Today I received an email of such presumptious crap that it actually left me flabbergasted and fuming with a tempestuous but impotent rage (damn, read too much Hornblower...). Last year I was banned from a certain forum because of a mix of things, first one was saying a few rules didn't make sense (later said rules were removed but no apology, in fact threats of banning someone irrelevant to the suspension were issued from the charming admin) and second was a clique who were frightened that I'd finally refer the forums resident self confessed sex offender by name following verbal abuse, of course, the official response was "talking about the forum" but we're not idiots.
Imagine then my surprise when in my inbox pops an email asking me to come back "providing I behave myself"... What sort of rubbish is this? It's a decision as stupid as a Spanish infantry commander (DAMN YOU HORNBLOWER!) to even act as if they're doing me a favour isn't it? A year ago I might've considered it but I have no intention of crawling back to them tail between my legs and grovelling for them to let me back in. I've got some pride and begging some arrogant, obnoxious, egotistical Frenchmen (DAMN HORN... No actually that's right) to "let me in" and crawling as if I've actually done something wrong does not fit in with this.
Had the place changed in the slightest, I'd almost come close to considering it, but it's not. It's still ultimately run by the same few people and every topic involves the same few people, who get upset if someone ignores them. A great example from last year Poster A "An old friend died" Poster B "Oh, God I'm sorry" Poster C "Sorry to Hear that, knew him myself he was cool" Poster D "Sorry for your loss guys" Poster E "MY FINERNAIL BROKE!" Poster F "Sorry about your friend A and C" Poster G "He was awesome, great guy RIP" Poster H "Yeah, I liked him, so sad RIP" Poster E "MY F*£*^*£* FINGERNAIL F*$*^*£*^* HURTS!". Yeah just the atmosphere I've missed.
I did receive an email from a current member and friend letting me know that I could come back so I can assume that members there have discussed me favourably and want me back. The thing is, I talk to the few members I'd want to in the outside world anyway, those who live abroad I email and those at home I meet up with two or three times a year. Forum friendships are nice and if they work in the real world they can be great. I know for a start I'd not have Hannah and neither of us would have friends like Kate or GemGem had it not been for them but I'm not going to grovel like some whipped midshipman under a tyrant captain (DAMN HORNBLOWER!) to talk to these people in another format, especially when they're the only reason I was there anyway!
Nope, it's nice to see that some people miss me in that old time waster but if they think I'm bending over and crawling back they're sorely mistaken. Did Wellington say to Boney "you're a dem good soldier, let's call Waterloo a draw and refight next month"? Did Nelson say to Villeneuve "go and make a few more ships and we'll give you another chance in a years time"? No of course they didn't so why would I do ultimately the same? Nope, I'm going to carry on doing what I do now and enjoying my free time which for the most part involves much less face palming.
Now to brace the mainsail and head to leaward before making anchor at Spithead where I'll be seasick... OH FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!
Tuesday, 31 August 2010
Thursday, 26 August 2010
Director of Ironic Punishments
At this stage I'm assuming any reader will be aware of the story of Mary Bale, who in Coventry randomly stopped to pick up a cat and dump it into a wheelie bin - where the cat "Lola" remained for the next 15 hours. Now at this stage I'm not going to pass judgement of the dotty old mare who thought "it would be funny" to do this. While it was a strange thing to do and I would raise issues about one's sanity to randomly do something like this I do think there's been an over reaction to this. It's not like she allowed her pittbul to roam the streets and maul a cat to death in front of her owner as happened in Preston at the same time (link at bottom of post) here, it's random and not right but come off it we're not talking the worst case ever here.
This is why I am making it my duty to recommend to our Prime Minister (lucky timing with the kid there mate as an excuse for missing a big economic meeting) to make the post of Director of Ironic Punishments. Now, some people do things which are strictly speaking not illegal and some offences do not fit the punishment. In my first act for example, I have decided that Mary Bale should be picked up by somebody dressed as Tony the Tiger and thrown into a skip and enclosed for 15 hours. On release she'll understand how foolish she was and will think twice before stupidity for the lolz.
It's not like this is a completely new idea, technically this happens with the American legal system. At the moment, someone who is convicted of rape often finds themselves being explored intimately by someone who's able to physically dominate them and punish them in the same way this happened before. It doesn't work in the UK as well as these people are generally all weedy, we don't seem to have the same type of tough career criminal over here. Though I'm sure locking 50 rapists into one cell on a 15 year sentence will soon change the current situation there.
Of course, I've not been able to think through everything here as regards to everything but there are offences it could easily be used. For example, minor sexual assault, dude pinches wench in the buttocks. The punishment for this would be being placed short term on the sex offenders list, what's to stop one from doing it again? Simple, get a lobster to pinch him on the testes. I suspect he will think twice before pinching sensitive areas on others.
