I want to spend a little bit of time discussing a topic that is very close to my heart - reviewing. Honestly, I'm perfectly aware I'm not an authority on this topic. My reviews are rarely longer than a mere 3000 words, I don't really have a readership who isn't myself and I'll never review professionally. I'm OK with all of these factors, but I want to state these outright. This is the opinion of a consumer in the industry of reviewing and not a producer, or at the very most an extreme amateur. For the views, if only in passing, by those more involved with the production of reviews, there is a video by Chris Franklin (AKA Campster) here which touches on some themes I want to discuss (and also inspired this post) and here is a post by the music reviewer Todd Nathanson (much better known as Todd In The Shadows) discussing several important parts of what it means to be a critic.
Now, I'll continue with my uninformed, opinionated ranting. The question I want to examine is "Do positive/negative reviews have inherently less value than the other?"
My short answer is no. I consume a great deal of variety in reviews, but I rarely, if ever, will disregard a review or a series of reviews or a reviewer just because they either love or hate their discussed medium.
Let me flesh that out a little more. Loving or hating a topic is really not a problem with me. Admittedly, it is much easier to squeeze comedy material out of hating a particular topic, as the success of Nostalgia Critic and Zero Punctuation have proven, but it also risks going just a little too far. I find the overly mean-spirited and dismissive reviews of Mark Mues occasionally distasteful, and I've never really found the immature overly disgusting bile-fueled reviews of the Angry Video Game Nerd to my tastes (although I can sort of see the appeal). This is a one way street. I am yet to see a positive review err too far on the "It's good. Just 'cause." side of the scale, which some negative reviews seem to do. What can be gained by the comedic value of hate can easily be undone with a lack of analysis or explanation.
I can live without comedy in my reviews. Sure, when I first started watching Nostalgia Critic several years ago, I was hesitant to branch out into watching other contributors on TGWTG because I couldn't see myself enjoying more analytical reviews with less comedy. But now I can't imagine limiting myself like that again.
The most important part of a review is education. I don't mean undeniably true fact, I call learning people's individual opinions or experiences educational too. I also don't claim comedy has no place in reviews, but it's more a side dish for me.
Let's look at some examples. Todd in the Shadows is a perfect example. Todd (yes, I did try to abbreviate the title before realising hat it spelt) has, on TGWTG and Chez Apocalypse at least, a back catalog filled with negative analysis of what he sees as a poor quality offerings by a good medium, like most TGWTG reviews. The difference can be seen in the series "One Hit Wonderland", looking at the full careers of One-Hit Wonders. These musicians can be good, bad or anywhere in between and they all get the same semi-comedic analysis. Whether Todd likes or dislikes the group, the reviews do not radically vary in quality, showing that a "good" review does not hinge upon whether the review is positive or negative.
This seems to be the case with most of my favourite reviewers. I don't care if they love or hate it, I just want to know why, a little about the topic and come away knowing a little more than I did before. Look at the reviewers I've watched just today.
Campster, of Errant Signal, analysing both videogames and academic interpretations emerging from videogames. Although he looks at things he both likes and dislikes, the pull of the episode.
Cecil Trachenburg, of Good Bad Flicks, who is possibly the biggest, most forgiving fan of movies I've ever seen. He absolutely love every film he talks about, albeit often in an, as the name suggests, so bad it's good way. More a comedy than analysis show for the most part, but still a fan of his topics.
Oancitizen, of Brows Held High, who looks at artsy films, analysing the good and bad in each film he reviews. Of all reviewers, Oancitizen would be the hardest to put on either side of the positive/negative fence. More analysis than comedy, but plenty of comedy arises merely from the observation of inherent ridiculousness in his chosen medium.
I think that the very best reviewers, at least from my perspective, fall on neither side. People like Nostalgia Critic, Marzgirl, Oancitizen and Rap Critic, who all respect and love their reviewed mediums, will look at each particular topic and discus he flaws and features it presents in a way that viewers can appreciate, take sides upon and learn from.
Final answer to the question? The only reviews with inherently less value are those with less explanation of their conclusions and less information.
Feedback welcome.
H. Rourke
Thursday, 11 July 2013
Saturday, 6 July 2013
A Music Game
I thought just to pass some time, I'd share a little game I play with my playlists.
What you'll need:
Wikipedia
At least a 2GB music player with shuffle mode enabled.
Rules:
The premise is simple: see how many songs you can play in a row without repeating the home city of the group. For groups, go by where they are based, where solo artists are born and for duets, go with the name or act that comes first.
