Critical Examination: There Doesn’t Need to be a Discussion About Difficulty in Gaming

I recently watched the review of Cuphead by a YouTuber that I find genuinely engaging.  I often have some disagreements with stuff or think some of his perspectives are not the best, but I am not the kind of person who has to agree with everything someone says to like their content.  Contrary to popular opinion, not all of us critics of the regressive left are as bad as the people we criticize.  Some of us actually can deal with disagreement and even have some genuinely lively banter on the subject.  This particular YouTuber and I have actually had very lively debate in the comments section of my own posts where I reference their work.  As a way of helping promote this individual, here is a link to their review of Cuphead, now let’s get to the point.

In the video, he says that there is a genuine discussion that should be had about difficulty in gaming.  This talking point has come about after a frankly hilarious video of a game journalist being oddly incapable of dealing with the tutorial level had this person getting well-deserved ridicule.  There was a guy who is very physically handicapped making a video showing his ability to play the game well.  I’m sorry, but he fucked up, and there’s nothing wrong with making fun of the video that was put out and his butthurt reaction to it.  There is especially nothing wrong with ridiculing video game journalists for standing up for being bad at games when this is their line of work.

The aforementioned YouTuber said difficulty vs accessibility in games is a worthwhile discussion.  I am here to respectfully disagree.  Now let me make something clear – I’m not talking about this when it comes to video games that are virtually unplayable.  If a game has a stupid difficulty spike that makes things unfair, that is something worth calling out.  I’m talking about games that make very clear the fact that they are hard and you should be expecting that.

Best example – Dark Souls, but instead of looking at that (because I never got into the franchise), let’s take a look at a game in the same vein that I happen to love – BloodborneBloodborne is hard.  Really hard.  This game will fuck you up.  Dark Souls is a game where you are encouraged to play defensively and wait for openings to attack.  Bloodborne is nothing like that.  Playing defensively will get you killed.  The reality is that it is a game where you are actively encouraged to take risks.  Did you just take a really bad hit?  Well, if you have the guts and fast timing, you can get back into the fight and regain some of the health if you do it quickly.  You got a limited window, idiot!  So get in there and fight!  That style of gameplay is not accessible to everyone.  Plus, the fact that the game demands that style of play also means that you are going to be putting you fate in the hands of blind luck more than you’d like.

But here’s the thing – the players of this game know this.  They accept this.  It’s an understood risk of playing this game.  Because that’s the kind of game that From Software makes.  It’s in the vein of a franchise that was marketed specifically on it being really, really hard.  The original poster for Dark Souls had the line “Prepare to Die” on it.  Players went in with both eyes wide open.  Uncompromising difficulty.  But here’s the thing – you can learn how to work with that.  You learn the placement of the enemies, and the weaknesses of bosses.  Then you put that knowledge to use and fight your ass off.  A little luck will sometimes be required, but you will learn by trial and error.  Lots, and lots of error.

At what point does a game that is difficult become inaccessible?  When it doesn’t appeal to the casual?  Games that market themselves on difficulty are by their nature going to be niche.  Despite the mainstream success of Dark Souls and Bloodborne, they are games made for a certain type of gamer and they know that.  They aren’t the only ones.  Look at Devil May Cry 3 as another example.  That game’s difficulty is downright punishing at points.  The final fight with Vergil requires nerves of steel and a little bit of genuine luck to overcome.  But players understood this.  No one was saying back in the day that we needed to have an Easy mode.

The big debate seems to be that we need to make games easier so that people who don’t like difficult games can have them.  Why?  Why should a game designer compromise their creative image of a game in order to cater to people who don’t want to invest the time or energy to master the game’s mechanics?  You can become pretty badass at Bloodborne if you just learn the placement of enemies and learn how to telegraph their attacks.  I can take on giants and wolf-men early on just by being able to dodge at then strike while taking time to step back and recover energy.  It’s not that hard.  Guess who I did that – by mastering the game’s mechanics.  While the enemies get more difficult in New Game Plus, now I have the weapons I like best and can make even shorter work of my foes.  Because by now I’ve played the game long enough to have that level of mastery.

