What golden age of gaming are you talking about?

The general concensus of casual video game players these days is that they prefer the good old days with the incredibly overused phrase "old school Nintendo". I could go ahead and make some comments about how Nintendo wasn't the only company making game systems back in the day, or about how anyone who uses "old school" without a sense of irony should really not be allowed to speak in public, but there's not that much I can elaborate about on those points. My particular beef is with the validity of such a claim that video games were, and still are, better back in the day.

During the early years of gaming, making a little green blip on the black screen move around to an embarrassingly minimal soundtrack was an accomplishment in itself. For the most part up until the release of the SNES/Genesis/etc., people were still so enamored with the novelty of gaming that they didn't even give thought to the idea that such a medium of entertainment could be improved upon. Playing an incredibly simplistic edition of the Mario series, you wouldn't decry the graphics, the lack of an active plot, or the fact that the game would only take you a few hours to complete. 

This is no longer the case. Now that we've moved beyond the mere existence of games, companies constantly strive to release titles which push the limits of the current consoles. Games seek to tell an intricately woven story, to look more believable with each year's graphic technology improvements, and to afford the player with a complex system of play that allows freedom and longevity. Technically speaking, even some of the worst titles released for the Playstation 3 are so much better than "old school Nintendo" that there is no conceivable way that they can even be objectively compared in a serious manner.

Aside from the presentation aspects, a common issue games have to deal with is the "fun factor". No matter how detailed the graphics of a game are or how much time went in to writing the plot, the game simply must be enjoyable to be successful and appreciated. Most people opposing my stance would argue that the games released today just aren't as fun as the older ones. I refute this point as a matter of opinion. While I enjoy Final Fantasy I's simplicity and occasionally devote an afternoon to completing the title in one fell swipe, the advances Square-Enix has made to the series are incredible. XII's hundreds of different techniques and gambits give the player incredible diversity so he can create characters how he wants to (instead of choosing from a few archetypes), and there's simply so much more content. While you'd be hard-pressed to spend more than 5-10 hours finishing I, you'd hardly scratch the surface of XII with that much time. Mario is another example. Super Mario Bros, by today's standards, a mediocre sidescroller. Take a look at Super Mario Galaxy, a game where you transverse multiple solar systems, and Bros seems silly by comparison.

The last thing proponents of the "old school Nintendo" train of thought tend to point to the nostalgia factor. They look fondly on the titles they were raised on, to the point where their memories of said games transcend their objective appreciation of them. I don't want to bash this point; I think it's valid. But I think it's also irrelevant. Most people who make this claim are old. I was just barely catching on to the idea of video games when the N64 was released, and the first console I owned was a PS2. Hell, I look back at SSX with nostalgia. As people continue to be born, people's remembrance of their first games will continue to change with the current times. While I'm still alive, I'm sure I will meet some snappy teenagers who'll look at me strangely when I mention the Xbox 360 because their first system was the Xbox 1080. "Old school Nintendo" has already passed the point where people look back at it as their system of initiation, and reached a point of obscurity. So, while I applaud people for hanging on to their childhood memories, they need to realize that this is not a valid point towards the argument that games were better back then.

My concern isn't so much about people's opinions on the relative quality of games. What I'm worried about is that the opinion I've just attempted to refute is one held by the vast majority of casual gamers. Unfortunately, these are the people whose opinions are accepted, because the others who are legitimately interested in gaming (to a degree where they don't confuse Okage with Okami) tend to spend their time playing instead of mingling with the casuals. It's the same logic that applies to the vasty majority of people who insist on calling every piece of electronic music "techno" even though this is blatantly inaccurate, or to the annoying bulletin board member who claims that "arguing on the internet is like winning the Special Olympics" despite the fact that online debates are often able to be more conducive due to the readily available information at everyone's fingertips. It's a problem, for the most part, of lack of exposure. And when you don't know too much about something, you believe broad generalizations or outright lies perpetuated by people just as clueless as you are.

This is an inherent social problem with no real solution. I just hope that the next time someone pontificates about their adoration of "old school Nintendo", they take a moment to legitimately consider the implications of what they're saying. 

Why do people still smoke?

Every day I end up walking somewhere, whether it's to the building that holds my class, to the grocery store for some delicious food, or simply to the bathroom so I can take care of my morning piss. At least two or three times during this journey, I'm almost guaranteed to see people smoking tobacco cigarettes.