Local chav decides to sell on stolen goods to local second hand dealer like Cash Convertors. Simply just go in and sell their belongings for the fraction of their value. So as not to be too harsh we'll give them the £45 they gave us for all their worldly belongings to rebuild their lives. Alternatively let the victim take items from the thief up to double the value of the original goods. Also to be flogged for attempting to flog the orignal goods.
I'm not saying ironic punishment is the be all and end all. Forcing someone sharing pornographic images of children to make them himself would hardly be a punishment and kind of counter productive. I do feel however that overall it'd make courtrooms all the more interesting and entertaining for judges and lawyers, "milud, I put it to you that the defendents multi-million pound jewellery heist calls upon an ironic punishment, perhaps removing an arm and grinding the bones into semi-precious stones would be a fitting gesture".
In case no one could guess I'm in one of THOSE moods today, oh well could be worse. It could be raining outside and.... Oh :(
http://www.lep.co.uk/news/i_can_t_sleep_after_watching_unleashed_dog_maul_my_cat_1_1218362
This is why I am making it my duty to recommend to our Prime Minister (lucky timing with the kid there mate as an excuse for missing a big economic meeting) to make the post of Director of Ironic Punishments. Now, some people do things which are strictly speaking not illegal and some offences do not fit the punishment. In my first act for example, I have decided that Mary Bale should be picked up by somebody dressed as Tony the Tiger and thrown into a skip and enclosed for 15 hours. On release she'll understand how foolish she was and will think twice before stupidity for the lolz.
It's not like this is a completely new idea, technically this happens with the American legal system. At the moment, someone who is convicted of rape often finds themselves being explored intimately by someone who's able to physically dominate them and punish them in the same way this happened before. It doesn't work in the UK as well as these people are generally all weedy, we don't seem to have the same type of tough career criminal over here. Though I'm sure locking 50 rapists into one cell on a 15 year sentence will soon change the current situation there.
Of course, I've not been able to think through everything here as regards to everything but there are offences it could easily be used. For example, minor sexual assault, dude pinches wench in the buttocks. The punishment for this would be being placed short term on the sex offenders list, what's to stop one from doing it again? Simple, get a lobster to pinch him on the testes. I suspect he will think twice before pinching sensitive areas on others.
Local chav decides to sell on stolen goods to local second hand dealer like Cash Convertors. Simply just go in and sell their belongings for the fraction of their value. So as not to be too harsh we'll give them the £45 they gave us for all their worldly belongings to rebuild their lives. Alternatively let the victim take items from the thief up to double the value of the original goods. Also to be flogged for attempting to flog the orignal goods.
I'm not saying ironic punishment is the be all and end all. Forcing someone sharing pornographic images of children to make them himself would hardly be a punishment and kind of counter productive. I do feel however that overall it'd make courtrooms all the more interesting and entertaining for judges and lawyers, "milud, I put it to you that the defendents multi-million pound jewellery heist calls upon an ironic punishment, perhaps removing an arm and grinding the bones into semi-precious stones would be a fitting gesture".
In case no one could guess I'm in one of THOSE moods today, oh well could be worse. It could be raining outside and.... Oh :(
http://www.lep.co.uk/news/i_can_t_sleep_after_watching_unleashed_dog_maul_my_cat_1_1218362
Tuesday, 24 August 2010
Finish Him! Fatality!
On this day, the 24 August 1992, the arcade cabinet above for Mortal Kombat was released. Not too long after it received release on the home systems and like all things violent and computer gamey it was amid controversy. Basically it's a standard 2D fighter, two players punch and kick eachother until one of their characters is too injured to fight on, note the injury is purely the little bar at the top of the screen going red no matter how much you drag them across the room with a hook aside from the red pixels representing blood flying out with impact.
This is repeated until one player has won two rounds, I assume aside from the blood and gore this was the real sticking point for parents groups, was the special "Finish Him" moment in which you had one last move to finish them with. With a special combination of button presses and joystick waggling you had the option to rip someones head off including spinal column, rip out and show them their still beating heart and a host of other nasties. Of course, it was up to you to find this out and it wasn't in the manuals, this meant MOST fights ended purely with a last punch in the face, of course it wasn't going to stop the various parental groups campaigning. The trouble I got for getting "that horrible game" off a mate when I was 10, until my dad got home and tried it out with me finding nothing that bad! It's not the only time games have got much hype and complaining though...
