Games, are, in fact, crap.

So, I’ve been in philosophy mode for a while, and thought I might switch to gaming, but I can’t fully switch quickly enough to pump out a proper post. So this is a Devil’s Advocate style peice (which on a side note, is my favourite part of my monthly PCG).

So, the topic of today’s post is the decreasing intellectual quality of modern games. I’ve posted about this on forums, but most people take the easy way out by saying “well, they’re still fun so it doesn’t matter.”

It does matter. If I think of all the games I own, and those that contain a proper political/philosophical/intellectual message, I can think of 2. Two. All the games’ industry could come up with is 2 games. Out of thousands. In case you’re wondering, these two are Deus Ex and Bioshock. That’s it. It’s frustrating and annoying that my favourite pastime is generally so moronic.

Let’s have a look at some of the latest games, for example;

• Halo 3
• Call of Duty
• Grand Theft Auto
• Mercenaries 2
• Mirror’s Edge
• Far Cry 2

Notice these are all (excluding Mirror’s) sequels, which I’ll talk about later. Not only that, they are all dumb as hell. Here’s the plot of  Halo: shoot aliens. COD? Shoot nazis. GTA? Shoot people. Mercs 2? Shoot South Americans. Mirror’s Edge? The phrase “run around shooting people” has never been so literal. FC2? Shoot tons of black people.

Face it, the state of gaming is going into the “American frat-boy” mindset; the idea that explosions and gore are cool, politics and philosophy are boring. Deus Ex was brilliant for mixing future politics while highlighting the problems with the ways our society functions, Bioshock was about the idea of an elitist society, secluded from all others, and the horrific effects of such an isolation.

What’s Halo 3 about? Comedy aliens invade Earth, and you’re a big green guy who has to fight them. See the contrast? Why can’t games just be more intellectual, I don’t know. I’m not asking for anything special, just a serve of brains with our daily portion of gaming gruel.

Moving on, what happened to original ideas? Nearly all the games I see or hear about today are sequels, re-runs of already over-used ideas. Why can’t someone think of a new idea? Mirror’s Edge can at least receive credit for having an original central idea, but the latest COD has the most reused ideas I’ve ever seen in a game. Perks have just been renamed, the graphics engine is the same as COD4’s and the entire American side of the campaign felt like an updated version of Medal of Honour: Pacifc Assault.

One of the things that saddens me most about gaming is the Deus Ex legacy. The series has been abused, lost, had its name dragged through the mud, and DX3 looks like it isn’t going to change this, as it’s opted for a more run-and-gun approach, removing the great idea of the original that your accuracy is shit, and you can be killed easier than a weasel on weasel-stomping day.

Epically awesome blogs

So… I seem to have started a trend. Tons of people I know are setting up blogs, so I thought I might direct you to the best ones.

We have Artificial Sweetener, a blog which has great writing and is by a friend,

There’s Vicinity of Obscenity, Or Thoughts Of a Dying Atheist, another incredibly well written blog with some fantastic philosophy.

And finally we have Bearded Gentleman, a blog written by the brother of one of my close friends, with possibly the best widget ever.

Oh, and I should mention peterd102, but he’s always been on the blogroll, and a great source of everyday philosophy.

Wwaaaahhh

My article pitch for the escapist was rejected. Then again, the email did say “We appreciate your interest and look forward to seeing more from you.” So maybe I’m not terrible after all!

Then again, that’s probably an automated response thingy.

On self-deprecation

Self-deprecation is the quality I most abhor in others. Someone says “I’m too dumb to understand it.” and it usually means one of three things; that thing is ridiculously complicated, that person is too dumb, and you really like that person.

And because you really like that person, you have to say something like “no you’re not” or “nah, this is just way too complicated.” Except my problem is that it always sounds fake. They always give me a vacant gaze that says ‘don’t patronise me’, and that always makes me feel ten times worse.

There’s only one thing worse than self-deprecation; comparative self-deprecation. It’s ok if they say “I’m dumb compared to so-and-so” because I can sometimes manage to dismiss that with a little bit of spite and say “what?! So-and-so is stupid compared to you.” Which makes them feel much better. But then it means slagging off so-and-so.

And the worst type of self-deprecation is comparative self-deprecation to the person you’re talking to. “I’m so dumb compared to you.” This is absolutely the worst for me. I have to convince the person I’m on their level, and they’re on mine, which I regularly fail at doing.

The thing is, (and imagine I’m saying this in a shy, little voice) I am actually quite smart/attractive/awesome in every way. For example, I’m the only guy in my year with a (good) blog. I honestly can’t say with conviction “no, I’m not that smart”, because I am (unfortunately) self-assured of my intelligence.

So next time, please don’t self-deprecate. It makes me feel terrible, and my weak efforts to try and restore the situation to normal will fail terribly. Instead, just give me a hug. See? Everybody’s happy!

On prejudice

Prejudice is ridiculous. It’s a diluted form of discrimination, and you see it everywhere. I’m not above prejudice, in fact I’m a very prejudiced person. I hate people on the far right, and I greatly dislike people who try to convert the world to their religion.