Plus, there is no way to make that game easy.  Not really.  The game’s entire mechanics are centered around the difficulty and playing well to be able to overcome that.  Everything is built around that!  Take that away and what are you left with?  A game where you wander around beautiful gothic environments and kill the occasional bad guy.  Where’s the fun there?

I’m not seeing where this idea that games need to be easier in order to cater to more people comes from.  The new Assassin’s Creed game has a kind of spectator mode where there are no enemies or threats and you can just wander around the world and look at stuff.  I mean, sure, the environments are pretty, but why not just make a game that is an open world walking simulator at that point?  I don’t even hate walking simulators on their merits.  My favorite game of 2015 was Life is Strange.  But Assassin’s Creed isn’t that type of game.  It’s the kind of game where you are supposed to be taking out targets and using stealth to infiltrate places.  All of the game’s mechanics are built around that.  Take that away and what’s left?  Nothing important, that’s what.

Here’s the thing – I get that hard games can be frustrating to people.  The uncompromising difficulty of Cuphead with its catchy art style and glorious music (sucks that I don’t have an Xbox One.  Will never get to play it unless I get a decent gaming PC) is something players have to adapt to.  But forgive me if I actually believe that players can do that, instead of having to have their hands held the whole damn time because the devs need to make a mode just so they can get in on the fun.  I can play the easy mode on Persona 5 because I love the story and I am just dying to get ahead on it without grinding for long periods of time.  But then I can crank up the difficulty on Doom and rip and tear with the vast arsenal.  But the thing is that both devs made those choices for those modes to be in it.  Can you imagine Doom with a safe mode?  That sounds boring as fuck.

Will be sending this article to the aforementioned YouTuber.  We’ll see where this goes.  What about all of you?  Thoughts about the difficulty vs accessibility in gaming?  Let me know in the Comments.

Until next time, a quote,

“It is one of man’s curious idiosyncrasies to create difficulties for the pleasure of solving them.” – Joseph de Maistre

Peace out,

Maverick

Advertisements

My Romantic Movie Night

Just got done watching Garden of Words.  The animation in that film is absolutely stunning.  It is a visual masterpiece.  Thought about doing a review of it, but I figured that I haven’t written anything of substance on this page in a while.  Honestly haven’t had much that inspires me to write about.  I could write about Trump’s latest idiocy, but that’s done by the entire fucking media.  To be fair, he doesn’t make it hard.  How are people saying that America didn’t elect its first female President?  Sure looks that way to me.  We elected an oversized teenage girl into the Presidency.  The glass ceiling has been broken!

But back to the film, it may have been a visual masterpiece, but I kind of hate it.  Hear me out – it all comes down to the ending.  There’s no resolution!  You have this scene where the underage kid reveals to the woman who he has bonded with when he finally figures out who she is that he’s in love with her.  She totally shoots him down.  It’s a harsh scene.  I felt so hard for that kid.  Throwing your heart out and then getting it thrown in your face is hard.  Then the adult woman who he admitted his feelings for realizes that she has feelings for him too and goes after the kid.  It’s a truly fantastic scene when they meet and the kid is all sad and angry and rails on her, only for her to run into his arms.  I love that scene.  It’s some truly amazing payoff and the voice acting is phenomenal.  It’s a testament to the people who made it.

Then she leaves!  The two are apart and that’s it.  Come on!  Now, I get that this would be a little weird, considering the fact that she’s 27 years old and he’s 15.  But better films have made this work.  Why have her leave?  Maybe have the two admitting how they feel but also acknowledging that they can’t be together because of the age gap and have them realizing that they will have to wait a little bit.  That’s an acknowledgement of reality while still having them looking to keep their feelings alive.  It would have been much more fulfilling if the film ended with her finding a life close to the person she loves, and having him giving her the shoes he had been making the whole film to her at the end.  Like a kind of promise.  Wouldn’t that have been more fulfilling?