Not particularly well known in the UK but a well known example of this case would be an old Atari 2600 title called "Custers Revenge". Assuming people know the story of "Custers Last Stand" where tribesmen surrounded and slaughtered American troops under our titular incompetent soldier you could be forgiven for assuming this would be a little game about shooting injuns... You'd be wrong, no the way Mr Custer gets his revenge is obvious. Tie an injun woman to a tree and then you must dodge a hail of arrows on the way over to rape her repeatedly. Developers Mystique clearly knew the buttons to press with the media and parental groups in 1982, previewing it with a womens rights and native american groups! Though the content saw it ultimately banned it has received a modern remake on the interwebs. Mystique specialised then in Adult games for the Atari and titles like Beat 'em and Eat 'em (players represent two nude women catching blobs of liquid dropping from a substantial male member) followed.
Of course, they're by no means isolated cases in this sort thing and recently there was a great deal of fuss made about a "Japanese Rape Simulator", which ultimately is actually a story about the girl getting revenge after being sexually assaulted in public. Of course, once again the developer knew exactly what they were doing with this project by making it so the game changed perspective, playing out the initial assault before switching roles. Ultimately though there's nothing special here but in both this and the Custers Revenge were both blamed for a spate of sexual assaults on women. Usually though, it's the violent games that get the real blame in these cases.
On the 27th February 2004 Stefan Pakeerah was murdered by his "friend" Warren Leblanc and the reason for this was painfully obvious... It could only be a game by controversial developer Rockstar (GTA series) entitled Manhunt which had been released in November 2003. The reliable source for this was the victims mother claiming that Warren had become adicted to the game and the outcry that the game could lead to this led to it being withdrawn from shelves in most high street retailers.
Manhunt was then banned in New Zealand (where posession is still deemed an offence), Australia, Germany and in Ontario, Canada became Adult Only, effectively banning it from most stores. Surprisingly the rest of North America pretty much ignored the hype and attention satisfied by leaving it's classification as 18 as per any other excessively violent game or movie. The thing that hurts me the most about Manhunt is that I had it, finished it and then resold it at the start of February, had I waited I could've made a small fortune in the illegal black market for games. Damn my stupidity!
The thing is, from Custer beyond Mortal Kombat, Manhunt and as recent as Red Dead Redemption (western game where there's a trophy/achievement for the old tie a damsel to the traintracks cliché) games for whatever reason seem to garner a worse reception than any other medium. While I don't see the enjoyment to be had out of sex games (and there's a reasonable amount amazingly) I can't believe that because someone sits at his Atari wriggling his joystick back and forth he's going to go out and gang rape a native american woman same as playing Manhunt didn't make me go out, hide in alleys and batter people to death with a baseball bat. Grand Theft Auto San Andreas had the perfect mix though, I could have consensual sex with a prostitute then beat her to death with a dildo. Pure perfection there!
Thing is, Mortal Kombat was just a standard Kung Fu film, Custers Revenge was numerous substandard porno films, Manhunt was torture porn (VERY similar to the SAW series which are flagrant rip offs), the GTA series is a cartoonisation of "gangster" culture. Ultimately they mean nothing except that - as former WCW and WWE creative boss Eric Bischoff said - "Controversy = Cash". People deliberately do these things and they know they'll get a rise out of it. Games are no more to blame for "loose morals" than films or books but people will never seem to accept that.
Damon Brown wrote a book entitled "Porn and Pong - How GTA, Tomb Raider and other sexy games changed out culture" which looks like it covers this in more detail and could be worth a read. I'm not searching for it on Play from the library though, how long will I last when purchasing anything with the "P" word in it's title?!
Sunday, 22 August 2010
You. Better cash iiiinnn!
Apologies to Janes Adiction for borrowing from "mountain Song" but it sums up my view after watching a couple of adverts this morning I think it fits in great. Initially I was going to complain at the stupidity of having to rename the Avatar movie to it's subtitle just because there was another Avatar film released last year. Then I realised why this really was, The Last Airbender (AKA Avatar - The Movie) was actually going to be going head to head in cinemas with "the ultra special úber mighty rerelease of Avatar. What kind of donkey testes is this?
Avatar is a popular animé series (i.e badly drawn "stylistic" animation and a bunch of hard arse kids with mystical powers/pets) which is reliant entirely on it's name recognition to get anywhere in the market. We're now in the period where JCAvatar would normally be released on DVD but they've hit a double whammy at their smaller niche audience. Not only are they forbidding them from advertising the film properly but they're re-releasing into the cinemas with approximatly 10 minutes "extra cool" additional footage.
The contempt, not only for other film makers but the paying audience astounds me. I'm not naieve, every business is about making profit and obviously films are no different, but to me the idea of manipulating an audience after overcharging to begin with before getting people to go out and over pay again is just farcical. I'd like to think people will have the balls to sit back and raise a finger at James Cameron and tell him exactly where to go (not a good film since Aliens so I knew where my money was going here!) but this isn't going to happen, droves of people who saw this "incredible special effects" will clamour for more.