For added difficulty, pick three cities before you start. If the city picked is repeated, you get ten more points, but for every time the city comes up without being repeated, lose 5 points. Get 1 point for each different city in the entire list.
Here's a sample game (which, in retrospect, will be incredibly dull to read):
I'll guess New York City, London and Melbourne
They Might Be Giants - Lincoln, Mass.
Jamiroquai - London
Danzig - Lodi, NJ.
Ted Leo & the Pharmacists - Washington D.C.
Daft Punk - Paris (I still don't really get them, but I'm trying to understand what all the hype's about)
Beck - Los Angeles, Cal.
The Rolling Stones - London - Fin.
Total: 7 tracks - 5 London turning up + 10 for London repeating = 12 points.
Well, it's a dull game with no possible of playing competitively without someone cheating, but this Uni break is beginning to drag on. Can you tell? Also, it seems that every fucking British group I have on these playlists comes from bloody London. I think it's the only city I've ever repeated without the group repeating too.
Feel free to post games, suggestions for improved play or any feedback in the comments.
H. Rourke
What you'll need:
Wikipedia
At least a 2GB music player with shuffle mode enabled.
Rules:
The premise is simple: see how many songs you can play in a row without repeating the home city of the group. For groups, go by where they are based, where solo artists are born and for duets, go with the name or act that comes first.
For added difficulty, pick three cities before you start. If the city picked is repeated, you get ten more points, but for every time the city comes up without being repeated, lose 5 points. Get 1 point for each different city in the entire list.
Here's a sample game (which, in retrospect, will be incredibly dull to read):
I'll guess New York City, London and Melbourne
They Might Be Giants - Lincoln, Mass.
Jamiroquai - London
Danzig - Lodi, NJ.
Ted Leo & the Pharmacists - Washington D.C.
Daft Punk - Paris (I still don't really get them, but I'm trying to understand what all the hype's about)
Beck - Los Angeles, Cal.
The Rolling Stones - London - Fin.
Total: 7 tracks - 5 London turning up + 10 for London repeating = 12 points.
Well, it's a dull game with no possible of playing competitively without someone cheating, but this Uni break is beginning to drag on. Can you tell? Also, it seems that every fucking British group I have on these playlists comes from bloody London. I think it's the only city I've ever repeated without the group repeating too.
Feel free to post games, suggestions for improved play or any feedback in the comments.
H. Rourke
Thursday, 4 July 2013
Australian Culture & Music Part 1 - It Doesn't Matter To Me
So, before the first entry into this series, let me give a quick overview of what I'm trying to achieve and what I'm going to try to do to get there.
I've heard it often said, and have said it myself, that Australia is a nation without a culture. Sure, we have stereotypes, some of which we support. Australians throw shrimps on the barbie (we call them "prawns", for the record), all live by the beach (I live in the national capital, which is inland), enjoy the constant warm weather (it reached a peak of 11 Celsius today, or 51F for you Americans (happy 4th of July to you guys, by the way)) and are all English speaking white people of English descent (43% of Australians have a parent born overseas, and not all of them are English. For fuck's sake, the most famous graduate of my college was Jackie-fucking-Chan).
Despite most stereotypes of Australians being little more than pure bullshit, some ideas of what all Australians are have persisted, and I greatly want to look at these ideas, specifically those presented through music. Although music will be my launching point, most of these articles will probably be my opinion mixed with what proof I can find to back myself up.
What authority does my opinion have? Very little. I've lived every day of my life in Australia, and I have just concluded a survey course on the post-WWII history of the nation. Yeah, this should be taken only as really a uninformed opinion.
All the same, I want to make an Australian think a little more about what stereotypes are beginning to emerge that might be slightly more accurate than our tourism campaigns provide and to show international readers what Australian society looks like to Australians (for the most part).
Enough with the BS, on with the show.
My first quote comes from the track "It Doesn't Matter To Me" by Redgum, from their 1988 live album, Caught in the Act.
"It doesn't matter to me,
It doesn't matter to me.
I'll sit home and watch you all on my colour TV."
The target stereotype in a word: Apathy.
To make the blanket statement that Australian's "don't care" is a popular one, especially by political analysts in regards to the political system. This, obviously, varies from person to person. The three Socialist organisations in this city, one of which operates out of my University, instantly prove that at least some Aussies care. The issue here seems to emerge more out of political activists who wish to see their beliefs spread.
