include it here for lack of solid evidence of it actually working. I believe it has something to do with posting interesting and/or helpful material, but I haven't seen such posts upvoted ever.
Way #1: Mention something a lot of other people like, and say you like it too.
Way #2: Use the latest, hottest meme you know, and meme it like there's no tomorrow.
Way #3: No, there is no 3rd way.
And, there you have it!
P.S. I also heard rumors of another way to get thumbs up, but did not include it here for lack of solid evidence of it actually working. I believe it has something to do with posting interesting and/or helpful material, but I haven't seen such posts upvoted ever.
Saturday, April 11, 2015
A humble theory on why Beyond Good & Evil is not very popular.
We all love our cult classics, right? We all love our Twice Upon a Time, our Psychonauts, our Firefly. We love 'em.
And almost as much as we love to promote them, we love to defend them, explain to others why they did not reach a more mainstream success. Released before their time, bad promotion, censorship, other reasons.
And today, for your amusement (at least I hope you'll be amused), I am going to explain why Beyond Good & Evil remains a cult classic, despite enough years having passed to build a bigger audience through word of mouth.
Let's get lack of promotion our of the way first, since that is not really the biggest issue. Over the years, good things find an audience. The INTERNET allowed hundreds of ppl to tell thousands of other ppl of under-appreciated games like Psychonauts and Ico. And the info on BG&E being a good game was widely available online for many years. And yet, BG&E did not become a game beloved by the mainstream.
So, now I will tell you, the reader, the two biggest reasons on why Beyond Good & Evil does not appeal to a wider audience even now, one subjective and one objective.
ONE: objective and minor.
The biggest thing about the game, the game's heart if you will, is the feeling of you changing the minds of an entire planet's population. Jade is a photographer who *ahem* with her photography exposes a supposedly good military organization for the monsters they really are. In a way, BG&E is a revolution simulator.
In order to feel like you are changing the minds of the people, you need to feel connected to them. You connect with the population, and learn of their lives, by talking to them between missions. The problem? It is almost entirely mandatory. You can talk to a Hyllian or two in order to learn where to find more pearls, the game's currency. However, pearls can be just as easily obtained by exploring the world map, or going off the main path in dungeons. To learn about the hardships of the people, of the kidnappings, to find out how the population feels, you need to speak with EVERYONE after each mission. You are never reminded of the importance of talking to everyone between missions. Most players will miss 90% of dialogue on their first play.
Another thing you do in the game to feel like you caused change, is reading the underground paper with the photos you took. The problem? You NEVER have to do that. 100% optional. Never told to do that either.
Now, you might be saying "smart players know to explore everywhere and try everything to get all of the story!" True, true. Players who ALREADY KNOW WHAT TO DO. You, smart player, are very much in the minority. You are either a huge fan of adventure games (there aren't a lot of you), very OCD about 100%ing each level (again, minority), or already played the game.
The majority of players will miss most or all of the optional dialogue, and never watch a single news report. Those who won't miss that on first playthrough are not large in number, as explained above. In a game focused mostly on STORY, and not innovative deep gameplay, missing on lore will make you feel like you haven't accomplished much after each mission. You won't feel like you spread the truth to the population of Hyllis; you will feel like you beat a dungeon.
"But I did all the optional stuff, I figured out everything by myself!" you might say. Well, smart cookie, you are from the tiny village of Smart Cookie. Most gamers are from Plebville, a large metropolis populated by average Joe and Joannes, who don't care and don't know. They will miss half the story and will feel underwhelmed. Many of them will not like the game, or merely think it's "meh". That would mean less favorable reviews, less success, less popularity.
TWO: subjective, and major.
The game looks like a cartoon. That's putting it short, and a full explanation requires long paragraphs.
Regardless of what you say or think, the fact is: the general populace does not accept serious drama in cartoon form. Serious drama is preferred bundled with a strong dose of realism (like BG&E used to be bundled with cheese). To be taken seriously, a piece of fiction needs to be realistic. Give the audience a cartoon, and approximately 50% will walk away, thinking it would be wacky comedy (something Mature Adults™ do not enjoy on principle). And sooner than later, 25% more will leave, disappointed after not getting the wacky comedy they came to see. You will be left with a quarter of the original group, accepting of your cartoons with dramas.
A cartoon with serious/dramatic elements is not enjoyed by many people. By "serious/dramatic" I simply mean that actions have consequences: when punched, people go "ow!", when stabbed they bleed, when killed they die. Anvil dropped on the head will smash the guy, killing the bastard instantly.