What is it that makes people do this? To go and see a film like JCAvatar at Cineworld would cost us £10.40 as standard, no doubt it'll be deluxe screened and get a little high demand premium thrown in. It's cheaper to go out and buy a flipping DVD, yet people won't go out and do this will they? Yes films can look better on a big screen, the thing is, normal households have access to better HD televisions than the cinema screens and won't have irritating brats getting in the way of the screen or making a noise and the over priced drinks/snacks. A day out to the cinema for me and the wench to see either Avatar would cost me a minimum of £20, if either of us wanted a drink of coke or popcorn that can easily rise to £25 which is just ridiculous costs when a DVD would cost us just over a tenner at release. Patience is a virtue and we're not going to be waiting for the years it seemed to be for films like Jurassic Park to get a release, though if people are stupid enough to buy into this fiasco maybe in Avatars case we will do.
You talk to members of staff at the cinema and they will tell you that the biggest obstacle to the industry is piracy. It's an old cliché and we'll hear it time and time again from various executives. Problem isn't that, the problem is (aside from a lack of support for the arts in the UK) that filmmakers overcharge people for a couple of hours unimaginative cliché ridden entertainment to the extent that people don't want to pay that sort of money. There have been some films I've enjoyed in recent years, I'm not that arrogant that all classics were the greatest, but I'll always wait for the DVD release to enjoy them the cost has drove me away from the cinema.
JCAvatar is one of the highest grossing films of all time, problem is, at those costs it's been rendered a nothing statistic same as various transfer records in football. At £9 million I hardly think that makes Kenwyne Jones over 10 times the player Gary Lineker was, it's just modern inflation and pointless expenditure in post 2000 economics. Please tell me I'm not the only person who finds James Camerons' blatant arrogance and contempt for the public to be unacceptable, or am I the last of a dying breed?
Incidentally, from what I've seen AAvatar looks shite as well.
Avatar is a popular animé series (i.e badly drawn "stylistic" animation and a bunch of hard arse kids with mystical powers/pets) which is reliant entirely on it's name recognition to get anywhere in the market. We're now in the period where JCAvatar would normally be released on DVD but they've hit a double whammy at their smaller niche audience. Not only are they forbidding them from advertising the film properly but they're re-releasing into the cinemas with approximatly 10 minutes "extra cool" additional footage.
The contempt, not only for other film makers but the paying audience astounds me. I'm not naieve, every business is about making profit and obviously films are no different, but to me the idea of manipulating an audience after overcharging to begin with before getting people to go out and over pay again is just farcical. I'd like to think people will have the balls to sit back and raise a finger at James Cameron and tell him exactly where to go (not a good film since Aliens so I knew where my money was going here!) but this isn't going to happen, droves of people who saw this "incredible special effects" will clamour for more.
What is it that makes people do this? To go and see a film like JCAvatar at Cineworld would cost us £10.40 as standard, no doubt it'll be deluxe screened and get a little high demand premium thrown in. It's cheaper to go out and buy a flipping DVD, yet people won't go out and do this will they? Yes films can look better on a big screen, the thing is, normal households have access to better HD televisions than the cinema screens and won't have irritating brats getting in the way of the screen or making a noise and the over priced drinks/snacks. A day out to the cinema for me and the wench to see either Avatar would cost me a minimum of £20, if either of us wanted a drink of coke or popcorn that can easily rise to £25 which is just ridiculous costs when a DVD would cost us just over a tenner at release. Patience is a virtue and we're not going to be waiting for the years it seemed to be for films like Jurassic Park to get a release, though if people are stupid enough to buy into this fiasco maybe in Avatars case we will do.
You talk to members of staff at the cinema and they will tell you that the biggest obstacle to the industry is piracy. It's an old cliché and we'll hear it time and time again from various executives. Problem isn't that, the problem is (aside from a lack of support for the arts in the UK) that filmmakers overcharge people for a couple of hours unimaginative cliché ridden entertainment to the extent that people don't want to pay that sort of money. There have been some films I've enjoyed in recent years, I'm not that arrogant that all classics were the greatest, but I'll always wait for the DVD release to enjoy them the cost has drove me away from the cinema.
JCAvatar is one of the highest grossing films of all time, problem is, at those costs it's been rendered a nothing statistic same as various transfer records in football. At £9 million I hardly think that makes Kenwyne Jones over 10 times the player Gary Lineker was, it's just modern inflation and pointless expenditure in post 2000 economics. Please tell me I'm not the only person who finds James Camerons' blatant arrogance and contempt for the public to be unacceptable, or am I the last of a dying breed?
Incidentally, from what I've seen AAvatar looks shite as well.
Saturday, 21 August 2010
Freak? Depends where really dunnit?