See, here’s the thing about me – I’m a hardcore closet romantic.  When I watch FLCL, I feel a genuine tinge for the kid when he is falling for an older woman.  It’s funny, American media bitches about how the idea of a younger man dating an older woman is so frowned upon.  Japan certainly doesn’t shy away from an age difference with boys and women.  What’s more, they also make it respectable.  Sure, there is plenty of fan service for busty older women that young horny boys are into, but in both Garden of Words and FLCL, they play it as these women being genuine people with the boys discovering their romantic identity with them.  In both cases, it makes for some great scenes.  But while FLCL played it off that the kid falling for the older girl was a metaphor for him growing up and accepting who he is, Garden of Words played the romantic angle straight.  Which makes it that much more frustrating when the film ends on a sour note for no good fucking reason.

I really am bad about it.  When I watch the scene in Stein’s Gate when Christina and Okarin admit their feelings for each other, I judge that scene harshly as well.  It’s a great scene, but it could have been better.  For starters, the music in there is terrible.  It’s distractingly bad.  The scene would have been better served if there was no music at all.  Would have added to the emotional gravity as well, considering the fact that Okarin was about to let the woman he just admitted that he loves die.  Genuinely would have loved that scene more.  Also, get rid of the narration by Christina.  It added nothing.  Just quiet.  Have the rain be the biggest sound, with a few seconds for the audience to take in the cruel irony of what was happening with these two characters.

Anytime I see romantic scenes in stuff I like, I typically get all butterflies, while secretly seeing ways the scene could be better and really make me all warm and buttery about it.  Am I the only one?  No joke, someone in the comments, tell me if I am fucking crazy here.  So many great romantic scenes in movies are ruined because of bad details.  Used a lot of anime references.  What can I say, they tend to play romance a lot better than sappy love stories in American cinema.  That’s not to say that it isn’t done well in other mediums.  In the French film Blue is the Warmest Color, I feel genuine heartbreak as Adele is first introduced to the truth about her sexuality with a classmate, only for her feelings to be totally crushed when she realizes it was just a one-off thing and not a sign of true attraction.  The tears on her face seemed genuine.

I guess it’s a sign of me getting older.  As the years on my birthday cake grow, and my time having been single grows, I feel more and more of it.  But no one who sees me in person will know that.  My cynicism is well-known to those who speak to me.  Groj knows, I’ve made no secret of it here.  Deep down, though, there is that part of me that secretly longs to have that moment where I meet a girl at a place I regularly go and then strike up a conversation and something grows between us.  A man can dream, right?  Granted, everyone goes to bars to meet people these days.  I go to bookstores and walks around my home.  Not a lot of places for romance.  But hey, it can happen, right?

What about all of you?  What romantic scenes from stuff (I swear, if someone says The Notebook I’m gonna virtually smack you.  That movie is fucking terrible) have made you all warm and buttery inside?  Let me know in the Comments.

Until next time, a quote,

“I love you.  I can’t help it.  Yukino, I think I’ve fallen in love with you.” – Takao Akizuki, The Garden of Words

Peace out,

Maverick

Lucien’s First Take: The New Mutants Official Trailer

Twentieth Century Fox has really shown that they are willing to take insane risks with their properties.  First it was with Deadpool, then it was with Logan.  The first was a very light-hearted and violent film that never went too hard-R.  The second was a grisly and very grim film that went insanely hard-R and didn’t shy back from the violence.  I really like that.  This new film has decided to take another strange turn, into an avenue that I honestly never saw a Marvel film taking before now, and I am so desperately hoping it is financially successful, so other films can learn from this example.  Now they are going straight-up horror.  I find this fascinating.  There’s a lot to unpack here, so let’s get into it.

We begin by seeing shots of a dark establishment.  There are lots of gravestones with code numbers that are very reminiscent of the ones the kids had in Logan.  We have “We Don’t Need No Education” playing in the background.  Is the idea that this place is a school?  An odd choice, but I’ll go with it.  There is a woman grilling a small child, asking if she has ever noticed strange things happening.  Then the question comes up – have you ever heard of mutants?