But perhaps I should start with a basic question; what is prejudice? In this essay it means to dislike a group of people for a certain reason. I’m sure it has other meanings, but it’s the word I’m focusing on for this essay.

Prejudice is sick. People are often prejudiced against others without proper reason, or without direct experience of those other people. For example, many are prejudiced against scientology. I personally am, and believe it should be banned. But for the purpose of this essay, I’m going to try and be objective.

Prejudice leads to hypocrisy. Let’s go back to that scientologist thing. Say you’re a christian. You believe in god, you’re a regular church-goer and you believe in the bible.

Along comes scientology. It claims everyone is stressed, and wants you to join to relieve that stress. You think sure. As you slowly get more involved with it, you find out scientologists’ true beliefs. They believe in thetans, space lords dropping h-bombs in volcanoes, and suddenly it all comes crashing down around you.

…Hang on. You’re not stressed, you don’t believe in thetans or space lords, and you certainly don’t want to give your money to a cult created by a failed sci-fi writer.

Let’s go back again (I know this is becoming a bit long, but it’s necessary). You’re not atheist, you’re not agnostic, and you’re not religious. You’re interested in religion though, so you do some research. You hear about scientology, how it’s a cult and more of a commercial business than a belief.

Then you hear about christianity. They believe we’re all from 2 people who had sex in the garden of eve (so all sex is incest?), that the world is only a few years old, that a baby was born who performed miracles, and died for our sins.

…Hang on. I wasn’t alive when Jesus was born, so how could he have died for my sins? In fact, I live by my own set of morals, and believe there are no sins. Christians also believe in forgiving people. Hang on, I don’t want to forgive people. I don’t want to forgive Hitler, or Stalin or the KKK, for pete’s sake.

Well, you think. At least they don’t want my money. Correction; they ask for money each time you go to church. Go to the Southern parts of the USA and watch some of that gospel television. They ask for your money every 12 seconds.

See my point, dear reader? I’m not making stabs at christianity or scientology, I’m just making a point that you should think before you decide to have prejudice against people.

However, let me state again, I am not above prejudice. I am greatly prejudiced against some people, so don’t send me an email going “how ironic, you’re prejudiced against people also.” I think that prejudice is terrible, but know that I actually do research into groups before I reject them. I’ve had a baptism and a barmitzvah, so I know what I’m talking about when I rant about theism.

On Nietzsche (Part 1)

Despite reading only 2 books by Nietzsche (Beyond Good & Evil, Thus Spoke Zarathustra), he is undoubtedly my favourite writer. He inspired the name of my blog, I quote him at appropriate times on forums and on facebook, and generally make a big deal out of him.

 His books went widely unappreciated during his lifetime. The subtitle of Zarathustra was “a book for everyone and no one.” It just so happened that when he wrote it, it really was a book for no one. He was Hitler’s favourite philosopher, which also dented his reputation, but I’m coming to that point now.

 One of the most appealing features of Nietzsche’s philosophy is its ambiguity. Nietzsche has been used as inspiration by anarchists, communists, socialists, nazis and more. For example, allow me to indulge and present a quote:

 

“What is good? All that heightens the feeling of power in man, the will to power, power itself. What is bad? All that is born of weakness. What is happiness? The feeling that power is growing, that resistance is overcome.”

-The Antichrist, Part 2

 

 While you may read this and think ‘what a bold statement’ as Nietzsche is essentially saying what true happiness is. Think of your aim in life; to help people? To rise to the top? To have a family and kids? No, it isn’t. Your aim in life is happiness, because whatever your aim is, it will bring you happiness. Please note I am not saying happiness is the meaning of life, I am simply referring to human goals in life.

 Going back to the quote, Nietzsche tells us what good, evil and happiness is, all in a few sentences. But the whole point of using this quote is to show the ambiguity. He tells us a few things (results is the best way to describe the 3 things he talks about) but leaves most of it up to us.

 For example, what does heighten the feeling of power in man? In fact, what is power? These are unquantifiable, abstract notions, left up to the reader to choose and think over, rather than crammed down their throat. Communists and egalitarianists (including racial and gay equality advocates) would say equality is power. Therefore they will believe that happiness is the growth of equality and overcoming of segregationism/racism/discrimination/capitalism. If you’re wondering what my personal interpretation of power is, I’m getting to that.

 I go by the idea that the “feeling of that power is growing” is in essence, self-improvement in relation to your own set of morals. What I mean by this is that my “will to power” is to self-improve in the ways I want, be that ethically or otherwise. A basic example would be this very essay. I want to study philosophy at university, come back and look at this essay and snort with contempt. I want to improve my thoughts and skills, because that is what “good” is for me. That is in fact a very basic example, by the way.

 I could go on, but I think you get the point. However, there was another point that was nagging me. A chapter in Zarathustra was a rant on a set of people called “tarantulas.” Here’s a quote:

 

“With these preachers of equality will I not be mixed up and confounded. For thus speaketh justice unto me: “Men are not equal.”And neither shall they become so! What would be my love to the Superman, if I spake otherwise?”