Something I'd planned on semi-covering and got the inspiration courtesy of Kate's entry last night to finally do. Being 6'7" having long hair and wearing metal t-shirts it's no surprise that a random stranger will decide to randomly hurl abuse across the road/as they drive/walk past me or just make the snide comments to their mates and have a good laugh at "the freak".
The problem is, what makes me a freak, would in other circles see you as a freak. Case in point taken from last week as a case study. I, with Hannah were at a cashpoint checking the bank balance for shopping when a young lad I could best describe as having the physique of an obese walrus, three piercings in his eyebrow, wearing a baseball cap balanced precariously on his head (sideways) and trousers which were unable to fit round his waist yet still too short to get much lower than his knees squeeked (can't really call it a shout) "Freak" whilst making a gun gesture almost flying his gold chain off his arm.
I know I've never really been "hip" (damn Gamezville, I was well gangsta for dat roll!) but what strikes me as freakish in this incident certainly isn't someone standing patiently by a cash point while "the Virgin Mary" checks her bank balance. Yet I get the feeling only one of us has local residents of all ages hurling regular abuse at them and even on occasions taking photos to text to their mates about "dis freak wot I seen!".
The thing is, I'm actually quite comfortable how I am physically (mental is another kettle of turnips) and I'm not going to change that just because someone who doesn't even know me feels that renders me inferior to them, though I do understand how certain occupational clientel would get arsey for the same reason, after all why should I? The thing that makes me laugh about this kind of incident is that it's only really deemed "freaky" because the local people rarely leave their homes, they rarely actually go anywhere and so are used to not seeing anyone/thing even slightly different. Hell it's not even a case of people from school calling me a "freak" because I read gothic literature, wear black or, Satan forbid, go to the library at breaktimes, it's pure random.
The thing is, on those occasions when I go out gigging, it's people like this who would be seen as the outcasts and the freaks. A point highlighted by a story in which Kate with blonde hair and looking "normal" was seen as a freak at a metal gig, I'd shudder to think what they'd make of "The Iron Walrus" if he turned up! Though this won't matter of course, people like what they know, I can go to a Stevenage football match and see fellow supporters who evidently share a lot of common interest with me making snide comments, pointing and laughing and of course hurling the obligatory snarky comment.
With attitudes like this is it any reason for surprise that "Goths", "Emos", "Skaters" and any other form of schoolboyish outsiders are seen as such? People are too quick to make the snap judgement based on appearence and for whatever reason just be anti social and feel seemingly superior. Ultimately, I don't give a monkeys about others. If I'm in GAME looking at a PS3 game that you too have picked up it shows we have similar taste, if I'm standing in the North Stand at Broadhall Way, it shows we have similar taste. If I'm standing in a tiny venue to see Cannibal Corpes, it shows I should be commited and possibly subject to a lobotomy.
Ultimately, at the expense of sounding like a hippy freak, we're all the same. We each have our own interests and hobbies and no, we won't always share all of the same ones. Why should appearence be the basis for a snap judgement? For all I know "The Iron Walrus" went home to watch Robot Wars on Dave while quietly painting some model soldiers, were I similar in appearence to him he'd never have said a word and with those shared interests theoretically we'd be friends. With attitudes like that though common sense is never going to prevail, after all, isn't it just much easier to abuse someone randomly then actually bothering to speak to them civily?
The problem is, what makes me a freak, would in other circles see you as a freak. Case in point taken from last week as a case study. I, with Hannah were at a cashpoint checking the bank balance for shopping when a young lad I could best describe as having the physique of an obese walrus, three piercings in his eyebrow, wearing a baseball cap balanced precariously on his head (sideways) and trousers which were unable to fit round his waist yet still too short to get much lower than his knees squeeked (can't really call it a shout) "Freak" whilst making a gun gesture almost flying his gold chain off his arm.
I know I've never really been "hip" (damn Gamezville, I was well gangsta for dat roll!) but what strikes me as freakish in this incident certainly isn't someone standing patiently by a cash point while "the Virgin Mary" checks her bank balance. Yet I get the feeling only one of us has local residents of all ages hurling regular abuse at them and even on occasions taking photos to text to their mates about "dis freak wot I seen!".
The thing is, I'm actually quite comfortable how I am physically (mental is another kettle of turnips) and I'm not going to change that just because someone who doesn't even know me feels that renders me inferior to them, though I do understand how certain occupational clientel would get arsey for the same reason, after all why should I? The thing that makes me laugh about this kind of incident is that it's only really deemed "freaky" because the local people rarely leave their homes, they rarely actually go anywhere and so are used to not seeing anyone/thing even slightly different. Hell it's not even a case of people from school calling me a "freak" because I read gothic literature, wear black or, Satan forbid, go to the library at breaktimes, it's pure random.