This leads me into wondering where in the timeline this film takes place.  Part of me figures that it takes place in the same universe and timeline as Logan.  It fits.  After all, how else would you explain the fact that no one seems to know what a mutant is?  Society has forgotten about them.  They’ve been dead for a generation and now we have new mutants coming along.  Lots of cool implications there.

It cuts to the doctor talking to a new kid about the fact that baby rattlesnakes are more dangerous than adults because they can have more deadly bites.  Interesting.  A metaphor for the fact that children are more dangerous than adults?  Neat thought process there.  Get to meet a couple more mutants, including a blonde girl.  The doctor says that these children are dangerous, which leads to one of the kids hearing noises come from a washing machine.  The kid gets closer, until a hand slams onto the door and flames come out.  Okay.  Lots of questions.  Why was that kid in there?  Why are flames coming out?  This is weird.

Then it gets to the montage of stuff, and this is where it got my attention.  The aforementioned doctor is all cut up.  Okay.  One of the mutant kids has blood on her finger and then faces start meshing through the walls.  Interesting.  A kid describes this place as not a hospital, but a haunted house.  That line is kind of dumb, but at least it informs the idea that this place is painted as a place of healing, even though it’s much more likely that it’s some kind of Weapon X type facility.  There’s someone in a weird mask.  Horror movie trope #1,000,000.

We see more and more chaos surrounding these mutants.  What interests me is the idea that if it’s the kids themselves or something outside them.  So maybe this film takes place before any of the mutants from other films are discovered?  Like, these are some of the originals and now we’re seeing the chaos they are able to cause because no one knows how to stop it?  Lots of interesting questions here.

Here’s the thing – a comic book themed horror film is a fantastic idea.  That’s what Ghost Rider should have been.  I genuinely believe this idea could work.  The thing is that this trailer doesn’t tell us much.  Especially if the film wants to go hard-R.  Please tell me it does!  You know what this film needs – a Red Band trailer.  We need to know if it’s going as twisted and dark as its predecessors have.  Please tell me does.  Please let this be a film that takes all the balls 20th Century Fox has gotten with their darker superhero films and runs with it.

But my worry is that because this film doesn’t have the name recognition that Deadpool or Logan did that people will ignore it.  They’re releasing this in April.  What a random time.  I for one mean to see it.  I need to know.  Hopefully all of you do too.  Let’s not let a potentially interesting idea languish on the vine.

Initial Verdict
Intriguing

Peace out,

Maverick

Lucien’s Review: Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol. 2

What a weird year for Marvel films.  Everyone says that they’re getting tired of all the Marvel films, because they’re so predictable and stale.  Part of me thinks that someone at Marvel heard that, and has been eager to change things up.  And wouldn’t you know it, but this year has delivered two very good films that may not have shaken the formula to its core, but at the very least have made things different enough to have people enjoying them more.  Nowhere was that more apparent than with the sequel to one of the funniest films in the MCU, Guardians of the Galaxy.  A film that not only had some surprisingly good character development, but a villain who actually caught me off guard.  Sure, the formula is there, but at least this film plays with it, and it actually feels like it is expanding on the lore of these characters, rather than just retreading old ground.  Let’s talk about it.

The plot goes that sometime after the events of the first film, the Guardians of the Galaxy are now for hire heroes that do nice things for pay.  Not a bad racket.  However, after Rocket decides to fuck things up for them because he can’t stop himself, Quill’s father comes back into the picture.  Backstories are explained, and characters’ true motivations are revealed.  A villain who actually has a motivation that isn’t just copy-paste comes up and now another battle is on to save the galaxy.  Like I said, it still has that formula, but it does it oh so well.

I’ve complained to no end how films are now basically just becoming endless CG bugs me, and I would be lying if I said that it wasn’t the case here.  This film is ALL about the CG.  It’s fucking everywhere.  That being said, it was still pretty.  I think the director knew that everyone would be noticing the constant CG so he took a very interesting tactic – use brilliant colors as a way to offset people’s disdain for it.  That’s pretty clever!  The same thing was used to good effect in Doctor Strange, though this film also had color used for comedic effect at times.  Constant, vivid colors was all over this movie, and I’m genuinely glad it was because otherwise I would have been rolling my eyes a lot over how fake so much looked.

