After accepting an insurmountable challenge to read through a 20 page "guys ask girls questions" thread on a not-to-be-named-forum, and only getting 14 pages into the infinite wall of text before reaching for the hammer to bash my head in (yes, ONLY 14), I have begun to ponder the great divide of the genders. Not only because I've been noticing the significant lack of pull I'm getting in creeps, but because the whole thing is just plain riddiculous enough to be "piffle"ed.
So, onto my view of this quandary. As a start, I think both sides have no idea what the other wants really at all, as proven entirely by about 5 or 6 pages of males and females arguing their all completely different angles. I mean, yes I would say that nearly 70% of all cross communication between the genres is entirely with the subconscious goal of putting your specific flavoured nectars into or onto a body of another equally specific nectars to result in one of the two parties involved pushing out a baby beemonster(I am of course referring to in a more social setting than any other goal-driven work setting), BUT there are people out there that are more interested in the path to the goal than goal itself... Which is really where more of the fun is to be had.
Second of all, I don't believe that the majority of the media promotes a healthy or positive mould for either gender to slip into. Let's use two generalised extremes to make this black and white, shall we? On one side we have supermodels, baleemic slash anorexic celebrities who go out and pollenate(in every sense of the word) and the sex-ifying of nearly everything (because as the addage "goes, sex sells", more than honesty and good prices ever have). On the opposing side we have both the Mysoginisticly MANLY man(a self image largely promoted by sports and masculine pursuits) and at the same time a polar opposite, the SNAG (Sensitive New Age Guy... or sensitive guy), an image put forward mostly by a cartel of high power wealthy women to breed a generation of whipped guys to compliment their "liberation"(thanks in part or whole to the baby boomers "liberating" them). Neither side is very positivly reinforcing what should be the reality, and that is that both genders are probably a lot closer to each other than you'd think.
And genders are 100% guilty of supporting negative stereotypes also. Case in point - the whole "guys will only date bitches" and "girls only date bastards". Yes, there are cases of both, however it isn't as common as you'd wantto think. Probably. I dunno, it just doesn't seem logical to me that the number should be that high. And the reason both sides that DO go for the bastards or bitches generally tends to be as some "project" to turn them into something more in their mold, though if I've learned anything from my internet friends the result is the opposite and they break up anrgy and bitchy/bastardy. So no, people aren't crazy, they're just stupid. Plain vanilla stupid.
Now onto personalities - here's a shocker. Both coinsides like more or less the same thing as a baseline average. That is :
- Doesn't look like Igor
- Is interesting, or sounds like is interesting
- wants to protect/be protected (as a more complimentary thing, rather than a polar opposites)
As a more personal offisde to this, some of this I long suspected a while back. As such, for the past .. 7-8 months, I've being trying something I'd like to call... OPERATION IVY. My great plan - try to improve my (in my books) otherwise mediorce public image. Sure, interesting clothes I've been wearing was a nice start (wo DOESN'T Like patterned or hawaiian shirts?) but I felt I could do more. So, I've been on a nearly 100% pleasing bender, wringing out my social skills with all the aplomb of a 18 Wheeler hitting a brick wall. The result- I really need more caffeine and coffe to sustain me. Seriously, it almost seems far too much effort to be interesting alot of the time. The last fortnight ,thanks in part to being slightly broke while I'm on a gap between my last job and my new job, has been caffeine free, and I am not pleased to say, it's really SUCKED to get through. This, combined with some added pressure from inconsiderate group project members and a whole shitstorm of late niht typing. The result is that I have been quite exhausted for whole straight days, and all drive is gone. It really has felt sucky. Reading the thread mentioned at the start then drove me over the edge. "That's it - humanity sucks and I am the bone of my sword".
Then I get to the nails and mortar of the matter as to why it sucks, and it is the same reason at the start of year(or was it last year?), I'm a lonely gamer slash artist slash inept inturned mook. And unless I grow some serious cojones to do something as rash, as suggested in the thread, as going all out and just laying it on the table .. or playing a game of subtle grabass cat and mouse.
I'll never be the guy who has those kinda stones, so I guess I'll just have do what female anon does- shut up, browse /a/, and wait until god delivers another book of weird porn.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Chimps for Free
So its seems that another gigantic brand playoff is coming this year - Blizzard's StarCraft franchise versus EA(formerly Westwood Studio)'s Command and Conquer Franchise. Honestly, I don't realyl give a crap though, aside from 3 early Blizzard titles, I really don't have much love for either. I'm also not keen on their legions of unwavering fans, with both camps sharing some bizzare polarisation against each other. Really, it just comes down to hairsplitting and petty inbickering over two very similar franchsies. No, I'm deadly serious. Starcraft is just a re-art of Warcraft(the new sequal looks like WC3 meets Dawn of War, so no change there har de har), and the CnC Red Alert.. 3... looks like every single last previous one with a new engine and some more hammers and sickles.