The thing is, on those occasions when I go out gigging, it's people like this who would be seen as the outcasts and the freaks. A point highlighted by a story in which Kate with blonde hair and looking "normal" was seen as a freak at a metal gig, I'd shudder to think what they'd make of "The Iron Walrus" if he turned up! Though this won't matter of course, people like what they know, I can go to a Stevenage football match and see fellow supporters who evidently share a lot of common interest with me making snide comments, pointing and laughing and of course hurling the obligatory snarky comment.
With attitudes like this is it any reason for surprise that "Goths", "Emos", "Skaters" and any other form of schoolboyish outsiders are seen as such? People are too quick to make the snap judgement based on appearence and for whatever reason just be anti social and feel seemingly superior. Ultimately, I don't give a monkeys about others. If I'm in GAME looking at a PS3 game that you too have picked up it shows we have similar taste, if I'm standing in the North Stand at Broadhall Way, it shows we have similar taste. If I'm standing in a tiny venue to see Cannibal Corpes, it shows I should be commited and possibly subject to a lobotomy.
Ultimately, at the expense of sounding like a hippy freak, we're all the same. We each have our own interests and hobbies and no, we won't always share all of the same ones. Why should appearence be the basis for a snap judgement? For all I know "The Iron Walrus" went home to watch Robot Wars on Dave while quietly painting some model soldiers, were I similar in appearence to him he'd never have said a word and with those shared interests theoretically we'd be friends. With attitudes like that though common sense is never going to prevail, after all, isn't it just much easier to abuse someone randomly then actually bothering to speak to them civily?
Friday, 20 August 2010
To obscure; What the heck is that?
In one of my regular forum crawls I came across an article relating to little known rock band "PRESS PLAY ON TAPE". Heard of them? I suspect you haven't, but for the uninitiatited they cover music from computer games of the 80's and are the ultimate in Geek Rock just for the reference in their name (yeah STFU Weezer!). The funny thing is they've gained a little more net recognition purely because a Wikipedia admin decided they "were too obscure and thus should not be covered" thus boosting their attention. In fact the forums mentioning this and my blog space surely now can be cited as people talking about them and thus are no longer obscure and should thus be mentioned on wikipedia, right?
What gets me is that we've got a website here which, although user based, attempts to fill the niché and ultimately be seen as a template to remove big cumbersome 48 volume editions of the Encyclopedia Brittanica, so surely the obscure has a place on there? Further reading on the case suggested it was two volunteer admins fighting over something which had nothing to do with the actual case but still carried on, oh look moderators being unable to do their job, I guess every website on the planet has these *REST OF SENTENCE REMOVED BY BLOGGER.COM ADMINISTRATORS - PS YOUR MOTHER LOOKS LIKE AN ORANGUTAN*
Seeing this I decided to do a little research, first I looked on Wikipedia for Pythia, after initial Greek myth based page I got to the band. Now despite the ignorant admins saying magazine reviews are not acceptable evidence of receiving reviews from said magazines (WHA?) the page still exists. I've since looked it up on google, "Pythia band" gives me 37,200 results "PRESS PLAY ON TAPE band" gives me 271,000 results. Which one is more obscure there based on a basic google search.
In short, I'm confused now. What is the point of getting something together, supposedly as a source of information, if people are unable to go there as a source of information? Is it all about the size of your e-peen ("Hi I have 96 platinum trophies on Playstation, wanna bang?") or is it just a special level of anality? Due to this little incident I've gone and investigated P-POT (just noticed hilarity of abbreviation...) and actually, they're quite good. It's not what I'd normally listen to but ultimately it's fun and hearing "Monty on the Run" as a guitar solo made me smile, lots.
Thanks a lot for that Wikipedia but realistically, too obscure? When I can get a detailed biography on any minor tribal leader from some Pacific island don't remove this information. Everyone knows Wiki isn't the perfect source for information but it's a great tool to just get a quick overview on any subject. Don't restrict it just because a certain mod/admin dislikes another mod/admin/user. There's enough of that on cliquey little forums without preventing information getting out and just plain old tarnishing your name further.
What gets me is that we've got a website here which, although user based, attempts to fill the niché and ultimately be seen as a template to remove big cumbersome 48 volume editions of the Encyclopedia Brittanica, so surely the obscure has a place on there? Further reading on the case suggested it was two volunteer admins fighting over something which had nothing to do with the actual case but still carried on, oh look moderators being unable to do their job, I guess every website on the planet has these *REST OF SENTENCE REMOVED BY BLOGGER.COM ADMINISTRATORS - PS YOUR MOTHER LOOKS LIKE AN ORANGUTAN*
Seeing this I decided to do a little research, first I looked on Wikipedia for Pythia, after initial Greek myth based page I got to the band. Now despite the ignorant admins saying magazine reviews are not acceptable evidence of receiving reviews from said magazines (WHA?) the page still exists. I've since looked it up on google, "Pythia band" gives me 37,200 results "PRESS PLAY ON TAPE band" gives me 271,000 results. Which one is more obscure there based on a basic google search.