The fact that people still do this today completely astounds me. Contrary to what the general public must believe, we no longer live in the early 20th century. We're well aware of the gratuitous damage smoking does to our bodies. We're taught this information more or less beginning in kindergarten. There are so many chemicals in a cigarette that will shorten our lives by literal decades. Each little smoke people take causes irreparable damage to their bodies. People who smoke are essentially calling up cancer on their cell phones and inviting them to come over and slowly kill them with each passing day. 

Yet, people continue to smoke. Can anyone tell me what possible benefit you can get from smoking that isn't severely outweighed by the massive shortening of your life? I cannot fathom a good reason to ingest a substance which, even from the first smoke, ravages the body to such a degree. 

Santa claus and logic

There are usually two parties who disagree about the morality of lies. Some consider them as universally wrong from a moral standpoint; others believe the ramifications of an individual lie should be taken into account and the morality should be determined by case. I align myself with the latter party, the reasons for which I may explain another day. Now, if you follow me that a lie's moral value depends on the effects of said lie, I can demonstrate how the classic lie to children of Santa's existence is a good practice.

Why do I think this? For most children, dismissing the existence of Santa constitutes their first forray into the world of logic. They put together the pieces; maybe they realize that a single person is physically incapable of visiting each home and leaving presents for every child in a single night, or maybe something else. Once they figure that out, they begin to chip away at the rest of the theory until they come to the conclusion: Santa does not, in fact, exist. You might be able to put together a well-constructed argument from the process.

1. A significant proponent of Santa's existence is false due to its impossibility.

2. If a significant proponent of Santa's existence is false, the entire theory deserves investigation.

3. Upon investigation, all falsifiable aspects of the Santa theory are logically impossible.

4. If all falsifiable aspects of a theory are debunked, the theory cannot be accepted and believed.

So, 5. Santa, in the understanding presented to the child, does not exist.

The child won't verbalize the argument as such, but this is the mental process that goes through his or her head. It's probably the first evidence of the development of independent logic. As the Santa lie encourages a child to develop his or her sense of logic, I see such a lie as a positive step.

A dollar per song is illogical.

There are a few things iTunes does right. It's a decent, non-customizable media player with about half the features of other modern players such as Winamp. Unless you have some good technical knowledge, you're probably stuck using it if you've got an iPod; while the program could easily be better in just about every way, it's not an absolutely terrible application.

But enough praise. I'm here to discuss the numerous shortcomings of this barely passable player:

Hilarious pricing. Songs on iTunes, unless on sale or bought in special bulk packages, cost a dollar a pop. Are you joking me? Physical albums these days have about fifteen songs each on them. In order to download an album of songs, it costs me the exact same amount of money as an actual album, except I don't get the case, the cover, the insert with all the lyrics, and the CD itself to play anywhere I want to. Of course, even if you don't care about those things, you still have to deal with...

Digital restriction. When you download a song from iTunes, it's saved as a protected AAC file, which can only officially be played by iTunes itself or an iPod. You can't send the song to any other computer without converting it using third-party software. After synchronizing your iPod with a certain number of computers (I believe the threshold is 5), the songs then can't be synched any further. Hundreds of other online companies offer music at the same price as iTunes (or much, much less even) but with none of the digital restriction. Also, you can get around the restriction by burning your protected songs to a CD and then writing them back, which just makes me wonder why iTunes would create copy protection with such a gaping hole in the security. It's kind of like building a Death Star that can be destroyed with one cleverly-placed shot.

Customization options. Unlike almost every modern media player, when you first open iTunes, what you see is all you get. The skin is okay-looking, but good luck trying to change it. Plug-ins, you ask? You can get a few visualizations and perhaps some support for Apple-approved media players, and that's about it. Tough break there, newbie. You'll listen to music how Apple wants you to, in all ways. This especially sucks if you're switching over from one of the many more malleable players out there; if you plan on migrating from Winamp, it's going to be a terrible experience.

Playback options. Most of us use the tried-and-true MP3 format. Okay, but what about that odd sector of the world who swears by Ogg Vorbis? How about concert buffs or audiophiles for which the integrity of FLAC is very important? iTunes is going to be miserable for such people because no viable options for them exist.

Sorting options. You can change the order of the sorting columns in iTunes... except for the leftmost column. Why not?! Every other media player ever made has this option. Also, good luck sorting your playlist in the order of Artist -> Song, the traditional method of sorting that almost everyone grew up on. If you sort by Artist, it'll then sort the songs by album under each artist. If you sort by Song, it'll sort all songs by their titles. Why is there no third option?