And I won't waste my (and your) time with bullshit about historical and cultural reasons on why serious cartoons are not popular. I won't, because I know people are they way are just because. I accept that, and so should you. You will never change society to like dramatic cartoons more, even if you make a HUNDRED YouTube videos, or write a HUNDRED blog posts. And convincing people IRL won't help either. You can only change the minds of others when they are about to change themselves, with you helping them by providing a push. If someone isn't already open to the idea of serious cartoons being something they might like, you won't change their minds.
Beyond Good & Evil is a mostly serious game with a cartoony presentation. That combination naturally does not appeal to the majority of people. And that is a major reason for the game not being super popular.
Well, there's everything I wanted to say. Next time someone wonders "why isn't Beyond Good & Evil more popular?", tell them this. Or give them the link to this post, that would be nice also!
Next post will be more Satyrday!
And almost as much as we love to promote them, we love to defend them, explain to others why they did not reach a more mainstream success. Released before their time, bad promotion, censorship, other reasons.
And today, for your amusement (at least I hope you'll be amused), I am going to explain why Beyond Good & Evil remains a cult classic, despite enough years having passed to build a bigger audience through word of mouth.
Let's get lack of promotion our of the way first, since that is not really the biggest issue. Over the years, good things find an audience. The INTERNET allowed hundreds of ppl to tell thousands of other ppl of under-appreciated games like Psychonauts and Ico. And the info on BG&E being a good game was widely available online for many years. And yet, BG&E did not become a game beloved by the mainstream.
So, now I will tell you, the reader, the two biggest reasons on why Beyond Good & Evil does not appeal to a wider audience even now, one subjective and one objective.
ONE: objective and minor.
The biggest thing about the game, the game's heart if you will, is the feeling of you changing the minds of an entire planet's population. Jade is a photographer who *ahem* with her photography exposes a supposedly good military organization for the monsters they really are. In a way, BG&E is a revolution simulator.
In order to feel like you are changing the minds of the people, you need to feel connected to them. You connect with the population, and learn of their lives, by talking to them between missions. The problem? It is almost entirely mandatory. You can talk to a Hyllian or two in order to learn where to find more pearls, the game's currency. However, pearls can be just as easily obtained by exploring the world map, or going off the main path in dungeons. To learn about the hardships of the people, of the kidnappings, to find out how the population feels, you need to speak with EVERYONE after each mission. You are never reminded of the importance of talking to everyone between missions. Most players will miss 90% of dialogue on their first play.
Another thing you do in the game to feel like you caused change, is reading the underground paper with the photos you took. The problem? You NEVER have to do that. 100% optional. Never told to do that either.
Now, you might be saying "smart players know to explore everywhere and try everything to get all of the story!" True, true. Players who ALREADY KNOW WHAT TO DO. You, smart player, are very much in the minority. You are either a huge fan of adventure games (there aren't a lot of you), very OCD about 100%ing each level (again, minority), or already played the game.
The majority of players will miss most or all of the optional dialogue, and never watch a single news report. Those who won't miss that on first playthrough are not large in number, as explained above. In a game focused mostly on STORY, and not innovative deep gameplay, missing on lore will make you feel like you haven't accomplished much after each mission. You won't feel like you spread the truth to the population of Hyllis; you will feel like you beat a dungeon.
"But I did all the optional stuff, I figured out everything by myself!" you might say. Well, smart cookie, you are from the tiny village of Smart Cookie. Most gamers are from Plebville, a large metropolis populated by average Joe and Joannes, who don't care and don't know. They will miss half the story and will feel underwhelmed. Many of them will not like the game, or merely think it's "meh". That would mean less favorable reviews, less success, less popularity.
TWO: subjective, and major.
The game looks like a cartoon. That's putting it short, and a full explanation requires long paragraphs.
Regardless of what you say or think, the fact is: the general populace does not accept serious drama in cartoon form. Serious drama is preferred bundled with a strong dose of realism (like BG&E used to be bundled with cheese). To be taken seriously, a piece of fiction needs to be realistic. Give the audience a cartoon, and approximately 50% will walk away, thinking it would be wacky comedy (something Mature Adults™ do not enjoy on principle). And sooner than later, 25% more will leave, disappointed after not getting the wacky comedy they came to see. You will be left with a quarter of the original group, accepting of your cartoons with dramas.