I must admit, I've never really seen what people SEE in either Blizzard or the developers formerly Known as Westwood. In the early 90s, they released some neat games, but come the late 90s they all of a sudden start becoming corporate douchbags, releasing primarily ONE franchise that is so blunt and uninteresting to me that they may as well be selling thumbtack simulators. And when it comes down to it, the gameplay of both is so close that you may as well ask whether you prefer Shadowrun or stock Dungeon and Dragons ( not that I've much experience with either, but from what I do know.. )
So yes, Blizzard, EA slash Westwood slash EAstwood - "meh"
Starcraft 2- Resounding meh
CnC RA 3 - Resounding nyet. Also, shorten that stupid ananananacronyn.
In other news, Just picked up some more RBF, so I'm rockin out in the livin' room on a laptop. So far, wins.
I must admit, I've never really seen what people SEE in either Blizzard or the developers formerly Known as Westwood. In the early 90s, they released some neat games, but come the late 90s they all of a sudden start becoming corporate douchbags, releasing primarily ONE franchise that is so blunt and uninteresting to me that they may as well be selling thumbtack simulators. And when it comes down to it, the gameplay of both is so close that you may as well ask whether you prefer Shadowrun or stock Dungeon and Dragons ( not that I've much experience with either, but from what I do know.. )
So yes, Blizzard, EA slash Westwood slash EAstwood - "meh"
Starcraft 2- Resounding meh
CnC RA 3 - Resounding nyet. Also, shorten that stupid ananananacronyn.
In other news, Just picked up some more RBF, so I'm rockin out in the livin' room on a laptop. So far, wins.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
First Comment! review Tiem!
Hoo-dawgie! First off I'd like to welcome new and old to my ranthole. What better way to start off than to get some of MY views on some sort of .. product... instead of the usual anime
TODAY
I present...
Soldier of Fortune:Payback (Australian Edition)
Now, SOFP is the apparent logical succesor to the original Soldier of Fortune series, under a new developer and different plotline. Yeah, I'm not entirely sure why they dumped Mullins and his badassery (perhaps something to do with making the plot more PC and party-line than what was before), but it seemed pretty silly in my books. so, you play as this mercenary for a further diluted apparition of the "The Shop" from the original games, and you must save the world and make with some payback for being betrayed during the first mission (sorry, but if I didn't spoil that, this whole game review thing would be ignoring the white elephant in the room). Okay, it's not a brilliant plot by any stretch of imagination, but really, you don't expect all THAT much from a game into it's 3rd installment.
For all it's vapid vagueness in the storyline, the game is fairly straight to the point in directing you everywhere, so no complaints about being lost in the occaisionally maze-like levels. The gameplay behind Payback is fairly standard FPS fare, with your typical arsenal of doom. What is different, apart fro mthe sheer number of attachments for some weapons, is weapon stances. Take for Example pistols- by default, pistols are a one-hand held deal, but press the magic button (also is the Grenade launcher button), and it switches to the much more real-world-accurate two-hand hold. it gives more accuracy, drops recoil ,but you can't sprint. It's actually handy, because it means not having to resort to some downright shitty "ironsights".
Level Designs are 100% linear shoot-em-all arenas, almost all the way through the game. That, combined with waypoints, make the game play fairly fluidly. To the deveopler's credit, for hte most part, the levels look pretty nice. Sure there are some ugly spots, but there are a lot of nice spots. Props there. And a good look at some opium fields(in a country I can only assume is Afghansitan, for real-world-grit). Oh, and there are decidedly boss-like boss fights. You know the kind, the ones where you only can damage it at certain points where the game decides you can. That kind. Not necessarily bad, but it does take a few points of reasonability out of it.
Onto detail art (characters, guns, etc). For the most, all the art in is solid, and I'd have to say that animation and character lists must have been high in their list of priorities, because both are pretty nice. Effects are aright, but I must admit, they're nothing you haven't seen before these days. HDR standard, same with soft shadowing.
You've heard the good,noe here's the skinny on the shit.
Controls are stiff at best, unresposive half the time at worst. Damage for weaponry is way off proportion for most of the weapons in the game, same for accuracy. Stealth is impossible. I mean, they give us the option to knife fuckers in the back, and equip silencers. Neither are worth a diddly-fuck if the AI will see you through walls, see you even if you turn or blink. It's a paradox, I swear to god.