The issue, I feel, is one of comparison. Australians want to see a political society akin to America. Why? Well, firstly America is the society from which Australian culture has drawn the most influence since the Vietnam War. Secondly, there is a massive difference between American and Australian political systems. In Australia, voting is compulsory, so the American political requirement to make people vote at all is skipped over. The focus on individuals is also much less in Australia. For example, about a week ago the government replaced the Prime Minister in less than an hour due to internal dispute and declining popularity. Ever see that happening in America in anything short than an impeachment? Andrew Jackson says otherwise. This is obviously due to completely different systems of government, but Australian politicians still often seem to desire a more American government. I like this article for putting allegations of political apathy in some perspective.
Another allegation is that Australians think their politicians are dodgy, unreliable and lacking in many respectable qualities. The fact that this is not something limited to Australia is the obvious response, and there is little more I can say.
This is a short intro to the series, as this claim is so easily disputable. The only people I hear making this claim, that Australians are politically apathetic, are those who are politically passionate, and all I hear is "people should be more like me." Redgum are a charismatic, clever, down to earth group, but they are not an exception.
Feedback welcome.
H. Rourke.
I've heard it often said, and have said it myself, that Australia is a nation without a culture. Sure, we have stereotypes, some of which we support. Australians throw shrimps on the barbie (we call them "prawns", for the record), all live by the beach (I live in the national capital, which is inland), enjoy the constant warm weather (it reached a peak of 11 Celsius today, or 51F for you Americans (happy 4th of July to you guys, by the way)) and are all English speaking white people of English descent (43% of Australians have a parent born overseas, and not all of them are English. For fuck's sake, the most famous graduate of my college was Jackie-fucking-Chan).
Despite most stereotypes of Australians being little more than pure bullshit, some ideas of what all Australians are have persisted, and I greatly want to look at these ideas, specifically those presented through music. Although music will be my launching point, most of these articles will probably be my opinion mixed with what proof I can find to back myself up.
What authority does my opinion have? Very little. I've lived every day of my life in Australia, and I have just concluded a survey course on the post-WWII history of the nation. Yeah, this should be taken only as really a uninformed opinion.
All the same, I want to make an Australian think a little more about what stereotypes are beginning to emerge that might be slightly more accurate than our tourism campaigns provide and to show international readers what Australian society looks like to Australians (for the most part).
Enough with the BS, on with the show.
My first quote comes from the track "It Doesn't Matter To Me" by Redgum, from their 1988 live album, Caught in the Act.
"It doesn't matter to me,
It doesn't matter to me.
I'll sit home and watch you all on my colour TV."
The target stereotype in a word: Apathy.
To make the blanket statement that Australian's "don't care" is a popular one, especially by political analysts in regards to the political system. This, obviously, varies from person to person. The three Socialist organisations in this city, one of which operates out of my University, instantly prove that at least some Aussies care. The issue here seems to emerge more out of political activists who wish to see their beliefs spread.
The issue, I feel, is one of comparison. Australians want to see a political society akin to America. Why? Well, firstly America is the society from which Australian culture has drawn the most influence since the Vietnam War. Secondly, there is a massive difference between American and Australian political systems. In Australia, voting is compulsory, so the American political requirement to make people vote at all is skipped over. The focus on individuals is also much less in Australia. For example, about a week ago the government replaced the Prime Minister in less than an hour due to internal dispute and declining popularity. Ever see that happening in America in anything short than an impeachment? Andrew Jackson says otherwise. This is obviously due to completely different systems of government, but Australian politicians still often seem to desire a more American government. I like this article for putting allegations of political apathy in some perspective.
Another allegation is that Australians think their politicians are dodgy, unreliable and lacking in many respectable qualities. The fact that this is not something limited to Australia is the obvious response, and there is little more I can say.
This is a short intro to the series, as this claim is so easily disputable. The only people I hear making this claim, that Australians are politically apathetic, are those who are politically passionate, and all I hear is "people should be more like me." Redgum are a charismatic, clever, down to earth group, but they are not an exception.
Feedback welcome.
H. Rourke.
Wednesday, 3 July 2013
Unrewarding Simulations - The Sims Franchise
My Australia project is still in the works, but I want to get my thoughts down on a particular topic while I'm still focused on it.
Let's talk about The Sims.
Call this an homage to Shamus Young's "Experienced Points", bar the programming background, talent and general knowledge of games, but I want to talk to the makers of this series.
I've been playing The Sims since my step brother gave me a copy of the original "The Sims" sometime in the early 2000's. I've played every incarnation of the franchise, every expansion of the original, most of the Sims 2 expansions and only the University expansion of the third.