Which is one one of my flaws.  It’s pretty clear that while Baby Groot was cute as fuck, he was never in the shot and everyone who pretended to interact with him wasn’t really interacting with him.  That was painfully obvious.  Plus, yeah, some of the sets were so blatantly just people in a room with green-screen absolutely everywhere.  I’m honestly glad I am not one of these people who watches making-of videos of movies, because I bet watching people just being in green rooms acting is both depressing and funny.

The film also brings back it’s truly fantastic soundtrack.  I love the musical choices in these film.  How each track is used also perfect goes with every scene that it goes into.  The opening is the most known and parodied, but there is a ton of places that each track is used well.  This director knows his stuff oh so well.

Speaking of, the comedy in this film is so on point.  It’s kind of nice to see a film where all the heroes are pretty much anti-heroes pretending to not be.  These people are such assholes!  I love it!  Every single character in this film is kind of a douche, but the chemistry between all of them is just fantastic.  My favorite is still Rocket.  This guy is such a dick.  He is the biggest anti-hero of them all, but the way he plays with that just makes him so lovable.  Maybe it’s that inner asshole in me who can’t get enough of it.  Hell, even Drax is funnier in this film.  His complete lack of a filter is just too perfect.  Plus, he said one of the most cathartic lines to me on a personal level.

“When you’re ugly, people love you for who you are. When you’re beautiful, you don’t know who to trust.”

For someone who struggles with body image issues due to balding that isn’t especially pretty, this strikes such a chord to me.  My self-loathing is a constant struggle.

Overall, this isn’t a perfect movie.  Yeah, the formula is still there.  But it still feels like a breath of fresh air.  I’m glad I got to see this on Netflix.  A good Spider-Man film and now a good sequel to a flawed original that takes it to the next level.  With the MCU looking to wrap up now that Infinity War is coming, I genuinely think I’ll be able to look back fondly on it.  Marvel caught lightning in a bottle, which DC is now pathetically trying to imitate.  What a shame.

Final Verdict
8 out of 10

Peace out,

Maverick

You Don’t Understand Blade Runner (A response to Anita Sarkeesian)

I never thought I’d be talking about this bitch ever again.  After she left video games, I figured she’d just disappear into some abstract corner of the Internet and I wouldn’t ever have to deal with her stupid views on topics that she clearly knows fuck-all about ever again.  But then The Drunken Peasants podcast subjected me to her latest video, where she decides to go after one of my favorite films, with her pathetic, paltry, pseudo-intellectual bullshit that shows that her ability to critically analyze themes in films has all the depth and size of a puddle in the parking lot of my apartment building.  Ugh!  I’ll have the video here, so you can see I’m not taking anything out of context.  Let’s talk about it.

She begins with saying that according to the original Blade Runner, the future is going to be racist, have flying cars, but oh boy, noodle shops!  Yeah, because that is TOTALLY what the ethnicity of Blade Runner was about.  You know, like how the lower world is a very ethnically diverse place, while the upper world is very white.  Huh, it’s not like that was a deliberate design choice that Ridley Scott made in order to symbolize the power gap over the time period the film was made.  Nope, not at all!  This woman can’t analyze anything in a way outside of her feminist lens that tells her that everything is bad unless it caters to views that, if we learned anything from her analysis of video games, are clearly contradictory.

After her TERRIBLE intro, she says that all the fans of the original film get to rejoice at the idea of a sequel.  Did she not follow the unveiling of that at all?  This sequel is being met with VERY fierce skepticism by the science-fiction community, as it should.  Hollywood has shown that they are bad at doing sequels and now Blade Runner is on the block.  Granted, they got the director of my favorite film of 2016, Arrival, to do this, and he has the cinematographer he had making Incendes and Sicario, the latter of which is one of my favorite films.  That does leave me feeling hopeful, but let’s hear more about what Anita has to say about this great science fiction cinema landmark.

