Celebrity Juice isn’t funny. A statement I’m sure most sane people will agree with. Generally ITV don’t do comedy, any form of wit is considered too high brow for their audience and as a result their output is limited to soaps and reality shows. They’re the Iceland of television, punting a buffet of cheap party food right into your face.
Amidst the peculiar host of eccentric characters ITV houses lies Keith Lemon (yes I know it‘s Leigh Francis), who by a process of elimination has become their go to funny man. Basically a parody of Paddy McGuinness, Keith Lemon is a misogynist dick, whose parodiable value is redundant as most of his fans are misogynist dicks, just as Al Murray’s fans are racists.
Keith Lemon first appeared as a character in Bo’Selecta, and displayed the comedy stylings that ITV loves. With “love cheat” Vernon Kay, and Paddy McGuiness (a man with the personality of a serial rapist) presenting most third rate “entertainment” programmes on channel 3, Keith Lemon appears to be the perfect ITV presenter, and that’s how we have Celebrity Juice.
A panel show like no other, Celebrity Juice sees Keith Lemon ask questions about celebrities to celebrities. Every panel show has two hilarious team captains, and none are more hilarious than BFF’s Fearne Cotton and Holly Willoughby. For two bestest buds they have all the chemistry of helium and argon, they are to put it simply, inert. It might all be lovely and stuff but this is supposed to be a funny panel show, not a lovely panel show.
Perhaps aware of this, comedian Rufus Hound has been enlisted as a regular guest, and I’ve seen him be funny and formulate coherent sentences, but on Celebrity Juice it just looks like he’s chaperoning a children’s party, and has to concede in joining in on the madness.
At one time Keith Lemon was amusing, but five minutes later the repetitiveness was so grating that he was nothing less than fucking irritating. He’s a perpetual Vic Reeves thigh rub, relentless in demonstrating that the notion of misogyny is the pinnacle of comedy. When you hear people on the street shouting out his catchphrases with no irony whatsoever, the character of Keith Lemon ceases to be ironic. I’m not after Have I Got News For You or Q.I, but I don’t want to hear the following on a constant loop:
“I’d smash your back doors in”
“Bang tidy”
“Holly Willybooby”
“Fearne Cotton has big nostrils”
“Potato!”
“I’d smash your back doors in”
“Bang tidy”
“Holly Willybooby”
“Fearne Cotton has big nostrils”
“Potato!”
“I’d smash your back doors in”
It goes on and on and on. I’m sure Leigh Francis is an intelligent man, it would be great to see some evidence of that, but ITV is not the platform to showcase intellect or comedy. Any decent television they might produce gets lost in the shit storm of shows such as Britan’s Got Talent, Look it’s Peter Andre meandering, The only way is Essex, Look it’s Jordan meandering, and of course Celebrity Juice.
Lucky for me I’ve never seen Sing if you can. Oh wait, I have. A PRIME TIME Saturday night programme hosted by Keith Lemon and Stacey Solomon, sees “celebrities” singing while stuff happens to them. The proceeds go to charity but it must be causing far more problems than it’s solving. Yeah, get your family round the TV, watch Chesney Hawkes sing while he’s set on fire, and watch your kids grow up to be morons just like you, and when you’re dead your epitaph will read “Bang Tidy”.
Saturday, 28 May 2011
Wednesday, 18 May 2011
Lego!
Everyone loves lego, yeah, it’s a bad man toy you get me? Of course you do. While too old to play with real lego my only enjoyment has come from lego games such as Lego Star Wars, Lego Indiana Jones, and Lego Batman. Each game adapts their respective franchise into lego form, and while aimed at kids, they prove to be immensely enjoyable for just about anyone who plays them. Recently the series has somewhat stumbled, running out of franchises to “legofy”, they have resorted to releasing Lego Pirates of the Caribbean. Yeah, play as all your favourite characters from all your favourite movies! Distraught from playing the demo, I have come up with a list of franchises that should be “legofied”.
Lego Die Hard
With a fifth film in the works a lego game would be a perfect tie in, and who wouldn’t want to play as a lego John McClane? Or a lego Hans Gruber? Ok, it might be a little too violent for kids, and even with five films there wouldn’t be much source material, but an epic showdown in the Nakatomi Plaza would be…epic.
Lego The Notebook
One for the chicks. You would play as lego Ryan Gosling, and you’d do stuff that happened in the film…I haven’t seen it.
Lego The Wire
Or Lego Gritty Drama as they might call it. There would certainly be a variety of characters to play as, and a lego Baltimore would look impressive, but it may be too depressing for kids.
Lego Curb your Enthusiasm
You play as a lego Larry David, your objective is to talk your way into embarrassing and humiliating situations, and pick up the (lego) pieces in the process.
Lego Firefly
This game would be amazing, there would be a ton of characters with different skills, loads of action, levels in space, but it would get cancelled and you’d never finish the game.
Lego This Morning
Cooking, domestic violence, horoscopes, paedophilia, books, necrophilia, your task as lego Schofield is to provide links for impossibly unrelated segments. Would be the most challenging game ever.
Lego Dawson’s Creek
Every lego game requires you to spend hours collecting things, in lego Dawson’s Creek you would collect things like Spielberg posters, Pacey’s punch lines, Jen’s ex-boyfriends, and Joey’s inexplicable bad moods.
Lego Die Hard
With a fifth film in the works a lego game would be a perfect tie in, and who wouldn’t want to play as a lego John McClane? Or a lego Hans Gruber? Ok, it might be a little too violent for kids, and even with five films there wouldn’t be much source material, but an epic showdown in the Nakatomi Plaza would be…epic.
Lego The Notebook
One for the chicks. You would play as lego Ryan Gosling, and you’d do stuff that happened in the film…I haven’t seen it.
Lego The Wire
Or Lego Gritty Drama as they might call it. There would certainly be a variety of characters to play as, and a lego Baltimore would look impressive, but it may be too depressing for kids.
Lego Curb your Enthusiasm
You play as a lego Larry David, your objective is to talk your way into embarrassing and humiliating situations, and pick up the (lego) pieces in the process.
Lego Firefly
This game would be amazing, there would be a ton of characters with different skills, loads of action, levels in space, but it would get cancelled and you’d never finish the game.
Lego This Morning
Cooking, domestic violence, horoscopes, paedophilia, books, necrophilia, your task as lego Schofield is to provide links for impossibly unrelated segments. Would be the most challenging game ever.
Lego Dawson’s Creek
Every lego game requires you to spend hours collecting things, in lego Dawson’s Creek you would collect things like Spielberg posters, Pacey’s punch lines, Jen’s ex-boyfriends, and Joey’s inexplicable bad moods.
Thursday, 5 May 2011
Thor Blimey!