In short, I'm confused now. What is the point of getting something together, supposedly as a source of information, if people are unable to go there as a source of information? Is it all about the size of your e-peen ("Hi I have 96 platinum trophies on Playstation, wanna bang?") or is it just a special level of anality? Due to this little incident I've gone and investigated P-POT (just noticed hilarity of abbreviation...) and actually, they're quite good. It's not what I'd normally listen to but ultimately it's fun and hearing "Monty on the Run" as a guitar solo made me smile, lots.
Thanks a lot for that Wikipedia but realistically, too obscure? When I can get a detailed biography on any minor tribal leader from some Pacific island don't remove this information. Everyone knows Wiki isn't the perfect source for information but it's a great tool to just get a quick overview on any subject. Don't restrict it just because a certain mod/admin dislikes another mod/admin/user. There's enough of that on cliquey little forums without preventing information getting out and just plain old tarnishing your name further.
Thursday, 19 August 2010
20 Years in the Making
Another look back over the games of yesteryear this time following a long standing victory which as the title suggests has been 20 years in the making. Batman the movie was out in 1989 across a range of computers, slightly different on the various systems probably the best of which was the Amiga version but never had this one in the day (by the time the Amiga came in it was all strategy epicness for ours) but in a boredom day I've hunted out the C64 game and FINALLY knocked the Joker from the top of Gotham cathedral (no spoilers surely, you'll have seen the film if you're ever going to by now!).
Why the heck did I decide to do this? Boredom, but a lot of the time it's the older games that can keep you coming back. I enjoy more recent ones of course, I'm a self professed nerd and am more than happy with just playing games, but some times the older ones just get across a feel. Batman : Arkham Asylum was one of my favourites last year and captured Batman perfectly but the old C64 game? Did exactly what a film cash in should do it captured the spirit of the film and followed the plot well.
Start off on foot fighting off cops and gangsters through AXIS chemical plant before knocking Jack Napier to his demise. Sadly Jack becomes the Joker and he's raided an art gallery where Bruces bit of skirt (has to be one in a Batman movie for some reason...) was so now you need to drive her to safety at the batcave (see above screenshot). Once there we need to find out the chemical forumla of "Smilex" which is a basic concentration type game. Once the formula is solved we must stop the Jokers gas balloons from seeping out into the atmosphere in the batwing before a big final confrontation. 5 levels in three different styles and all following the story.
This just made it a fun game, you don't have powerful weaponry particularly or loads of fancy gadgets it's pure A-->B even if the method of transport is different. The beauty is, in playing this now it shows that wasn't just nostalgia that puts it in high esteem, some games leave you unfulfilled going back (no tai prossie reference Lanky...) like the hilariously easy and weak Donalds Playground kidfest mentioned earlier (also played today!) but this didn't. I still enjoyed it, I still hated trying to avoid the spikes up my jacksie in the cathedral and judging the timing as I accidentally release more gas into the streets of Gotham and though I'd never done it before I got sense of achievement when I finally completed the game. Will I play it again though now? Not in the near future but one day when boredom sinks in, on a wet evening, I'm sure I'll be back in the tights playing one of the few movie tie-ins that still works.
Wednesday, 18 August 2010
Concerning Anticipation
Like most blog entries in late July --> end of August this is going to be a little bit about football. Some people would call it "The Beautiful Game" but frankly, that's a load of bunkum really isn't it? Every Summer we follow the transfer sagas and get built up in the hope that this could be OUR year. Just for complete and utter agony to strike us before the first half a dozen games are over.
Take me for example, after years of going to follow Spurs home and away and seeing us in the "lesser" European competition for so long, for which my ribs still hurt occasionally following the over zealous Kaiserslautern policeman (2-1 loss on aggregate, were winning 1-0 after 90 minutes of the second leg, wankers, November 1999) I finally get my chance to see Spurs in the Champions League (last entry 1961/62 a little before my time, Kate may remember it).
Well what an anti-climax, at the expense of sounding like a Tai prostitute servicing a 16 year old virgin it all becomes a let down and is totally unfulfilling. Now, it's not bad the losing as we all go through that and frankly I don't expect Spurs to win the thing but when you're 3-0 down inside half hour against a team who aren't even playing well questions start to be asked. While I always had confidence we'll get out of jail and losing 3-2 away isn't a disaster as it'll be a "Glory, Glory night" at the Lane for the second leg it reminded me of the torture we deliberately put ourselves into.