Now we get to her “burning questions” Blade Runner introduced.  Like “shouldn’t there be more Latinx people in Los Angeles.”  Okay, stop.  Can we PLEASE stop using the term “latinx?”  It sounds like you’re talking about Kleenex, for one.  For another, there was a surprisingly good point brought up on The Drunken Peasants.  See, here’s the thing about Latino and Latina – in old romantic languages based off Latin, words are made to have different genders assigned to words depending on who is speaking and who or what is being spoken about.  It’s part of those languages’ cultural heritage.  Now we have some fucking white people coming in and saying “no!  You can’t have these distinguishing features because that’s not inclusive enough!”  Aren’t you the ones who stress out your fucking ass that we need to have respect for other cultures?  Sure doesn’t seem like you respect their language.  Maybe you need to check your privilege, white bitch.

After going on for a while, it’s pretty clear where this entire video is going – sex robots are bad and promote sexism.  Funny, I just saw an article where it talked about how women are going to replace men with sex robots in the future and didn’t paint that as a bad thing.  Funny how it’s only wrong when men do it.  Groj, I just wish she’d come out and say she’s a man-hater.  Can you please, Anita?  It’s so obvious where this video is going, and you even say that we’re about to be approaching a future in Blade Runner where biomechanical androids exist and men abuse them.  Unreal.  It’s funny, Anita makes fun of the men who have difficulty dating, whether it be to personality flaws, or to them being shy and scared of interacting with people, and mocks them for it.  How many socially awkward women who would seek a robot for companionship would she mock?  What a sexist harpy.  As with all modern feminists – it’s only sexist when men do it.

She then makes the argument that the film has good ideas, but it looks at them from the perspective of white men.  Yeah, I guess that’s true, unless we want to ignore the ENTIRE FUCKING MOVIE!  For example, one of the most interesting elements of the lower world is the language of the city.  The police officer who originally takes Deckard in speaks it.  It’s an amalgamation of all the languages spoken on the lower level.  Roy Batty may be played by a white man, but look at what his role in the film is – a slave.  He is part of a slave race.  Skin color be damned, he’s part of a slave race and is desperate to stop his inevitable death.  Even when he gets to see the head of Tyrell Corporation, the conversation about his demise doesn’t go well and you have no idea if Tyrell told him the truth at all.  To say that this film focuses exclusively on the perspective of white men is fucking ignorant, and also denies all the perspectives of the film from all the various characters.  But hey, let’s simplify it down to the color of people’s skin.  Because that isn’t fucking racist at all.

We get to hear next how the two female replicants are a metaphor for modern day misogyny.  Wrong!  They are representations of the exploitation of women in subjugated classes.  There was a time when all women in this country were a lesser class.  Hard to argue that.  But the entire narrative of the replicants is that they are a species separate from us who are being subjugated by the humans who created them.  It’s a story about power relationships and how there will always be those in power using their power over those without.  These two female replicants are not some metaphor for the “patriarchy.”  They are part of a larger narrative of those in power destroying the lives of those without, and how when we are out of peoples to conquer, we shall create power dynamics to have.  Like I said, Anita’s ability to critically analyze things has all the depth of a fucking puddle.

Then she talks about the scene with Deckard and Rachel.  All it is in her mind is – he assaulted a woman.  Since she clearly can’t analyze this film, let’s inform the class of how stupid that perspective is.  The narrative of this film is that replicants are lesser than humans.  It’s the belief that our entire species has.  Deckard is a bit hard to follow because he seems to have at least some regard for the replicants and doesn’t want to continue killing them.  However, he is still part of a species that sees them as lesser and deserving of death (even if he is a replicant himself, which is left unclear for a very good reason).  Is the scene with these two very jarring and uncomfortable?  Yup.  Anita criticizing the music is her not being able to see that the music there was a deliberate choice to make the scene more uncomfortable.  Everything in the film is deliberate.  Deckard using his power over Rachel was a sign that he is at least partially just as brainwashed as the rest of society and chose to exercise his power over someone who couldn’t fight back because she had nowhere else to go.  It does make him look like a bit of a bad guy, but the thing is – that was deliberate.  It was meant to tell the audience that even a character who you are supposed to root for is still human and subject to the same forces the rest of us are.  I hate Anita so much.  She is shitting all over a movie I love because it’s pretty fucking clear she doesn’t understand it.