Who’s your favourite super hero? Batman? Superman? Spider-Man? Iron Man? Thor? Chances are you didn’t say Thor, no one really likes Thor, he’s boring, he dresses funny and talks like a dick. Marvel are running out of characters to put in their movies and subsequently they’ve had to make Thor.
Marvel like to think of themselves as mavericks when casting directors, and Kenneth Branagh initially appeared to be a strange choice, but a classical sort of hero needs a classical sort of director. Much of the film’s plot is to an extent Shakespearian and it’s here where Branagh succeeds, the lust for power that Thor and his brother Loki both share is the most gripping element of the story, and it’s a shame Thor ever sets foot on Earth.
When he does fall to Earth, he is met by Natalie Portman, Stellan Skarsgard, and Kat Dennings, and the inauguration of this gang makes for a strange pacing. The film constantly shifts between two settings, the plot is driven forward in Asgard only to be slowed down with Thor’s Earthbound coming of age. Shit is happening in Asgard and on Earth Stellan Skarsgard is helping a troubled young man like he’s still in Good Will Hunting.
There’s no doubt that Kat Dennings was cast to provide a little humour, but the comedy comes from the mere act of Thor speaking all olden days in modern America, and while this is far from high brow, I still ashamedly laughed. When Kat Denning’s INSANE dialogue about shit like a stolen ipod doesn’t make you laugh there really is no point of her being in the film at all. In fact the funniest part of the film, like all other Marvel films, is Stan Lee’s cameo.
It’s strange that between the two settings, Asgard looks the most realistic. We are sold this fantastic looking in-depth world, and then it’s juxtaposed with a tiny American desert town, which seems to have a pet shop and nothing else. When Thor’s mates turn up in their Asgardian clobber it looks ridiculous, and at this point Thor becomes very silly. To make matters worse when Thor inevitably comes of age, Natalie Portman utters the phrase “Oh…my…god” (do you get it? Because he’s a god LOLZ) in such a cheesy manner that she should give her Oscar back.
Perhaps the writers were getting bored because by the final scene, there were barely sentences between Thor and his daddy Odin, “You will make a wise king”, “you were a wise father”, “As will you be”, “yes”, “hmm”. By now I’ve become prepared to sit through ten minutes of credits to see a 30 second scene starring Samuel L. Jackson, but I’m starting to think it’s not worth it, no one else did, they all fucked off.
Without the pressure of setting up The Avengers, Thor might have been very different, what we got was a great film merged with a very silly one, and while it’s not a disappointment, it missed the opportunity to be the best Marvel film yet. There is only Captain America left to come before The Avengers graces our screens, and then it’s finally over…Apart from Iron Man 3, Thor 2, Captain America 2, and whatever the fuck they do with the Hulk.
Marvel like to think of themselves as mavericks when casting directors, and Kenneth Branagh initially appeared to be a strange choice, but a classical sort of hero needs a classical sort of director. Much of the film’s plot is to an extent Shakespearian and it’s here where Branagh succeeds, the lust for power that Thor and his brother Loki both share is the most gripping element of the story, and it’s a shame Thor ever sets foot on Earth.
When he does fall to Earth, he is met by Natalie Portman, Stellan Skarsgard, and Kat Dennings, and the inauguration of this gang makes for a strange pacing. The film constantly shifts between two settings, the plot is driven forward in Asgard only to be slowed down with Thor’s Earthbound coming of age. Shit is happening in Asgard and on Earth Stellan Skarsgard is helping a troubled young man like he’s still in Good Will Hunting.
There’s no doubt that Kat Dennings was cast to provide a little humour, but the comedy comes from the mere act of Thor speaking all olden days in modern America, and while this is far from high brow, I still ashamedly laughed. When Kat Denning’s INSANE dialogue about shit like a stolen ipod doesn’t make you laugh there really is no point of her being in the film at all. In fact the funniest part of the film, like all other Marvel films, is Stan Lee’s cameo.
It’s strange that between the two settings, Asgard looks the most realistic. We are sold this fantastic looking in-depth world, and then it’s juxtaposed with a tiny American desert town, which seems to have a pet shop and nothing else. When Thor’s mates turn up in their Asgardian clobber it looks ridiculous, and at this point Thor becomes very silly. To make matters worse when Thor inevitably comes of age, Natalie Portman utters the phrase “Oh…my…god” (do you get it? Because he’s a god LOLZ) in such a cheesy manner that she should give her Oscar back.
Perhaps the writers were getting bored because by the final scene, there were barely sentences between Thor and his daddy Odin, “You will make a wise king”, “you were a wise father”, “As will you be”, “yes”, “hmm”. By now I’ve become prepared to sit through ten minutes of credits to see a 30 second scene starring Samuel L. Jackson, but I’m starting to think it’s not worth it, no one else did, they all fucked off.
Without the pressure of setting up The Avengers, Thor might have been very different, what we got was a great film merged with a very silly one, and while it’s not a disappointment, it missed the opportunity to be the best Marvel film yet. There is only Captain America left to come before The Avengers graces our screens, and then it’s finally over…Apart from Iron Man 3, Thor 2, Captain America 2, and whatever the fuck they do with the Hulk.
Wednesday, 4 May 2011
Some Like It Hoth
Star Wars is a bit shit isn’t it? As it’s May the fourth I feel pressured into watching the movies today like millions of others are, but instead of embracing the pun in today’s date, I’d rather just watch something else. I love Star Wars, there’s no denying it, I’ve known that Luke is Vader’s son longer than I’ve known Jesus is God’s son, but when you’re confronted by its critics it’s difficult to defend it and you have to agree that really, it is a bit shit.
It’s clichéd to blame George Lucas for ruining it for everyone but the sad truth is it’s entirely his fault. The original films didn’t need any special effects added to them, and the prequels never needed to be made. Part of the charm of Star Wars was imagining what made Anakin Skywalker turn to the dark side, how were Luke and Leia separated at birth? What exactly have R2-D2 and C-3PO been through? And what the fuck is the force? Questions that as a child let your imagination run wild, and this is what made it magic, not midi bastard chlorians (yes, I know I could have read the books).
I remember being insanely excited about seeing The Phantom Menace, I was twelve, too young to really judge the credentials of any film and as a result I thought it was pretty good. Nothing can truly annoy a twelve year old, not even Jar Jar Binks. Watching it on video a year later just wasn’t the same, Darth Maul still looked badass but it was boring, very boring, and it wasn’t Jar Jar I found most annoying, it was Anakin, if I was Obi Wan I would have drowned the fucker and saved everyone the hassle.
Episode II came out long after I had discovered masturbation and as a result I think I’ve only ever seen it once, I clearly had other things to be doing.
So, moving on to Episode III, where the shit just got real. While clearly the best of the prequels, Revenge of the Sith still had its problems, mainly the younglings, and that ending. Lucas had three opportunities to improve his franchise or at the very least to supplement it with a decent back story. What he did was make three very average films and ruin the reputation of the first trilogy.