A cartoon with serious/dramatic elements is not enjoyed by many people. By "serious/dramatic" I simply mean that actions have consequences: when punched, people go "ow!", when stabbed they bleed, when killed they die. Anvil dropped on the head will smash the guy, killing the bastard instantly.
And I won't waste my (and your) time with bullshit about historical and cultural reasons on why serious cartoons are not popular. I won't, because I know people are they way are just because. I accept that, and so should you. You will never change society to like dramatic cartoons more, even if you make a HUNDRED YouTube videos, or write a HUNDRED blog posts. And convincing people IRL won't help either. You can only change the minds of others when they are about to change themselves, with you helping them by providing a push. If someone isn't already open to the idea of serious cartoons being something they might like, you won't change their minds.
Beyond Good & Evil is a mostly serious game with a cartoony presentation. That combination naturally does not appeal to the majority of people. And that is a major reason for the game not being super popular.
Well, there's everything I wanted to say. Next time someone wonders "why isn't Beyond Good & Evil more popular?", tell them this. Or give them the link to this post, that would be nice also!
Next post will be more Satyrday!
Thursday, March 26, 2015
Waifus and kids' cartoons.
So, the waifu phenomenon. About 90% of people who use that word are either having a giggle, or are being very ironic about things. So, naturally that leaves about 10% to talk about. But even that 10% is hard to write a ridiculous essay on, since it's a whole ocean of discussable material. Naturally, one must pick one small thing to concentrate on. And just like that, I will focus on one thing right now.
So, here is my ridiculous thesis for the night – having stronger imagination increases your chances of having a waifu.
But first thing foremost, what's a waifu?
Well, to make matters understandable, you need to be aware that there exist two popular definitions. One is a fictional female you really like for whatever reasons (this one is rarely used). Another is a fictional female you really wish were real (to marry and/or fuck and/or hug) (most widely used). Sometimes the two can overlap, and you get both. But tonight we are going to focus on the second definition only, because I want to.
There is one thing all sane individuals (mostly those without waifus) can agree on: fictional females are not real. And before we get all metaphysical, by "not real" I mean "not in the real world right now cannot touch" not real. So yes, waifus are not real.
So, why do so many silly people obsess over fictional females who are not real?
That is something that will only puzzle a person with weak imagination (like you lol).
Commencing explanation of the "imagination = waifu" relationship:
Imagination is required to experience fiction. Just like shrooms are required to get high. Without imagination, fiction will leave you unimpressed and uninterested. So, in order to care for a story that is not real, you must imagine, even for a minute, that it might be real. And, as you should already know, there are no stories without characters (I even wrote a post about that). Stories are largely made of characters; in order to feel for the story, you must feel for the characters. You must consider the distant possibility that they might be real.
And that's when things get interesting.
You pretend that non-existing characters are real so they could move you and leave a lasting impression. And some of those non-existent persons are females. Some are main characters, some supporting, some rivals, some love interests, some not. And you will feel something for them. In case of a female being a love interest in the story, you are likely to feel something resembling interest, as the protagonist does.
So, you will consider the possibility that that female is real, and you might love her. So, who is to say that this game of imagination cannot shift to full blown delusion? It is a slippery slope in some way: "could be real in some land far far away" >> "might be real somewhere else" >> "might be real" >> "maybe she's real" >> "OH MAH GOSH SHE'S REAL!"
WAIT A MINUTE, do I have a point? Well, I haven't made it yet. But I will now!
1. Some of us with stronger imagination can become rather attached to the fantasy, and value it almost as much as the real. She's real in my <3, dammit!
2. With strong imagination and poor control over it, one can lose the ability to distinguish between the real and fantasy. She's real in Fictionland, and I cannot wait until I can get my hands on a magical transporter to be with her! :'(
But in both cases, you need to have a very strong imagination. That is not to say that you will have a waifu if you possess imagination of that level, BUT that will increase your chances by many percents.
Another thing that will increase your percents is the medium. Visual storytelling provides an image in addition to words, making it easy to fall in wub with fictional womenz. It is even easier with cartoons, since voice is added to the mix, making it that much harder to RESIST. Can you resist?
So, if anyone wonders again why do ze nerds have waifus, remember – strong imagination and waifus tend to walk together.
The same applies to husbandos I guess.
So, here is my ridiculous thesis for the night – having stronger imagination increases your chances of having a waifu.
But first thing foremost, what's a waifu?