One thing Anita says that just blows my mind – the film isn’t about the women.  No shit, moron!  It’s about the replicants!  It’s about members of a subservient race who are being hunted by a society that says that they aren’t allowed on Earth, on pain of death!  I just love how this imbecile has made it out to be like these three female characters don’t matter to the script at all.  Does this bimbo have any awareness of how themes work?  Any idea how to critically analyze media?  Of course not.  Her Master’s thesis basically sucked the cock of everything Joss Whedon has ever made, back in the day.  He isn’t exactly writing Shakespeare.

We also have some other white person who can’t critically analyze issues of race, either.  Race doesn’t enter at all into the film?  No, because the fact that the lower world is very ethnically diverse and poor, while the upper world is very white and wealthy isn’t a look into racial ideas at all!  Ugh!  Background texture?!  It’s one of the central themes at play, you fucking moron!  Roy and the replicants have to hide in the lower world because they are also part of a lesser class.  Except in the film they are even lesser than the oppressed classes of the lower world.  That’s the fucking point!  Rachel is part of the upper world until she realizes that she is a replicant.  After which she has to go down to the lower world because now she is lesser.  Do you not get anything to do with this movie?!  How did that escape your notice, oh wonderful feminist one?  Aren’t you the idiot who says that your research is “double and triple-checked”?!  Clearly not because I’m not some film school graduate and even I can pick up on this!

This was stupid.  It’s nice to see that her analysis of movies is just as shitty as it was about video games.  I hate this woman and her videos.  Please stop shitting on one of the greatest science fiction films of all time.

Until next time, a quote,

“I’ve seen things you people wouldn’t believe.” – Roy Batty, Blade Runner

Peace out,

Maverick

Lucien’s First Take: Left Alive – First Gameplay Trailer (2018)

What do you get when you take some of the creative minds behind the Metal Gear franchise and team them up with Square Enix?  You get a game that is set in another game’s universe, and seems to combine action, survival, and mechs.  The concept behind this game is “action survival,” a unique premise that has a lot of potential.  The world looks grim and depressing, set in a kind of alternate universe Croatia, with multiple EU’s battle for supremacy using mechs.  Not much is known about this game from the trailer, but it’s got me intrigued.  And I guess I won’t have to wait too long.  For just now debuting this game, they aren’t making players wait long.  Hopefully that means some cool trailers in the not too distant future to see what kind of game this is.  Let’s talk about it.

We start off with a quote from Fyodor Dostoevsky.  He’s written many times about the nature of war and man, with the implication always being that we are violent animals and that hope is a fool’s errand.  Nice.  We see this quote is well-used, as we see a violent battle taking place in a snow-filled Eastern European nation.  A giant mech with giant bullet casing falling to the ground is blasting apart a target while a soldier in armor is on foot by its foot.  The text seems to implicate that humanity is nearing its end because we have learned nothing and continue the endless cycle of killing.

From a mech we see a character who definitely looks the part of a haggard Russian stumbling out.  Is this a protagonist?  An antagonist?  Who can say.  The details are spare here.  They definitely seem to be dismayed as they look upon all the destruction around them, only to look up and see helicopters carrying mechs ahead, looking to continue the battle.  Alright, so we got some grim imagery and themes at play about war and the nature of mankind.  You can see the Metal Gear influence here.  I am digging this.  Especially as Konami has decided to have their flagship series now have unicorn zombies.  What a fucking joke.

Then we see what little gameplay footage there is.  A lot of darkness, hiding, and sneaking.  I get the feeling being a tiny human opening fire on a mech is a bad idea.  This is very interesting stuff.  If people who have worked on the Metal Gear franchise are using that sort of gameplay in a game about mech warfare, that can only lead to good things.  Very excited to see what comes out next about the game.  We shall see.

Initial Verdict
Intriued

Peace out,

Maverick

SIONR: Star Trek: Discovery Does Not Have the First Black Lead or First Female Lead!