I’m not that much of a moron to not understand that this is science fiction, but some of the shit is just ludicrous. A nine year old living in a desert has built a robot, a fucking robot who is fluent in over six millions forms of communication! Maybe he picked some of those up in his gap year. Anakin can build a robot but he can’t make a decent bit of breathing equipment over a decade later? This guy is supposed to be a genius yet he didn’t even think of Heelys or a Segway as a faster way of getting round the Death Star, what about strapping mouse droids to the bottom of his feet? Luke and Leia are separated at birth so Anakin can’t find them, Luke takes the Skywalker name and moves to his home planet and he still can‘t find him! He can’t build a robot, he’s a fucking idiot.
The franchise is ever expanding, TV shows, books and video games are constantly adding to its canon in every direction and there are no signs of it slowing down. Lucas says he’ll never film the last three episodes but the threat is still there, if there’s semen to be squeezed out of its shrivelled penis then it will be squeezed and when they’ve run out of Clone Wars and Old Republics we’ll see Episodes VII-IX. A blu-ray release of all six films is due later this year, and if the end of the world doesn’t kill you in 2012, The Phantom Menace in 3D just might.
Only Lucas knows what he’s going to tinker with next, perhaps Jar Jar Binks will be 30% more annoying, or Hayden Christensen’s face will be superimposed over the young Anakin, but whatever he does won’t make it a better film. It’s a pride and stubbornness that raped Indiana Jones, and has made it incredibly difficult to enjoy some of my favourite films. So on May the fourth, I say this to George Lucas, fuck you!
It’s clichéd to blame George Lucas for ruining it for everyone but the sad truth is it’s entirely his fault. The original films didn’t need any special effects added to them, and the prequels never needed to be made. Part of the charm of Star Wars was imagining what made Anakin Skywalker turn to the dark side, how were Luke and Leia separated at birth? What exactly have R2-D2 and C-3PO been through? And what the fuck is the force? Questions that as a child let your imagination run wild, and this is what made it magic, not midi bastard chlorians (yes, I know I could have read the books).
I remember being insanely excited about seeing The Phantom Menace, I was twelve, too young to really judge the credentials of any film and as a result I thought it was pretty good. Nothing can truly annoy a twelve year old, not even Jar Jar Binks. Watching it on video a year later just wasn’t the same, Darth Maul still looked badass but it was boring, very boring, and it wasn’t Jar Jar I found most annoying, it was Anakin, if I was Obi Wan I would have drowned the fucker and saved everyone the hassle.
Episode II came out long after I had discovered masturbation and as a result I think I’ve only ever seen it once, I clearly had other things to be doing.
So, moving on to Episode III, where the shit just got real. While clearly the best of the prequels, Revenge of the Sith still had its problems, mainly the younglings, and that ending. Lucas had three opportunities to improve his franchise or at the very least to supplement it with a decent back story. What he did was make three very average films and ruin the reputation of the first trilogy.
I’m not that much of a moron to not understand that this is science fiction, but some of the shit is just ludicrous. A nine year old living in a desert has built a robot, a fucking robot who is fluent in over six millions forms of communication! Maybe he picked some of those up in his gap year. Anakin can build a robot but he can’t make a decent bit of breathing equipment over a decade later? This guy is supposed to be a genius yet he didn’t even think of Heelys or a Segway as a faster way of getting round the Death Star, what about strapping mouse droids to the bottom of his feet? Luke and Leia are separated at birth so Anakin can’t find them, Luke takes the Skywalker name and moves to his home planet and he still can‘t find him! He can’t build a robot, he’s a fucking idiot.
The franchise is ever expanding, TV shows, books and video games are constantly adding to its canon in every direction and there are no signs of it slowing down. Lucas says he’ll never film the last three episodes but the threat is still there, if there’s semen to be squeezed out of its shrivelled penis then it will be squeezed and when they’ve run out of Clone Wars and Old Republics we’ll see Episodes VII-IX. A blu-ray release of all six films is due later this year, and if the end of the world doesn’t kill you in 2012, The Phantom Menace in 3D just might.
Only Lucas knows what he’s going to tinker with next, perhaps Jar Jar Binks will be 30% more annoying, or Hayden Christensen’s face will be superimposed over the young Anakin, but whatever he does won’t make it a better film. It’s a pride and stubbornness that raped Indiana Jones, and has made it incredibly difficult to enjoy some of my favourite films. So on May the fourth, I say this to George Lucas, fuck you!
Saturday, 16 April 2011
"Get in the hole...bitch"
I’m shite at sports, it’s a personal tragedy and one that I’ll never overcome, I’ve not played every sport (just how do you get into pole vaulting) but I’m pretty sure I’ll be terrible at all of them. I might never get to sleep with a team-mate’s wife or swear into a camera and I’ve made peace with that, because I can do it all on an Xbox.
In reality I don’t care much for sports but boy do I love them in video game form. It doesn’t even matter which sport it is, I used to play the likes of Fifa 96, Troy Aikman NFL Football, NBA Jam and NHL 96 for hours as a kid, and while my interest in sports has waned somewhat, I’m still playing their virtual incarnations like a zombie.
As opposed to most other games, there’s always a new version every single year, promising to be better than the last. The squads will be updated, as will the shiny new kits, there might be NEW ANIMATIONS! And that’s all you really get, and for most Fifa fans, that’s all they want, change is bad. Wayne Rooney has graced the cover since 2007 and the only difference is that he’s got progressively uglier.
EA Sports love to throw a gimmick at the rest of us, if David Beckham’s new haircut didn’t persuade us to buy the new game then 360 dribbling will! Or 360 passing! Next year it will 360 heading, like the shitting Exorcist, NEW PROJECTILE VOMITING! When you do eventually buy the latest version you’re left disappointed that they’ve removed all the things you liked about last year’s game.
I like to think I’m better than this, I won’t be fooled by the promise of a brand new game every year, only to hold a near identical copy of the game I only bought 12 months ago, so what I do, I buy them every 48 months, in which I hold a near identical copy of the game I only bought 48 months ago.
Having bought Tiger Woods PGA Tour 09 on the *gulp* Nintendo Wii, it was time to buy the latest version, and this time on a console where I didn’t have to swing my arms like a mentalist. Because Tiger Woods “did all that sex” a few years ago, EA Sports have chosen not to have his face on the cover, instead choosing to have The Masters emblazoned all over it, with the tiny words Tiger Woods PGA Tour 12 underneath.
Unsurprisingly, this year’s version is all up in the air over The Masters, which for people uninterested in golf (me included) is a golf tournament, and as I have gathered, quite a fancy one. It’s extremely refreshing to have a different menu screen to the one EA Sports has stuck with for all of its games for the past five years.