I want to establish that I know what I'm talking about here. I'm not some professional reviewer who played this game for what they consider a decent amount of time then complained about how only "casual" gamers can possibly derive entertainment from this.
They're right. I'm a casual gamer, and I wear such a title with pride. I have put my heart and soul into deriving pleasure from this game, and for the most parts I've succeeded. However, I'm not here to make great claims about the game. If you aren't interested in the series, I can't blame you and understand completely. This is for the undecided and the fans. I wish to ask and answer (from my opinions and experiences) a double-barrel question:
Why do we want to play the Sims? and Are the successive incarnations of the game appealing to this?
I want two things from the Sims, both of which I feel I have never been treated with the proper respect.
Firstly, an autosave option. I'll say that again. An autosave option. One more time. AN AUTOSAVE OPTION. 20 minutes ago, I lost 6 hours of progress on my game. I will never get that time back. I hate this game right now. I admit that freely. I am emotional here. Now, I know that some people want the ability to undo from one save to the other in case of terrible accidents, but that is why I say OPTION. Sure, I could save every few minutes. I timed the manual save today. It took FIVE MINUTES. That is not a save loading time. THAT IS AN AD BREAK. Just... make me think that the significant portion of my life I waste on this fucking game is optional. YOU DON'T HAVE TO PROVE IT TO ME. I'll... calm down.
Now, my bigger gripe is in a sense of accomplishment. I'm not asking for actual Steam-style accomplishments (with Maxis and Origin on board, that would guarantee the fucking game would crash). I just want a little proof to myself that I have something to show for my work on this game. I thought the franchise was progressing this way with Sims 2 implementing a family tree function, to show how far back the ancestry reached. Considering this has not been changed in anyway sine the original Sims 2 was released in 2004, I think any success that achieved was purely accidental. Since then there has only been an increased focus on not allowing any freedom. In The Sims 3, you have to give up certain aspects of progress to play as a different family. This being a change from being able to play any family in the neighborhood. I just want something, anything, to reward me. Somthing that carries on. Something even useless. The family tree is a good start, but as soon as a family dies out, I lose everything. It's like playing a flash game on Steam, and selling it on a sense of accomplishment because the number beside "Hours Played" increases.
What other "points" are there to save up? Let's make a list:
- Aspiration points (saved for each Sim, completely, irretrievably lost when that Sim dies.)
- Money (for a lot, lost when you follow a Sim away from the familial home. Considering only 8 Sims can be on a lot, you pretty much have to do this for your Sim to have kids)
- Career Progression (same as with Aspiration points)
- And don't get me started on emotional connection, what little there is.
I feel the Sims get more rewards than I do.
Why is this lack of perceivable progress so frustrating?
Because this is not the facebook game it so clearly wants to be (especially with its new facebook connectivity features). It is, by approximation, the largest game on my computer. I can run no other program on my machine (less than a full year old) simultaneously (is that a pun?) without a slowdown. I can't minimize the program without a graphical decline upon maximization (another pun?). This program requires me to put my entire digital life (i.e. my life) on hold for some unrewarding, increasingly forgettable, pointless gameplay. Give. Me. A. Fucking. Break. And then it crashes because it can't connect to Origin (I'd have complaints about Origin, but it's like picking on the stupid, smelly kid in primary school. I wouldn't be the first to do it, I wouldn't be the wittiest and the passage of time will do more damage than I ever could).
I'm going to spell-check this article (to the usual poor standard) but I won't edit it any more. This post is rambling and angry, and I don't want it to lose that, even at the price of coherency.
Sims 4 is coming out. My predictions? It will have unnecessary and no longer optional connectivity with Facebook and Twitter. It will have poorly implemented and maintained mandatory online play, with unnecessary multiplayer... somehow. The game will be streamlined and simplified to avoid causing offense to younger players, and in doing so will create more controversy by removing specific content. My money is on them removing gay relationships. It will rely upon expansion packs to have even a little creativity. The expansion packs will be: Vacations, Higher Education, Pets, Nightlife and Ikea. It will be larger and more expensive than can possibly be justified.
I'm afraid I'll need someone else to correct me on some of these guesses when the game is released, as there is only one prediction I can both verify and guarantee:
I won't buy it.
Feedback welcome.
H. Rourke.
Let's talk about The Sims.
Call this an homage to Shamus Young's "Experienced Points", bar the programming background, talent and general knowledge of games, but I want to talk to the makers of this series.