Too many better alternatives. iTunes isn't a terrible program; if it existed in a rather unpopulated market, it'd be a good option for people. But there are so many better alternatives out there. iTunes doesn't really do anything better than anyone else in the media player market, which makes its grievous faults even more inexcusable.

My advice to any iTunes user is to download a copy of Winamp and enjoy the new freedom of a completely customizable player. It's functional, it works how YOU want it to as opposed to how Apple wants it to, and it even has built-in support for iPod synchronization. Go now.

Why are victimless crimes considered crimes?

I was having a conversation with a friend of mine a while back and one of the topics covered victimless crimes. At first, I was confused. If there's no victim, why are they crimes? To figure things out, I did a little bit of research. Victimless crimes seem to fall under two categories. The first group contains any illegal activities that only bring potential harm to the perpetrator; the second group is anything that is completely harmless. Looking at the former crimes, I could see how they were outlawed at some point. As for the latter crimes, I simply do not see why anything that has no victim should be illegal. While I could understand the thought process of the former being banned, I think both should be perfectly legal.

Victimless crimes that are potentially harmful to the person instigating them are a tricky grey area. Most crimes of this caliber constitute illegal drugs of some sort. While I think there are many drugs out there that are extremely dangerous and no sane person should use them, there are also many others which have no detrimental effects, or very minor ones at that. For example, marijuana may eventually harm the user, but it's overall a pretty tame drug. I don't use the stuff and never plan to, but I don't see why someone who does, and who understands the health risks, isn't allowed to. I mean, we allow people to smoke cigarettes, which will eventually give you lung cancer and emphysema. People understand the negatives and smoke them anyway. If those are legal, why aren't other, relatively comparable drugs illegal? It doesn't make any sense, especially if the user comprehends the risks and voluntarily accepts them. Again, there is no victim here (besides the informed user, who isn't really a victim at all). And if these victimless crimes were made legal and regulated, imagine how much money would be driven above ground and pumped into the economy. 

The other kind of victimless crimes are those with, literally, no victim. Common examples, such as homosexuality, sodomy, and prostitution, all have an underlying sexual theme. Now, it is my personal opinion that, in the privacy of one's own home, anyone should be able to commit any consensual, non-harmful sexual acts. If two adults of the same gender want to sex it up (as gross as it sounds to me, no offense) they should be able to, as there is no victim. If a couple wants to experiment with different techniques outside of the mainstream, they should be allowed to get into sexual shenanigans, as once again there is no victim. If someone wants to pay someone else for a professional sexual experience in the privacy of one's own home, that should be legal, as yet again there is no victim. Assuming all of these situations are consensual, what's wrong with them? Yet, across the world, attitudes vary significantly for all three; some countries ban each one, while others allow sexual deviancy but not prostitution for some reason. Why is this the case? It's kind of weird, if you think about it.

If no one's getting damaged physically or psychologically, it shouldn't be illegal. And if a person understands the risks of self-harm surrounding an activity, it shouldn't be illegal either. People should be allowed to deviate and harm themselves all they want, so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.

Stop complaining about theater concessions.

Every time I go to the cinema, someone makes a smart-ass comment about the price of concessions. As if no one has ever made the statement that movie theater food is expensive before, they chime in with hilarious indignation. I'm quick to explain to them why theaters have to do this.

Here's something you probably didn't know about the cinema: they almost invariably don't see a penny of that ten dollar ticket you just bought. All of it goes to the film distributor. 

Think about the implications of that for a minute. This means that the only way for a movie theater to actually make money, and stay in business, is to sell something else. This is why theaters sell concessions. It's not that they want to sell you crunchy snacks that make entire lines of the movie inaudible to you and everyone around you; it's a thing of necessity. Running gigantic movie screens in a colosseum-sized building from noon to midnight every day costs enough as it is, but the theater company doesn't even have ticket sales to help them out.

You might be asking, "Why are those concessions so high-priced?" The reason for this is that a lot of people go see a movie and don't buy any concessions at all. They're essentially using the theater for free, at least from the business standpoint of the cinema itself. In order to make up for all the people who don't buy concessions, concessions have to be expensive. Theaters would go out of business if they only charged a dollar or two for popcorn because it's simply not enough money to make ends meet.