I like golf games because they’re hypnotically addictive, which is strange because I’m just doing the same thing over and over. I’m definitely not going to have to gun down a terrorist or jump in a helicopter, I’m not even going to get in a golf cart, I’m just going to hit a ball down a field. It shouldn’t be fun, shooting Nazi’s in the face is fun, murdering in renaissance Italy is fun, golf? Fun? Why yes it is.
Sinking a long putt to get an eagle is incredibly satisfying, and for a guy who craves a false sense of achievement, it will be dangerous when I finally get a hole in one, “you coming to work today?”, “Fuck your job, I got a hole in one!”. Tiger Woods will (probably) appeal to any gamers who are “completionists“ because there’s a lot to do. Pretty much everything is unlocked through challenges, you complete a challenge and you have another more difficult one to complete, which is a much more entertaining way of getting Xbox achievements than collecting feathers.
Despite all the fun and japes, there is something substantially annoying about Tiger Woods 12, and it’s not the lack of sex. There are a total of 34 courses, though you only get 16 of these when you buy the game, the rest being available to purchase online. This might be acceptable if it didn’t interfere with the game, but you are constantly reminded that there are events you cannot play until you buy the courses. It might be acceptable if the courses were reasonably priced, but they’re not. It might be acceptable if these courses were produced after the release, but they weren’t. They could have been in the game, but EA Cunts have cynically decided to make us pay for part of a game we have already paid for.
This is nothing new, but it’s a trend that is becoming more and more common as publishers know they can withhold content from a game, sell it separately, and millions of morons will buy it. The publishers are dicks for doing for it, but the people out there enabling them are the real cunts. Tiger Woods 12 may be fun but it’s an insight into the terrible dystopia of video games that has yet to come.
In reality I don’t care much for sports but boy do I love them in video game form. It doesn’t even matter which sport it is, I used to play the likes of Fifa 96, Troy Aikman NFL Football, NBA Jam and NHL 96 for hours as a kid, and while my interest in sports has waned somewhat, I’m still playing their virtual incarnations like a zombie.
As opposed to most other games, there’s always a new version every single year, promising to be better than the last. The squads will be updated, as will the shiny new kits, there might be NEW ANIMATIONS! And that’s all you really get, and for most Fifa fans, that’s all they want, change is bad. Wayne Rooney has graced the cover since 2007 and the only difference is that he’s got progressively uglier.
EA Sports love to throw a gimmick at the rest of us, if David Beckham’s new haircut didn’t persuade us to buy the new game then 360 dribbling will! Or 360 passing! Next year it will 360 heading, like the shitting Exorcist, NEW PROJECTILE VOMITING! When you do eventually buy the latest version you’re left disappointed that they’ve removed all the things you liked about last year’s game.
I like to think I’m better than this, I won’t be fooled by the promise of a brand new game every year, only to hold a near identical copy of the game I only bought 12 months ago, so what I do, I buy them every 48 months, in which I hold a near identical copy of the game I only bought 48 months ago.
Having bought Tiger Woods PGA Tour 09 on the *gulp* Nintendo Wii, it was time to buy the latest version, and this time on a console where I didn’t have to swing my arms like a mentalist. Because Tiger Woods “did all that sex” a few years ago, EA Sports have chosen not to have his face on the cover, instead choosing to have The Masters emblazoned all over it, with the tiny words Tiger Woods PGA Tour 12 underneath.
Unsurprisingly, this year’s version is all up in the air over The Masters, which for people uninterested in golf (me included) is a golf tournament, and as I have gathered, quite a fancy one. It’s extremely refreshing to have a different menu screen to the one EA Sports has stuck with for all of its games for the past five years.
I like golf games because they’re hypnotically addictive, which is strange because I’m just doing the same thing over and over. I’m definitely not going to have to gun down a terrorist or jump in a helicopter, I’m not even going to get in a golf cart, I’m just going to hit a ball down a field. It shouldn’t be fun, shooting Nazi’s in the face is fun, murdering in renaissance Italy is fun, golf? Fun? Why yes it is.
Sinking a long putt to get an eagle is incredibly satisfying, and for a guy who craves a false sense of achievement, it will be dangerous when I finally get a hole in one, “you coming to work today?”, “Fuck your job, I got a hole in one!”. Tiger Woods will (probably) appeal to any gamers who are “completionists“ because there’s a lot to do. Pretty much everything is unlocked through challenges, you complete a challenge and you have another more difficult one to complete, which is a much more entertaining way of getting Xbox achievements than collecting feathers.
Despite all the fun and japes, there is something substantially annoying about Tiger Woods 12, and it’s not the lack of sex. There are a total of 34 courses, though you only get 16 of these when you buy the game, the rest being available to purchase online. This might be acceptable if it didn’t interfere with the game, but you are constantly reminded that there are events you cannot play until you buy the courses. It might be acceptable if the courses were reasonably priced, but they’re not. It might be acceptable if these courses were produced after the release, but they weren’t. They could have been in the game, but EA Cunts have cynically decided to make us pay for part of a game we have already paid for.
This is nothing new, but it’s a trend that is becoming more and more common as publishers know they can withhold content from a game, sell it separately, and millions of morons will buy it. The publishers are dicks for doing for it, but the people out there enabling them are the real cunts. Tiger Woods 12 may be fun but it’s an insight into the terrible dystopia of video games that has yet to come.
Tuesday, 29 March 2011
Jake 2.Whoah!
In my “early years” I was into the whole PC gaming malarkey, it offered something different to consoles, mainly clicking. Click, click, shitting click. You’d go out and buy a N64 or Playstation game, go home and immediately play it. If you were to go out and buy a PC game, you’d go home and spend half a day installing the game, find out you can’t run it, and wait two years until you can afford an upgrade. Two years later a sequel for that game is released and the cycle repeats.
This offers an unrivalled level of anticipation, but it also costs a hell of a lot money. I gave up long before Crysis came out. Crysis was infamous for its system requirements, roughly seven people in the world were able to play it. So it was strange not only that its sequel (aptly named Crysis 2) was released on consoles, but I also bought it.
It’s a first person shooter, and having played it for a few hours, that’s really the only way I can describe it because I haven’t got a fucking clue to what else is going on. Now the developer must know that no one could play it because there’s an achievement which references the very fact, so why did they make the story so impossible to follow. It’s like watching Manga backwards on mute with your eyes closed.