-Thus Spoke Zarathustra, The Tarantulas

 

 You may be thinking ‘hang on, isn’t he ranting on communists, such as yourself, J-Man?’ No, he is ranting on those who believe all beings are equal. I believe in equality between beings of the same level, that is our current stage of human civilization. Perhaps I should simplify this. On a political level, I believe in equality. On a philosophical level, I do not. Nietzsche is ranting on those who believe we are all equal and always shall be the same, which directly opposes Nietzsche’s belief in the Superman.

 

“All beings so far have created something beyond themselves; and do you want to be the ebb of this great flood and even go back to the beasts rather than overcome man? What is the ape to man? A laughingstock or a painful embarrassment. And man shall be just that for the overman: a laughingstock or a painful embarrassment…”

-Thus Spoke Zarathustra

 

 Nietzsche had a theory of a higher level of man, which was set in Thus Spoke Zarathustra. The theory stated we must aim as a civilization to reach a higher stage of humanity, to become the superman. However, the true meaning of this is still not known, and is unlikely to be discovered. I like to think of it as another example of Nietzsche leaving it up to the reader.

 It was an interesting idea, and I’m going to write my take on it. Firstly, humanity has existed for thousands upon thousands of years, and we still have not attained the status of the supermen. Can we really hope to achieve that? Perhaps what Nietzsche meant was that humanity should always strive to be the best, and exceed expectations.

 Was Nietzsche really just talking about the superman, or was he simply showing his disdain for current humanity, like saying ‘you guys are pathetic compared to this.’

 Some will also compare the transition to supermen to be similar to evolution, but they are wrong in that firstly, it is willed to be a superman, and secondly, Nietzsche is talking on a philosophical rather than physical level.

 If I may relate this to my explanation of the first quote, I believe Nietzsche is simply talking about the will to power in a more concentrated way. While my “will to power” will result in self-improvement, I get the idea that the superman is a perfect people, one that do not require self-improvement.

 

But whatever. I just hammered this out from 8 o’clock in the morning on saturday, for nietzsche’s sake. I’ve never had any philosophical education, so these thoughts are probably basic and undeveloped, but I’d love to discuss it with any commenters, and I’m probably going to write a few more essays on stuff like this.

 

6/12/08

 

On incompatability

Uhm… It’s half past 9 on a saturday morning, I just wrote a 800 word essay on Nietzsche, and it won’t come out right in WordPress. Erk.

On “new” Facebook

People should stop complaining about facebook. They should stop making groups about it, and they should definitely stop scheduling events about it.

I’m talking about ‘new’ facebook, which is the latest version of the ever-popular social networking site. I never saw the old version, but someone told me about it. It was just a reformat of each person’s profile page. There are dozens of groups whining at facebook to bring it back, and this essay is dedicated to telling them to STFU.

Millions of people use facebook. For free. And that’s the key thing, you’re not paying. If you paid for it, or were a share-holder, you would have every right to complain, as you’re paying their wages, but the thing is, it’s free. Facebook provides its features to you, the user. It is a privilege, not a right to use facebook. It is a commercial internet group that runs it, not you.

You are abusing that privilege by complaining. Say you go to a resteraunt, and you order a meal, and the waiter says its “on the house.” You dislike the meal, leave some constructive criticism, and say you hope it’ll be better next time.

You do not bitch and moan, form an anti-resteraunt group, recruit thousands of people and boycott it. Why people don’t understand this, I have no idea.

If you want your precious profile page in the format you want it, go join myspace, for fucks sake. Don’t ruin everybody elses fun.

Suggestion to facebook: delete all the profiles of those who have joined the “old facebook” groups.

And if you are one of these people, and a thought comes to your mind, that thought being “freedom of speech”, I have a little shock for you.

Freedom of Speech doesn’t exist. Yeah, I said it. Don’t believe me? Walk into a school and call a teacher a bitch. Go on a plane and yell “hijack”, go up to a black police officer and call him racially inferior. Then get back to me on your “freedom” of speech. Note: I’m not trying to get too political, as that would be aside from the point. I’m also not a libertarian, by the way. I don’t believe in the above examples being allowed, so don’t send my hate mail.

The thing is, facebook is a privately owned and run website. It’s not like wikipedia, where everyone contributes. You do not contribute to facebook. You do not own facebook. You do not pay for facebook.

And you certainly don’t benefit facebook by forming stupid, pointless groups. Here’s an idea: stop using it. Yeah, you heard me. If you dislike it so much, why are you still on it? If you still want to socialise, use skype or MSN, or something like that. In fact, what about the phone? Whatever happened to that little peice of technology?

Thanks for reading, if you disagree leave a comment (with grammar, or I’ll delete it cos I own this blog so I have control your freedom of speech), and if you actually did stop using it in protest, please note this hate essay isn’t aimed at you.