You also might be asking, "Why popcorn?" Well, popcorn has a lot of salt in it, which will make you thirsty and want to buy a drink. Call it a cheap trick if you want, but when you buy a popcorn and a soda at the theater, you're helping them stay in business, thus enabling you to see movies in the future. That's what you'd like to happen, right? 

So. Next time you go to the theater with some candy and a drink from home tucked away in your bag, think twice. They didn't make money off that ticket you purchased. It might put a dent in your wallet to buy concessions, but you're helping to ensure the future of the cinema. 

They gotta make ends meet, too.

Why is it that every time a business does something to make a profit, someone labels them a bunch of greedy corporate whores?

I was just on Facebook and someone had made a post about the advertisements. Now, anyone who's ever used that site will know that the ads are extremely limited in size and quantity. There's usually one small advertisement per page. Nothing I can't deal with, or anyone else can't for that matter.

The post stated that Facebook, obviously, had the ads up to make a profit. This person lambasted them for being money-grubbing pigs who didn't care about their clientele and just wanted to make a quick buck. 

Never mind the fact that Facebook is a free service, and didn't put up any ads, there wouldn't be any money to keep the site going. Actually, mind the fact. 

There are many businesses today that actually do give the middle finger to their customers in order to increase profits. This makes the entire corporate world look bad, as anyone who legitimately does something to make money is labeled greedy.

When a company increases the price of their hamburgers from 89 cents to 99 cents, it's because beef prices are going up and they need to make money. Lash out at them for ripping you off an extra dime, but that's how business works.

Not every business is out to get you. Almost all of them are just out to keep their doors open and make the rent. Stop being so damn critical and suspicious.

Playstation 3 needs a multiplayer game.

The Playstation 3 has many strengths. Its graphics are superb, the hard-drive based system structure makes things so much easier than on the PS2, the controller recharges instead of guzzling batteries... if you want a solid machine that can pretty much do it all, the PS3 will do the job.

However, what it really needs is that one great multiplayer game that makes it worth buying. Halo 3, an exclusive on the Xbox 360, is an incredibly entertaining game that lends itself perfectly to an evening with friends. In a sense, it's a social game; so many people enjoy playing it, that you can basically guarantee a match somewhere. The same thing applies to the Wii's excellent Super Smash Bros. Both games are incredibly entertaining and addicting, especially when you have a group of people over. Spending a Friday night playing Brawl has become just as viable as hitting the club or going to the movies, and it sure beats sitting inside by yourself playing an RPG.

As for the Playstation 3, I've yet to see a title rise to such prominence. There are some excellent single-player games (Ratchet & Clank), but I'm still waiting for the game everyone comes over to play. When people think Xbox, they think Halo. When people think Wii, they think Super Smash. When people think PS3, they're not quite sure what to think. 

Someone needs to craft that title. I don't think it would be too hard to come up with one. They did it before on the PS2; I remember playing SSX with my friends all the time. Come on, developers.

Why wait?

One of the most common problems I see from a romantic standpoint is unrequited love. In many cases a boy will meet a girl (and vice versa), fall for them without a parachute, and proceed to do nothing about it. An explanation is often offered to me, “I don’t want to face the possible rejection.” I’ve used this excuse before, though I’m well aware that I’d be better off if I hadn’t.
Let me outline the three possible outcomes of just going for it and asking her:


1. She says yes. 
This answer is a romantic jackpot. She replies. Sure, why not. Oh dear me yes. Come to bed with me now. Or just to Starbucks. When you properly ask a single girl out with confidence and polite manners, she’ll probably say yes. Isn’t that what you want? This should be enough incentive as it is to ask her out. Ask her to dinner so you have plenty of time to socialize.

2. She says no.
While unlikely that she will blatantly refuse, it’s a possible scenario. Think about it, though. If she was going to say no, aren’t you glad you didn’t waste any time getting that answer out of her? Suppose you’d waited months on end to hear the same rejection. You’d be much worse off. Plus, now you’re in a position to get over her. Don’t continue to ask; find someone who will say yes. There are plenty of other girls who are begging for it from you already.

3. She says maybe.

If you haven’t taken the time to get to know her, or even introduce yourself to her, she might just not be sure yet whether to say yes. This is your cue to take action and make her see you in a different light. Ask if she would like to go see a movie or something with little pressure yet plenty of opportunity to socialize. Pay for her ticket like a gentleman and work your magic.