The story starts straightforward enough, you’re a marine, in a submarine. Then it gets complicated. You find out that you’re called Alcatraz, why have I got the same name as a famous prison? I’m already confused, then the submarine blows up! I’m in the Hudson river, there’s some sort of aircraft shooting lasers and scene. I wake up and I’m told I’ve been put in a nanosuit by a man who is dead. Before I can ask what a nanosuit is I’m being told by this dead man to run about and shoot some people. I don’t even know who these dudes are, but they’re shooting at me so I’m all too happy to oblige. Then the dead man stops talking to me and this other guy starts giving me instructions, and out of nowhere aliens appear and start attacking me. I had a 3D puzzle of the Millennium Falcon which was less confusing than this (note to self: must see if I still have this).
Nanosuit. Nano as in extremely small, suit as in a gentleman’s garment. So it’s a very tiny suit then? No, because playing as a microscopic man shooting the shit out of bacteria would be far too cool. Instead nanosuit just means a really cool suit which does some really cool shit. It’s all too easy to explain something technical by using the word nano, and in this case it’s just a bit like the hit TV show Jake 2.0 (remember that?).
As I’m shouting at the TV “WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON?!” I’m wondering why Alcatraz isn’t shouting the same thing. He’s just doing what the strangers are telling him, unfazed that he has a magical suit on, and there’s aliens running about. Maybe he knows something that I don’t, maybe he played the first game, if he has a nanosuit he probably has quite a good PC.
I’m still only a few hours in so maybe the plot will unfold and eventually make sense like Akira did after the third viewing. If I miss anything it’s not a game I want to play twice because despite the critical acclaim it’s not very fun. Sure it’s pretty and you can go invisible and that, but it all feels a little sterile. Without a comprehensible plot it all seems pointless, maybe those who understand what’s going on love the game, but for me it’s a bit too much like Halo in the sense that I’m only playing it because everyone else says it’s good.
All good FPS’s must have a good multiplayer, and 9 ranks in and I’m almost not bored yet. It has copied elements from COD but has made a few inspired changes. What makes it different is the nanosuits, it requires a different style of play which encourages players to avoid the dreaded art of camping. Not that it’ll stop nerdy morons developing their own styles to make it as fun as putting your dick in a toaster, which I sometimes do after playing COD.
Like almost every other FPS this is another example of how not to write a story, it’s over complicated and boring, and meandering through the pretty streets of New York might be a bit more impressive if I knew why I was doing it. I may never know though because if I trade it in with five English pounds on Friday, I can have the new Tiger Woods game, and you can’t argue with sex and golf.
This offers an unrivalled level of anticipation, but it also costs a hell of a lot money. I gave up long before Crysis came out. Crysis was infamous for its system requirements, roughly seven people in the world were able to play it. So it was strange not only that its sequel (aptly named Crysis 2) was released on consoles, but I also bought it.
It’s a first person shooter, and having played it for a few hours, that’s really the only way I can describe it because I haven’t got a fucking clue to what else is going on. Now the developer must know that no one could play it because there’s an achievement which references the very fact, so why did they make the story so impossible to follow. It’s like watching Manga backwards on mute with your eyes closed.
The story starts straightforward enough, you’re a marine, in a submarine. Then it gets complicated. You find out that you’re called Alcatraz, why have I got the same name as a famous prison? I’m already confused, then the submarine blows up! I’m in the Hudson river, there’s some sort of aircraft shooting lasers and scene. I wake up and I’m told I’ve been put in a nanosuit by a man who is dead. Before I can ask what a nanosuit is I’m being told by this dead man to run about and shoot some people. I don’t even know who these dudes are, but they’re shooting at me so I’m all too happy to oblige. Then the dead man stops talking to me and this other guy starts giving me instructions, and out of nowhere aliens appear and start attacking me. I had a 3D puzzle of the Millennium Falcon which was less confusing than this (note to self: must see if I still have this).
Nanosuit. Nano as in extremely small, suit as in a gentleman’s garment. So it’s a very tiny suit then? No, because playing as a microscopic man shooting the shit out of bacteria would be far too cool. Instead nanosuit just means a really cool suit which does some really cool shit. It’s all too easy to explain something technical by using the word nano, and in this case it’s just a bit like the hit TV show Jake 2.0 (remember that?).
As I’m shouting at the TV “WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON?!” I’m wondering why Alcatraz isn’t shouting the same thing. He’s just doing what the strangers are telling him, unfazed that he has a magical suit on, and there’s aliens running about. Maybe he knows something that I don’t, maybe he played the first game, if he has a nanosuit he probably has quite a good PC.
I’m still only a few hours in so maybe the plot will unfold and eventually make sense like Akira did after the third viewing. If I miss anything it’s not a game I want to play twice because despite the critical acclaim it’s not very fun. Sure it’s pretty and you can go invisible and that, but it all feels a little sterile. Without a comprehensible plot it all seems pointless, maybe those who understand what’s going on love the game, but for me it’s a bit too much like Halo in the sense that I’m only playing it because everyone else says it’s good.
All good FPS’s must have a good multiplayer, and 9 ranks in and I’m almost not bored yet. It has copied elements from COD but has made a few inspired changes. What makes it different is the nanosuits, it requires a different style of play which encourages players to avoid the dreaded art of camping. Not that it’ll stop nerdy morons developing their own styles to make it as fun as putting your dick in a toaster, which I sometimes do after playing COD.
Like almost every other FPS this is another example of how not to write a story, it’s over complicated and boring, and meandering through the pretty streets of New York might be a bit more impressive if I knew why I was doing it. I may never know though because if I trade it in with five English pounds on Friday, I can have the new Tiger Woods game, and you can’t argue with sex and golf.
Wednesday, 9 March 2011
"I'm Gonna Kill Your Dick"
It was called the worst game ever, morally speaking (by people who haven’t played it), now Bulletstorm has actually been released have murder rates increased? Has there been a surge in youths kicking old
ladies into giant cacti? No, obviously.
The controversy surrounding Bulletstorm’s release was only ever going to be great publicity for it, why would anyone want to buy the most violent game ever? Maybe not a respectable lady but for fully grown boys it doesn’t get any better than the moniker “most violent game ever”. Not that we’re all sick in head, we can distinguish between murder and a pixelated animation ceasing to move.
There’s no doubt that Bulletstorm has received so much attention and hype because of its violent tendencies, yet the violence is the key to its creativity. In a world where all first person shooters look and feel the same, Bulletstorm attempts to push the boundaries and create something new. Where you would normally just shoot an enemy in a standard FPS, here you are asked to do it with style and are awarded points based on how creative you are.
While this sounds exciting and it initially is, in practice the number of ways to vanquish the pixels is quite limited, you can shoot, whip, kick, slide and shoot. A few hours into the game and it becomes a chore, the only new ways to kill arise in the surroundings, but once you’ve kicked an enemy into one thing, you’ve kicked him into everything.
This wouldn’t matter if the story was good, or even bad. Everything from the plot to the dialogue to the characters is just awful. I can’t remember the last time I played a game which didn’t have a flashback or 500 moments where my character wakes up on the ground disorientated (also known as COD shock).