Shooting enemies in the game feels like shooting paper targets. I'm serious, Thanks to the removal of the gore system in the AU version of the game, there is so very little tactile feedback from shooting, you may as well be shooting walls.
The Menu Interface was designed by a bunch of guys who just found photoshop for the first time, too. It's horrid, especially compared to SOF2, which was brilliant.
Also, the MP is SHIT. Not that i could play mind, there are no servers online, and you can't jsut run around the levels. Oh no, needs at least 1 other player to play, but lets face it, WHO else bought this game, apart from me?
Now, if we also compare SOFP's feature list to SOF2', you'll notice a significant downgrade from it's predecessor too, notably losing the random mission generator, GHOUL2 technology, and a few extra things that SOF2 had as niceties.
It is a shame really the the RMG went, because that weas truly clever and handy to have something like that, it really made the game replayable.
To sum up, SOF payback, I think, was a game that wanted to be mainstream and big bidget, but had none of either to back it up. THe result, some good intentions that were ufotunately not enough to make the game anything more than mediocre.
I gave it a Waffle Hut waffle out of Kitten.
TODAY
I present...
Soldier of Fortune:Payback (Australian Edition)
Now, SOFP is the apparent logical succesor to the original Soldier of Fortune series, under a new developer and different plotline. Yeah, I'm not entirely sure why they dumped Mullins and his badassery (perhaps something to do with making the plot more PC and party-line than what was before), but it seemed pretty silly in my books. so, you play as this mercenary for a further diluted apparition of the "The Shop" from the original games, and you must save the world and make with some payback for being betrayed during the first mission (sorry, but if I didn't spoil that, this whole game review thing would be ignoring the white elephant in the room). Okay, it's not a brilliant plot by any stretch of imagination, but really, you don't expect all THAT much from a game into it's 3rd installment.
For all it's vapid vagueness in the storyline, the game is fairly straight to the point in directing you everywhere, so no complaints about being lost in the occaisionally maze-like levels. The gameplay behind Payback is fairly standard FPS fare, with your typical arsenal of doom. What is different, apart fro mthe sheer number of attachments for some weapons, is weapon stances. Take for Example pistols- by default, pistols are a one-hand held deal, but press the magic button (also is the Grenade launcher button), and it switches to the much more real-world-accurate two-hand hold. it gives more accuracy, drops recoil ,but you can't sprint. It's actually handy, because it means not having to resort to some downright shitty "ironsights".
Level Designs are 100% linear shoot-em-all arenas, almost all the way through the game. That, combined with waypoints, make the game play fairly fluidly. To the deveopler's credit, for hte most part, the levels look pretty nice. Sure there are some ugly spots, but there are a lot of nice spots. Props there. And a good look at some opium fields(in a country I can only assume is Afghansitan, for real-world-grit). Oh, and there are decidedly boss-like boss fights. You know the kind, the ones where you only can damage it at certain points where the game decides you can. That kind. Not necessarily bad, but it does take a few points of reasonability out of it.
Onto detail art (characters, guns, etc). For the most, all the art in is solid, and I'd have to say that animation and character lists must have been high in their list of priorities, because both are pretty nice. Effects are aright, but I must admit, they're nothing you haven't seen before these days. HDR standard, same with soft shadowing.
You've heard the good,noe here's the skinny on the shit.
Controls are stiff at best, unresposive half the time at worst. Damage for weaponry is way off proportion for most of the weapons in the game, same for accuracy. Stealth is impossible. I mean, they give us the option to knife fuckers in the back, and equip silencers. Neither are worth a diddly-fuck if the AI will see you through walls, see you even if you turn or blink. It's a paradox, I swear to god.
Shooting enemies in the game feels like shooting paper targets. I'm serious, Thanks to the removal of the gore system in the AU version of the game, there is so very little tactile feedback from shooting, you may as well be shooting walls.
The Menu Interface was designed by a bunch of guys who just found photoshop for the first time, too. It's horrid, especially compared to SOF2, which was brilliant.
Also, the MP is SHIT. Not that i could play mind, there are no servers online, and you can't jsut run around the levels. Oh no, needs at least 1 other player to play, but lets face it, WHO else bought this game, apart from me?
Now, if we also compare SOFP's feature list to SOF2', you'll notice a significant downgrade from it's predecessor too, notably losing the random mission generator, GHOUL2 technology, and a few extra things that SOF2 had as niceties.
It is a shame really the the RMG went, because that weas truly clever and handy to have something like that, it really made the game replayable.
To sum up, SOF payback, I think, was a game that wanted to be mainstream and big bidget, but had none of either to back it up. THe result, some good intentions that were ufotunately not enough to make the game anything more than mediocre.
I gave it a Waffle Hut waffle out of Kitten.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)