Situation one is what you’re gunning for of course. Situation two sucks, but it allows you to make progress towards someone else who is actually worth your time. Situation three offers you an opportunity at the very least. In the end, each possible scenario is a good one. 

What doesn’t work, however, is letting the whole thing simmer on the back burner. If you don’t have the courage to ask, there’s no chance of things ever working. If you ask, you’ll at least give a relationship the best chance it had. It was once said that “you miss 100% of the shots you don't take”. This applies to your romantic situation just as well as it will ever apply to your field goal percentage on the court.

If your profile is private, you're missing the point.

MySpace is a social networking site that's been around for a while now. There was a time when people actually used it to meet new people, network with friends of friends, and branch out in ways they never could before without it.

Somewhere along the line, the option to make your profile private to random passerby was created. This is the single worst feature of the site, and anyone who uses it is dumb. Having a private profile defeats the entire point of a social networking service. The site was created so you could make friends. I do think there are a few legitimate reasons to keep your page private (witness protection, extreme stalker cases, etc.) I'm just going to detail the other reasons morons use below.



I just use MySpace to keep in touch with my friends.

You already talk to them on AIM, MSN, Yahoo, Skipe, IRC, ICQ, Facebook, Bebo, Orkut, e-mail, snail mail, text messages, phone conversations, voice mail, and real life. Why do you also need MySpace?

I have to make my page private so my parents don't see the stuff on it.

If your life is so out of whack that you make your entire page unavailable to the only two people who feed, clothe, and provide for you, then you need to re-examine your priorities. Oh, and by the way, your parents can easily search for you and find that you have a page. If it's private, they're going to be a bit suspicious, don't you think?

Oh, but I changed my name so they can't find me.

If they can't find you, why make your page private?

I made my page private to keep the creeps away.

MySpace has dozens of options to stop weirdos from getting in contact with you. Why use the one that debilitates legitimate people as well?



People are, in general, really bad at MySpace.

A guide for you.

The word "too" is only used when describing something in identical circumstances. "I have a car too!" is proper. "I am going too the store" is lulzworthy.

Apostrophes are not necessary to indicate a plural noun. "That guy's crazy" works fine. "All centaur's are evil" is bad English.

Don't insult your boyfriend's manliness by referring to him as "boyfran". Fran is a girl's name. Your boyfriend is a boy, or, better yet, a man.

If you can't spell tomorrow, don't use it in a sentence. Your reader will appreciate the gesture.

Turning 360 degrees on an axis brings you back to the same point. If you mean to say your life has changed completely, try calling it a 180, or use a better analogy.

You complain about immigrants who don't learn English or have a hard time understanding it, yet you bastardize the language thoroughly.

Yes, it's easier to type like a five-year old. Something's ease is hardly indicative of its validity as a proper choice. Perhaps one day you are dangling from a cliff you've accidentally fallen off of... you wouldn't want the random passerby to decide not to help you on the basis of "it's easier not to."

tl;dr English is a written language as well as a spoken language. Learn to write it.

What's wrong with regular DVD?

Spend five minutes on the interhighway and you're bound to come across an article about Toshiba's pulling out of the hi-def war. That's right, citizens. HD DVD is officially a thing of the past. Blu-ray won out all the major distribution companies, and within the year, it'll be the only current-gen video release media on the market. PS3 owners are rejoicing, while 360 owners are scrambling. As for Wii owners, they got the shaft in the first place, so this isn't much of a blow to their private regions.

But what about the billions of us who are still perfectly content to watch good old DVDs? My television set has two settings, Suck and Fail. I couldn't possibly care less about seeing the skin pores on the sweaty actor gracing too much of my screen, or the peach fuzz on the lip of that otherwise smoking hot bikini model. In other words, I have no need for high-definition video whatsoever. And I represent a gigantic portion of the world who doesn't have thousands of dollars to buy overpriced hi-def movies and the equipment to play them. Also, while watching a DVD, I have never once thought "This would be a lot better if the picture was clearer. This is really subpar."

Blu-ray is winning a race and no one is at the finish line to congratulate it besides a few corporate executives who get a hard-on every time they realize their space-age format triumphed over a competition that had no glaring weaknesses besides a circumstantial lack of support. HD DVD losing the hi-def war matters to most people about as much as a starving child in Africa surviving another day.

Now, I'm off to watch Arrested Development on DVD. It's a show whose characters probably benefit from the lack of high-definition detail.