I’m all for balls out punchy dialogue but somehow “I’m gonna kill your dick” just doesn’t do it for me. Its crude style is intended but where it could have been quite an amusing parody on dumb action movies (ala Duke Nukem) it’s just a bit shit and gets more irritating as you progress through the game.
Much of the dialogue or characterisation doesn’t make any sense, your character is tricked into killing innocent people so his retaliation is to kill, and kill, and kill some more, and while you enable him to do this he’ll come out with some one liners to show how much he enjoys it. Crime and punishment this ain’t. If games are to be taken seriously it’s not violence that will damage their credibility, it’s the quality of writing. Enslaved enlisted Alex Garland to write the story and maybe it’s time that other games did the same and nab an experienced writer.
It’s still a fun game with some great set pieces and bosses but maybe it’s best played with the sound turned down and cut scenes skipped. The inevitable sequel will inevitably up the ante to an inevitable cataclysm of gore and violence as all sequels do, and I’ll still be here to kill its dick.
ladies into giant cacti? No, obviously.
The controversy surrounding Bulletstorm’s release was only ever going to be great publicity for it, why would anyone want to buy the most violent game ever? Maybe not a respectable lady but for fully grown boys it doesn’t get any better than the moniker “most violent game ever”. Not that we’re all sick in head, we can distinguish between murder and a pixelated animation ceasing to move.
There’s no doubt that Bulletstorm has received so much attention and hype because of its violent tendencies, yet the violence is the key to its creativity. In a world where all first person shooters look and feel the same, Bulletstorm attempts to push the boundaries and create something new. Where you would normally just shoot an enemy in a standard FPS, here you are asked to do it with style and are awarded points based on how creative you are.
While this sounds exciting and it initially is, in practice the number of ways to vanquish the pixels is quite limited, you can shoot, whip, kick, slide and shoot. A few hours into the game and it becomes a chore, the only new ways to kill arise in the surroundings, but once you’ve kicked an enemy into one thing, you’ve kicked him into everything.
This wouldn’t matter if the story was good, or even bad. Everything from the plot to the dialogue to the characters is just awful. I can’t remember the last time I played a game which didn’t have a flashback or 500 moments where my character wakes up on the ground disorientated (also known as COD shock).
I’m all for balls out punchy dialogue but somehow “I’m gonna kill your dick” just doesn’t do it for me. Its crude style is intended but where it could have been quite an amusing parody on dumb action movies (ala Duke Nukem) it’s just a bit shit and gets more irritating as you progress through the game.
Much of the dialogue or characterisation doesn’t make any sense, your character is tricked into killing innocent people so his retaliation is to kill, and kill, and kill some more, and while you enable him to do this he’ll come out with some one liners to show how much he enjoys it. Crime and punishment this ain’t. If games are to be taken seriously it’s not violence that will damage their credibility, it’s the quality of writing. Enslaved enlisted Alex Garland to write the story and maybe it’s time that other games did the same and nab an experienced writer.
It’s still a fun game with some great set pieces and bosses but maybe it’s best played with the sound turned down and cut scenes skipped. The inevitable sequel will inevitably up the ante to an inevitable cataclysm of gore and violence as all sequels do, and I’ll still be here to kill its dick.
Saturday, 19 February 2011
Toys Don't Cry
Men, by stereotype, are tough aren’t they? Yeah, they go round shouting and fighting, they’re derogatory towards women, boast about how they fucked that broad last night and she loved it (even if it never happened). This is the stereotypical man, he loves beer, football, tits and most of all being a hard bastard.
It would be wrong to say that all men are like this because after all I’m writing, I’m not outside fighting for the honour of a football team I have needlessly affiliated myself with and therefore become so emotionally attached that match results dictate my moods and feelings, no, I am writing, which in the world of men is considered sissy and gay (unless it’s about football or tits).
Nevertheless every man gets stuck with this tag and when it comes to movies the juxtaposition of this stereotype with “tearjerkers” is apparently hilarious. A woman can watch a sad or emotionally moving film and cry and that’s not a problem because she’s a woman and that’s expected. When a man cries in a film it’s an opportunity to point and laugh at him because of the stereotypical identity that’s been given to him.
This is a stigma that as a fairly sensitive and probably quite sissy man I despise. When will a man be able to cry at a cinema and it not be made into a big deal? When will a man watch a film with his wife and not have to hold the tears back for fear of embarrassment? It’s a moving film and he’s got to let it all out for fuck’s sake! Andy and Red are reunited on the beach and through fear of humiliation we cannot fully embrace this highly emotional homoerotic moment. The Cure famously told us that boys don’t cry, but it’s only because they would get laughed at.
GIFSoup
If only men cried more we wouldn’t have wars. When we’re sad instead of letting it all come out we bottle it up because of fear, and like Yoda said fear turns to anger and eventually the dark side, and we end up with a war all because some bastard couldn’t cry. You might think well hang on you’re exaggerating this but fuck you I’m not, I just watched Toy Story 3 and I cried and I’m fucking ashamed of myself. A film that has become famous for the volume of tears produced from men, not women or children, MEN. When I’m asked if I’ve seen Toy Story 3 in the future and I say yes, I will be asked did you cry? DID YOU CRY? DID YOU CRY? I’m a terrible liar, I will have to say yes, and they will laugh at me, ha ha, ha ha, HA HA HA, because a man crying is something to be laughed at.
It’s not my fault, Toy Story 3 was supposed to make you cry. It was relatable to just about every type of person, it makes you think about the loss of your youth and innocence, of being rejected, of lost friendships and your inevitable loneliness, your own endless futility, becoming old and useless, and if you are old and useless, how your children will abandon you if they haven‘t already. Every way you look at this film it addresses a fear, and what catches a tear in your eye is it telling you that everything is going to be fine.
All of this doesn’t matter, it’s primarily a kids movie and you shouldn’t cry, and if you do you’ll get laughed at, even by men who also cried. What scares me is that Hollywood has noted how effective Toy Story 3 was, how making men cry makes a hit and we have several hundred more tear inducing films to come in which everyone laughs at us. I’d like to say that I’m comfortable crying but in truth I’m not, it’s embarrassing but there’s no way to stop it, I can’t toughen up, men have tried to and failed. They started going to football matches but they just ended up crying there.
It would be wrong to say that all men are like this because after all I’m writing, I’m not outside fighting for the honour of a football team I have needlessly affiliated myself with and therefore become so emotionally attached that match results dictate my moods and feelings, no, I am writing, which in the world of men is considered sissy and gay (unless it’s about football or tits).
Nevertheless every man gets stuck with this tag and when it comes to movies the juxtaposition of this stereotype with “tearjerkers” is apparently hilarious. A woman can watch a sad or emotionally moving film and cry and that’s not a problem because she’s a woman and that’s expected. When a man cries in a film it’s an opportunity to point and laugh at him because of the stereotypical identity that’s been given to him.