Well, to make matters understandable, you need to be aware that there exist two popular definitions. One is a fictional female you really like for whatever reasons (this one is rarely used). Another is a fictional female you really wish were real (to marry and/or fuck and/or hug) (most widely used). Sometimes the two can overlap, and you get both. But tonight we are going to focus on the second definition only, because I want to.
There is one thing all sane individuals (mostly those without waifus) can agree on: fictional females are not real. And before we get all metaphysical, by "not real" I mean "not in the real world right now cannot touch" not real. So yes, waifus are not real.
So, why do so many silly people obsess over fictional females who are not real?
That is something that will only puzzle a person with weak imagination (like you lol).
Commencing explanation of the "imagination = waifu" relationship:
Imagination is required to experience fiction. Just like shrooms are required to get high. Without imagination, fiction will leave you unimpressed and uninterested. So, in order to care for a story that is not real, you must imagine, even for a minute, that it might be real. And, as you should already know, there are no stories without characters (I even wrote a post about that). Stories are largely made of characters; in order to feel for the story, you must feel for the characters. You must consider the distant possibility that they might be real.
And that's when things get interesting.
You pretend that non-existing characters are real so they could move you and leave a lasting impression. And some of those non-existent persons are females. Some are main characters, some supporting, some rivals, some love interests, some not. And you will feel something for them. In case of a female being a love interest in the story, you are likely to feel something resembling interest, as the protagonist does.
So, you will consider the possibility that that female is real, and you might love her. So, who is to say that this game of imagination cannot shift to full blown delusion? It is a slippery slope in some way: "could be real in some land far far away" >> "might be real somewhere else" >> "might be real" >> "maybe she's real" >> "OH MAH GOSH SHE'S REAL!"
WAIT A MINUTE, do I have a point? Well, I haven't made it yet. But I will now!
1. Some of us with stronger imagination can become rather attached to the fantasy, and value it almost as much as the real. She's real in my <3, dammit!
2. With strong imagination and poor control over it, one can lose the ability to distinguish between the real and fantasy. She's real in Fictionland, and I cannot wait until I can get my hands on a magical transporter to be with her! :'(
But in both cases, you need to have a very strong imagination. That is not to say that you will have a waifu if you possess imagination of that level, BUT that will increase your chances by many percents.
Another thing that will increase your percents is the medium. Visual storytelling provides an image in addition to words, making it easy to fall in wub with fictional womenz. It is even easier with cartoons, since voice is added to the mix, making it that much harder to RESIST. Can you resist?
So, if anyone wonders again why do ze nerds have waifus, remember – strong imagination and waifus tend to walk together.
The same applies to husbandos I guess.
Thursday, April 17, 2014
SIlent Hill for Pretentious Smartasses Part 1 (introduction).
You may or may not heard of Silent Hill. You may not know what it is, but you probably heard it is a thing that exists. You may know it's a game franchise and two movies based on such.
Let's get the enormous elephant out of way: first 4 games are good, everything else is shit.
There.
There is much to talk about when discussing Silent Hill games (that aren't shit) (see above). But the most hotly debated topic is the nature of the games' story itself. Is it real, or all IN TEH MAYNDZ OF THE PROTAHGONEESTS???
Well, when it comes to this debate I side with the folks behind Twin Perfect. If you consider yourself a HARDCOOOORE FAN and never heard of Twin Perfect and their shenanigans, you fucking lie.
However, these posts (the title does say part one) will not be about proving what was already proven better by more passionate and knowledgeable people than me. Rather, they will deal with the people who prefer the "psychological" explanation of the events of Silent Hill(s). I will be listing the most likely reasons they prefer this explanation.
So, if you are one of these people, prepare to be OFFENDED on the INTERNET!
To be continued.................
Let's get the enormous elephant out of way: first 4 games are good, everything else is shit.
There.
There is much to talk about when discussing Silent Hill games (that aren't shit) (see above). But the most hotly debated topic is the nature of the games' story itself. Is it real, or all IN TEH MAYNDZ OF THE PROTAHGONEESTS???
Well, when it comes to this debate I side with the folks behind Twin Perfect. If you consider yourself a HARDCOOOORE FAN and never heard of Twin Perfect and their shenanigans, you fucking lie.
However, these posts (the title does say part one) will not be about proving what was already proven better by more passionate and knowledgeable people than me. Rather, they will deal with the people who prefer the "psychological" explanation of the events of Silent Hill(s). I will be listing the most likely reasons they prefer this explanation.
So, if you are one of these people, prepare to be OFFENDED on the INTERNET!
To be continued.................
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)