I fucking hate modern news.  I really do.  It’s basically just a giant SJW and far-right circle-jerk.  Whatever your preference, there’s something to jerk you.  Some click-bait trash to tell you how right your beliefs are about the world and how you need to inform everyone else about how right you are.  It’s amazing.  Now we have that coming into play with the new Star Trek series that looks kind of crappy, truth be told.  According to an article in The Independent, it has the first black lead.  Here’s a link, see for yourself.  “Journalism” in 2017.  Too fucking lazy to do a two second Google search!  UGH!

I guess Capt. Benjamin Sisko, who helped lead the fight against the Dominion and won a war using some really dark methods didn’t exist?  I guess we’re going to pretend that he isn’t real if we look the other way?  A character who is a total badass and clocked Q in the face?!  He isn’t real, The Independent?!  Two seconds on Google would show you how fucking stupid you are!

But that isn’t the worst of it.  Then there are the ones who made this chick out to be the first female lead in a Star Trek series ever.  Wait, wait?!  Did you hear that, Capt. Katherine Janeway of the Federation starship Voyager?!  You don’t exist!  Now I already can see the revisionist history with these publications quickly going in and changing it to female black lead.  I fucking guarantee it.  For the days when a publication would print something that stupid, they had to print a fucking retraction and look really dumb.  We could all look at the author and laugh at their lack of integrity.

Social justice is the worst.  A lot of people are saying now that anti-SJWs are worse than them, and there are plenty of people who live down to that reputation.  However, the real villain that I see is these people who play revisionist history with everything they touch.  What’s that?  There haven’t been any strong female characters before Katniss Everdeen in teen fiction?  What’s that?  Before Wonder Woman there haven’t been any strong female characters in comic book films?  Whatever their little pet issue is, they can rewrite history to fit their narrative.  Video games have been putting up with this crap for years.  All the little Anita Sarkeesian wannabes (and the woman herself before she left the gaming sphere to take on fruit that no one really cares about) who want to tell us how gaming has never had any strong female protagonists before whats-her-name from Gone Home.

I hate that we live in this culture.  I truly do.  Because there’s no ability to look at anything with a nuanced perspective.  Rather than appreciating a good character in a good piece of fiction, now they have to be some great cultural milestone.  Rather than just admit that 2016’s Ghostbusters was a festering pile of shit, it is somehow empowering to women because queef joke or some fucking thing.

The more that I see shit like this, the more I realize that art is dying out.  Instead of having people who can come together and look at something just admiring it for this reason or that reason, people in the media have to sing praises left and right.  Well, they don’t have to, but know that incendiary titles get clicks.  Saying this chick is the first black lead will get a ton of people clicking, all so they can go into the comments and fight it out about Capt. Sisko.  Modern media is being designed in order to get the most clicks that one can.  Hence why I try and avoid it.  Granted, sometimes it’s impossible to talk about something without sounding incendiary.  I mean, I did title this that I disagree with the premise of whats-her-name being the first black lead.  Waiting to see who comes in to claim my being too lazy to look up that chick’s name to put in there makes me a racist.  Because after all, in the age of making everything under the sun racist, me making a statement might as well join the pantheon of screeching idiots online.

No one can just like things anymore.  Granted, I admittedly over-analyze things.  But there’s a reason – because I really want to dive into stuff that I love or stuff that I hate.  It’s part of my enjoyment of a medium.  And I leave myself open to having my views challenged.  But the moment you start telling some of these morons that their views are wrong, you get the ardent defenders who have to champion social justice talking points just because they exist.  All the “check your privilege!” retards.

In an age where we have an anti-fascist group who has the same ideology as the Nazis they claim to be against with might making right, and how this could very well lead to a civil war, is it any surprise that nuance is gone from the public discourse?  If it is, it shouldn’t be.  But in the meantime, learn to Google, you dumb shits!

Until next time, a quote,

“What are you waiting for, people?  Carry out your orders!” – Capt. Benjamin Sisko, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine

Peace out,

Maverick