This is a stigma that as a fairly sensitive and probably quite sissy man I despise. When will a man be able to cry at a cinema and it not be made into a big deal? When will a man watch a film with his wife and not have to hold the tears back for fear of embarrassment? It’s a moving film and he’s got to let it all out for fuck’s sake! Andy and Red are reunited on the beach and through fear of humiliation we cannot fully embrace this highly emotional homoerotic moment. The Cure famously told us that boys don’t cry, but it’s only because they would get laughed at.
GIFSoup
If only men cried more we wouldn’t have wars. When we’re sad instead of letting it all come out we bottle it up because of fear, and like Yoda said fear turns to anger and eventually the dark side, and we end up with a war all because some bastard couldn’t cry. You might think well hang on you’re exaggerating this but fuck you I’m not, I just watched Toy Story 3 and I cried and I’m fucking ashamed of myself. A film that has become famous for the volume of tears produced from men, not women or children, MEN. When I’m asked if I’ve seen Toy Story 3 in the future and I say yes, I will be asked did you cry? DID YOU CRY? DID YOU CRY? I’m a terrible liar, I will have to say yes, and they will laugh at me, ha ha, ha ha, HA HA HA, because a man crying is something to be laughed at.
It’s not my fault, Toy Story 3 was supposed to make you cry. It was relatable to just about every type of person, it makes you think about the loss of your youth and innocence, of being rejected, of lost friendships and your inevitable loneliness, your own endless futility, becoming old and useless, and if you are old and useless, how your children will abandon you if they haven‘t already. Every way you look at this film it addresses a fear, and what catches a tear in your eye is it telling you that everything is going to be fine.
All of this doesn’t matter, it’s primarily a kids movie and you shouldn’t cry, and if you do you’ll get laughed at, even by men who also cried. What scares me is that Hollywood has noted how effective Toy Story 3 was, how making men cry makes a hit and we have several hundred more tear inducing films to come in which everyone laughs at us. I’d like to say that I’m comfortable crying but in truth I’m not, it’s embarrassing but there’s no way to stop it, I can’t toughen up, men have tried to and failed. They started going to football matches but they just ended up crying there.
Thursday, 17 February 2011
Dead Island
If you look at trending topics on twitter at any given moment you will be forgiven for stabbing yourself in the eye. A list of the most popular topics on twitter is actually an unholy inventory of rage inducing shittery that will make you question the very core of humanity and everything around it. Because what’s “hot” on twitter are fuckwitted inane phrases featuring the likes of Justin Bieber, the Jonas brothers and Lady Gaga. Basically if you’re on MTV 24/7 you’re on twitter 24/7. Twitter can be educational, a much quicker gateway to news and culture than any other means but millions of people aren’t interested in this, no, they just want to proclaim their love or hatred of popular Disney tweens. If you look further into these trending topics you see that most people aren’t actually talking about the topic at all, it’s a long list of morons tweeting “OMG why is Rasputin trending?” or just listing every topic so people will read their tweets and maybe just very maybe will end up following them.
To cut an infinite tangent short, there is one particular thing that is currently trending called Dead Island. I would be right to assume that it’s just another stupid topic, that Justin Bieber has been found dead washed up on an island, or Lady Gaga’s new outfit is of a dead island, but no, this is one of those rare occasions in which twitter has trended something that is worthy of your attention, the problem is that you won’t know that, you’ll assume it isn‘t.
Totally ignoring the trending, and even a few tweets from trusted sources, I eventually stumbled across the trailer for Dead Island this morning (not the show). Dead Island is a forthcoming PS3/Xbox 360 game about an island of zombies, and the trailer at least, is fudging brilliant. It’s pretty rare that a game will appear out of nowhere and get everyone excited, we usually know about them sometimes years before they are released, but like a sex offender lunging at you out of a bush, Dead Island has caught everyone by surprise.
A lot of recent games have been trying to look like movies, fancy cut scenes, big scores, bigger explosions and instead of adverts, they have classy trailers. It’s a concept that works, look at the sales of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 and that looked like several movies! As the game industry is becoming ever more popular, marketing is becoming the most vital aspect of it. The popularity of the Nintendo Wii and DS is not because of the excellence of the games, it’s because of Ant and Dec, Helen Mirren and Sir Patrick fucking Stewart.
Dead Island will further change how games are marketed, it might turn out to be dreadful but publishers will have already arranged meetings to turn out a trailer that makes their game look like the dog’s bollocks and the bee’s knees. We might be given lots of pretty looking videos, but film trailers almost always fool us into thinking a film is better than it actually is. Iron Man 2 and Predators both included footage in their trailers that didn’t feature in the final film and who’s to say game trailers won’t do this? They already do.
Hardcore gamers will be dripping in their pants having seen the Dead Island trailer but if history tells us anything we should prepare for disappointment. If there’s two things I love it’s zombies and islands but we don’t know much about the game as of yet and it may prove to be Dead Rising on an island, which no one wants. Of course what we want is a great game and if the trailer could be considered as an indicator of its quality (which it can’t) then we could have something very special.
There are lots of if’s and but’s and by the time Dead Island is released we might have forgotten all about it. In true cynical fashion I am braced for an anti-climax and a barrage of over the top artsy trailers. All that matters for the publishers is that games look good, and like zombies we buy every single one.
To cut an infinite tangent short, there is one particular thing that is currently trending called Dead Island. I would be right to assume that it’s just another stupid topic, that Justin Bieber has been found dead washed up on an island, or Lady Gaga’s new outfit is of a dead island, but no, this is one of those rare occasions in which twitter has trended something that is worthy of your attention, the problem is that you won’t know that, you’ll assume it isn‘t.
Totally ignoring the trending, and even a few tweets from trusted sources, I eventually stumbled across the trailer for Dead Island this morning (not the show). Dead Island is a forthcoming PS3/Xbox 360 game about an island of zombies, and the trailer at least, is fudging brilliant. It’s pretty rare that a game will appear out of nowhere and get everyone excited, we usually know about them sometimes years before they are released, but like a sex offender lunging at you out of a bush, Dead Island has caught everyone by surprise.
A lot of recent games have been trying to look like movies, fancy cut scenes, big scores, bigger explosions and instead of adverts, they have classy trailers. It’s a concept that works, look at the sales of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 and that looked like several movies! As the game industry is becoming ever more popular, marketing is becoming the most vital aspect of it. The popularity of the Nintendo Wii and DS is not because of the excellence of the games, it’s because of Ant and Dec, Helen Mirren and Sir Patrick fucking Stewart.