I've been playing The Sims since my step brother gave me a copy of the original "The Sims" sometime in the early 2000's. I've played every incarnation of the franchise, every expansion of the original, most of the Sims 2 expansions and only the University expansion of the third.
I want to establish that I know what I'm talking about here. I'm not some professional reviewer who played this game for what they consider a decent amount of time then complained about how only "casual" gamers can possibly derive entertainment from this.
They're right. I'm a casual gamer, and I wear such a title with pride. I have put my heart and soul into deriving pleasure from this game, and for the most parts I've succeeded. However, I'm not here to make great claims about the game. If you aren't interested in the series, I can't blame you and understand completely. This is for the undecided and the fans. I wish to ask and answer (from my opinions and experiences) a double-barrel question:
Why do we want to play the Sims? and Are the successive incarnations of the game appealing to this?
I want two things from the Sims, both of which I feel I have never been treated with the proper respect.
Firstly, an autosave option. I'll say that again. An autosave option. One more time. AN AUTOSAVE OPTION. 20 minutes ago, I lost 6 hours of progress on my game. I will never get that time back. I hate this game right now. I admit that freely. I am emotional here. Now, I know that some people want the ability to undo from one save to the other in case of terrible accidents, but that is why I say OPTION. Sure, I could save every few minutes. I timed the manual save today. It took FIVE MINUTES. That is not a save loading time. THAT IS AN AD BREAK. Just... make me think that the significant portion of my life I waste on this fucking game is optional. YOU DON'T HAVE TO PROVE IT TO ME. I'll... calm down.
Now, my bigger gripe is in a sense of accomplishment. I'm not asking for actual Steam-style accomplishments (with Maxis and Origin on board, that would guarantee the fucking game would crash). I just want a little proof to myself that I have something to show for my work on this game. I thought the franchise was progressing this way with Sims 2 implementing a family tree function, to show how far back the ancestry reached. Considering this has not been changed in anyway sine the original Sims 2 was released in 2004, I think any success that achieved was purely accidental. Since then there has only been an increased focus on not allowing any freedom. In The Sims 3, you have to give up certain aspects of progress to play as a different family. This being a change from being able to play any family in the neighborhood. I just want something, anything, to reward me. Somthing that carries on. Something even useless. The family tree is a good start, but as soon as a family dies out, I lose everything. It's like playing a flash game on Steam, and selling it on a sense of accomplishment because the number beside "Hours Played" increases.
What other "points" are there to save up? Let's make a list:
- Aspiration points (saved for each Sim, completely, irretrievably lost when that Sim dies.)
- Money (for a lot, lost when you follow a Sim away from the familial home. Considering only 8 Sims can be on a lot, you pretty much have to do this for your Sim to have kids)
- Career Progression (same as with Aspiration points)
- And don't get me started on emotional connection, what little there is.
I feel the Sims get more rewards than I do.
Why is this lack of perceivable progress so frustrating?
Because this is not the facebook game it so clearly wants to be (especially with its new facebook connectivity features). It is, by approximation, the largest game on my computer. I can run no other program on my machine (less than a full year old) simultaneously (is that a pun?) without a slowdown. I can't minimize the program without a graphical decline upon maximization (another pun?). This program requires me to put my entire digital life (i.e. my life) on hold for some unrewarding, increasingly forgettable, pointless gameplay. Give. Me. A. Fucking. Break. And then it crashes because it can't connect to Origin (I'd have complaints about Origin, but it's like picking on the stupid, smelly kid in primary school. I wouldn't be the first to do it, I wouldn't be the wittiest and the passage of time will do more damage than I ever could).
I'm going to spell-check this article (to the usual poor standard) but I won't edit it any more. This post is rambling and angry, and I don't want it to lose that, even at the price of coherency.
Sims 4 is coming out. My predictions? It will have unnecessary and no longer optional connectivity with Facebook and Twitter. It will have poorly implemented and maintained mandatory online play, with unnecessary multiplayer... somehow. The game will be streamlined and simplified to avoid causing offense to younger players, and in doing so will create more controversy by removing specific content. My money is on them removing gay relationships. It will rely upon expansion packs to have even a little creativity. The expansion packs will be: Vacations, Higher Education, Pets, Nightlife and Ikea. It will be larger and more expensive than can possibly be justified.
I'm afraid I'll need someone else to correct me on some of these guesses when the game is released, as there is only one prediction I can both verify and guarantee:
I won't buy it.
Feedback welcome.
H. Rourke.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)