While this is just one mans suffering relating to one club we know it's no different for others. Wigan come out on day one to get slaughtered at home by newly promoted relegation favourites Blackpool (next up Chelsea away!), West Ham get thrashed in the claret and blue derby against Villa. Sheffield United and Bristol City are without managers. It's the same old story and we all subject ourselves to it every year! We know the fans of these teams will turn out in droves and write opinion pieces on "Why our manager MUST go!" and "Paul Scholes is the greatest footballer OF ALL TIME!" and rant to anyone who may be within range about why they're wrong.
The reality is though, this is why we do it. Where would the fun be without sitting there on a Saturday afternoon, in the stands or in front of "Soccer Saturday" and following our teams fortunes. I know that's not going to be the last awful Spurs performance this year and I fear what'd happen if we were like that against Man Yoo or THEM but I'll sit there every week non-the-less. We love football for the highs and - for most fans - the lows but that won't stop us. Looking forward to yet another agonising season and lor' knows everyone else is too!
Take me for example, after years of going to follow Spurs home and away and seeing us in the "lesser" European competition for so long, for which my ribs still hurt occasionally following the over zealous Kaiserslautern policeman (2-1 loss on aggregate, were winning 1-0 after 90 minutes of the second leg, wankers, November 1999) I finally get my chance to see Spurs in the Champions League (last entry 1961/62 a little before my time, Kate may remember it).
Well what an anti-climax, at the expense of sounding like a Tai prostitute servicing a 16 year old virgin it all becomes a let down and is totally unfulfilling. Now, it's not bad the losing as we all go through that and frankly I don't expect Spurs to win the thing but when you're 3-0 down inside half hour against a team who aren't even playing well questions start to be asked. While I always had confidence we'll get out of jail and losing 3-2 away isn't a disaster as it'll be a "Glory, Glory night" at the Lane for the second leg it reminded me of the torture we deliberately put ourselves into.
While this is just one mans suffering relating to one club we know it's no different for others. Wigan come out on day one to get slaughtered at home by newly promoted relegation favourites Blackpool (next up Chelsea away!), West Ham get thrashed in the claret and blue derby against Villa. Sheffield United and Bristol City are without managers. It's the same old story and we all subject ourselves to it every year! We know the fans of these teams will turn out in droves and write opinion pieces on "Why our manager MUST go!" and "Paul Scholes is the greatest footballer OF ALL TIME!" and rant to anyone who may be within range about why they're wrong.
The reality is though, this is why we do it. Where would the fun be without sitting there on a Saturday afternoon, in the stands or in front of "Soccer Saturday" and following our teams fortunes. I know that's not going to be the last awful Spurs performance this year and I fear what'd happen if we were like that against Man Yoo or THEM but I'll sit there every week non-the-less. We love football for the highs and - for most fans - the lows but that won't stop us. Looking forward to yet another agonising season and lor' knows everyone else is too!
Tuesday, 17 August 2010
Donald Ducks Playground
I admit it, starting a blog and having this as the opening topic may not be the most sensible for my reputation, but I'm going ahead with it anyway. In my normal bored state I was browsing forums and saw someone fighting their corner that "Nintendo invented the mini game genre" which led me to this gem from my childhood on the old C64.
Like all games, this has a plot and like most from the era it's dead simple. Donald Duck as a miserable bugger is trying to work four jobs to make enough money to buy various items for his nephews and put on a playground for them to play to their hearts content. I think this was a bribe to stop them telling social services about his foul mouthed tirades (including racial abuse according to comments made in '88s "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" towards Daffy Duck...) and his refusal to wear something on the lower half of his body. Either way old school developer "US Gold" put together this game of challenges.
The four jobs are basic mini games. The Greengrocers, which saw you sorting stock coming off the back of a delivery, it's thrown at you in a particularly cavalier fashion so I just used to let it fall on the floor most of the time. The Toy Store which involved stacking the shelves, or matching the toy with the same colour and shape on the shelf. Airport baggage handler which meant putting cases in the right place so they don't miss the flights and finally "railroad controller" which meant changing the switches of the lines to help a train get from A --> B. Then exchanging your hard earned cash for swings ladders and so on. After your purchases you get to watch a little blackmailer go and play on a couple of the bits before buggering off for more extortion.
Ultimately though I have fond memories of it and isn't that what a computer game is about? It's simple and fun (or at least was, must hunt it out some time just for old times sake) and supposedly educational though learning the abbreviation L.A.X did nothing for me, it's just a song by "the attractive one from S Club" isn't it?
Right enough on the nursery games, next time I rant about how flipping hard it was to find your way around Greendale in the Postman Pat game for the speccy...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)