Dead Island will further change how games are marketed, it might turn out to be dreadful but publishers will have already arranged meetings to turn out a trailer that makes their game look like the dog’s bollocks and the bee’s knees. We might be given lots of pretty looking videos, but film trailers almost always fool us into thinking a film is better than it actually is. Iron Man 2 and Predators both included footage in their trailers that didn’t feature in the final film and who’s to say game trailers won’t do this? They already do.
Hardcore gamers will be dripping in their pants having seen the Dead Island trailer but if history tells us anything we should prepare for disappointment. If there’s two things I love it’s zombies and islands but we don’t know much about the game as of yet and it may prove to be Dead Rising on an island, which no one wants. Of course what we want is a great game and if the trailer could be considered as an indicator of its quality (which it can’t) then we could have something very special.
There are lots of if’s and but’s and by the time Dead Island is released we might have forgotten all about it. In true cynical fashion I am braced for an anti-climax and a barrage of over the top artsy trailers. All that matters for the publishers is that games look good, and like zombies we buy every single one.
Saturday, 12 February 2011
Peggle Makes You Kill!
This article was brought to the attention of many a nerd this week and is another hyperbolic rant of fearful accusation that video games are a bad influence. This debate has existed as long as video games have and mainly comes from silly little people who have never played a game in their life before.
Their argument may seem sound, in a game a player is rewarded for acts of violence, and subsequently they will be conditioned to believe that this is the same in reality, with violence becoming the primary answer to a real life conflict. It makes sense if you word it like that and it may even be true in some cases, but some is the key word here. This won’t happen to EVERY gamer and it is close minded to label every gamer has a potential psycho rapist murderer and proclaim that Peggle makes you kill.
In this article, Carole Lieberman, apparently a psychiatrist (not a real science) and an author (anyone can write a book) said that “the increase of rapes can be attributed in large part to the playing out of sexual scenes in video games”. Carole Lieberman whoever the fuck she is has made the most idiotic thing argument I have ever heard within the video game debate. I’ve played games for as long as I can remember and not in one game have I controlled a character who has been able to rape someone. There have been very few occasions where a player has been able to have sex, and on these occasions it is always boring, and you never see anything. For example in GTA, you could take a prostitute into your car and the car would shake. Furthermore it was not vital to the progression of the game, nor did it reward you. Likewise in Fable (in which the screen blacks out) if you didn’t use a condom you would end up with an STD or a baby, which you would agree is far from a reward. Sex in video games has always been tedious, it will never be vital to the plot and this is why it has and always will appear so little in them, it’s not like Mario has been boning Princess Peach is it?
I’ve been a gamer all my life, I’ve not raped or murdered anyone, I’ve not been cruel to animals, I’ve never been in a fight in my life, I hate any kind of conflict, so can you really say that they have been a bad influence on me? I’m not the only one, I’m guessing that the majority of gamers are by modern standards, normal. The recent popularity of the industry proves this, otherwise the world would be overrun by vagrants raping and murdering each other, which it isn’t.
At a very young age I was constantly surrounded by “bad” influences, I played Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat, I watched Schwarzenegger (wow, spelt that right first time) films all the time, I watched wrestling, there were naughty kids at school and out of school, and it was the same in my adolescence, I listened to Eminem, I watched Tarantino films, watched porn, politicians did bad things, footballers did bad things, everyone and thing around me was the epitome of immorality, and I have never stolen, raped or murdered. It is not always monkey see monkey do, in my experience bad influences are a deterrent. When I play something like GTA, and I’m shooting everyone who comes on screen, the police will come after me, and then SWAT teams, and the FBI, and the army, and eventually they will shoot and kill me, just as in real life games have consequences.
You could even argue that games are actually a good influence. Scientific research has shown that they can actually improve cognitive processing while in my experience playing the likes of Civilisation and Medieval: Total War has greatly improved my knowledge of history and geography. No longer is staying in your room all day anti-social, online gaming is a great way of socialising if used in the correct way, and playing games are one of the best ways to bond and cement a friendship. They are supposed to be fun and if the line between game and reality blurs, then you’re probably mental if you play games or not.
Their argument may seem sound, in a game a player is rewarded for acts of violence, and subsequently they will be conditioned to believe that this is the same in reality, with violence becoming the primary answer to a real life conflict. It makes sense if you word it like that and it may even be true in some cases, but some is the key word here. This won’t happen to EVERY gamer and it is close minded to label every gamer has a potential psycho rapist murderer and proclaim that Peggle makes you kill.
In this article, Carole Lieberman, apparently a psychiatrist (not a real science) and an author (anyone can write a book) said that “the increase of rapes can be attributed in large part to the playing out of sexual scenes in video games”. Carole Lieberman whoever the fuck she is has made the most idiotic thing argument I have ever heard within the video game debate. I’ve played games for as long as I can remember and not in one game have I controlled a character who has been able to rape someone. There have been very few occasions where a player has been able to have sex, and on these occasions it is always boring, and you never see anything. For example in GTA, you could take a prostitute into your car and the car would shake. Furthermore it was not vital to the progression of the game, nor did it reward you. Likewise in Fable (in which the screen blacks out) if you didn’t use a condom you would end up with an STD or a baby, which you would agree is far from a reward. Sex in video games has always been tedious, it will never be vital to the plot and this is why it has and always will appear so little in them, it’s not like Mario has been boning Princess Peach is it?
I’ve been a gamer all my life, I’ve not raped or murdered anyone, I’ve not been cruel to animals, I’ve never been in a fight in my life, I hate any kind of conflict, so can you really say that they have been a bad influence on me? I’m not the only one, I’m guessing that the majority of gamers are by modern standards, normal. The recent popularity of the industry proves this, otherwise the world would be overrun by vagrants raping and murdering each other, which it isn’t.
At a very young age I was constantly surrounded by “bad” influences, I played Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat, I watched Schwarzenegger (wow, spelt that right first time) films all the time, I watched wrestling, there were naughty kids at school and out of school, and it was the same in my adolescence, I listened to Eminem, I watched Tarantino films, watched porn, politicians did bad things, footballers did bad things, everyone and thing around me was the epitome of immorality, and I have never stolen, raped or murdered. It is not always monkey see monkey do, in my experience bad influences are a deterrent. When I play something like GTA, and I’m shooting everyone who comes on screen, the police will come after me, and then SWAT teams, and the FBI, and the army, and eventually they will shoot and kill me, just as in real life games have consequences.
You could even argue that games are actually a good influence. Scientific research has shown that they can actually improve cognitive processing while in my experience playing the likes of Civilisation and Medieval: Total War has greatly improved my knowledge of history and geography. No longer is staying in your room all day anti-social, online gaming is a great way of socialising if used in the correct way, and playing games are one of the best ways to bond and cement a friendship. They are supposed to be fun and if the line between game and reality blurs, then you’re probably mental if you play games or not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)