Leaderboard

There is a very big difference between "old-fashioned" and "outdated and bigoted", and for some reason people who are the latter like to claim they are the former. I'm here to point out the difference between the two that I thought was very clear, but for some reason people like to muddy. I'm going to give you some examples of worldviews, and then explain whether it's old-fashioned, or just straight-up bigoted. Let's start easy. People of different races are fundamentally different in ways that makes one or the other superior. Got an answer? Well, I hope it was "that's racist" because that is exactly correct. If you hold the above opinion, you are not old-fashioned, just racist. Let's try another one. I prefer the way people dressed in the '20s. That one's a bit trickier, but I believe that's simply old-fashioned. Preferring a dated method of dress doesn't perpetuate harmful myths. It's just a taste in fashion. Women are not fit for combat. This is the one I wanted to get to, because I have seen someone on this very site say it and defend it as being old-fashioned, and I am here to tell you it's not. It's just sexist. There are many, many women who serve in the military or who can defend themselves or wield a weapon or do any of the things men do in combat situations. Women are not more delicate, more in need of protection, or weaker than men. That is a stereotype perpetuated by society to make men seem superior to women. I'd love to go on, but this entry was really just to hit that last point, and to push anyone who defends their beliefs as simply being old-fashioned to look at what they believe, and ask themselves, "Is this really just old fashioned, or is this belief actively hurtful to other people?" I'm leaving this entry open in hopes there will be some good discussion. Be cool, y'all.

Bigots are old-fashioned people, but not all old-fashioned people are bigots.

Matoro. See, it's funny because his character died around six years before the movie came out =3

http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/26/5656288/construction-workers-unearth-legendary-cache-of-atari-games-in-new Do these fools not realize the unholy evil they have unleashed upon the world by unearthing the ET game?

Essays, Not Rants! 110: Of Ludonarrative Dissonance I say again and again on this blog that video games are a truly unique medium especially when it comes to storytelling. Thing is, storytelling in games is inherently weird. What you do in the game doesn’t always quite line up with the narrative it’s telling. Clint Hocking dubbed it ludonarrative dissonance, TV Tropes calls it Gameplay and Story Segregation. As narratives in gaming become more complex, this dissonance becomes steadily more pronounced. Much of Among Thieves, the second Uncharted game, has Nathan Drake chasing after war-criminal Zoran Lazarevic (and Shambala too). Drake, the wise cracking treasure hunter, is the clear good guy since, well, Lazarevic is a war criminal. At least that’s what the narrative says. During gameplay the player will wind up shooting quite a few bad guys. And by quite a few I mean easily a couple hundred. See, Among Thieves is an action-adventure game and, like many games in its genre, a frequent obstacle for players comes in the form of enemies. There’s some platforming, some puzzles, and several bouts of shooting. It’s fun, but it does make it weird to have Drake calling Lazarevic out on him being a ruthless killer at the end. To the game’s credit, Lazarevic responds by calling Drake out on it too. But that’s not much, seeing as Drake’s, y’know, mowed through a small army. There’s a lot of writing on this, actually, a quick google of “Uncharted body count” brings up as much. I always justified it for the most part by using the cutscenes as the actual story and the gameplay bits as more gamey bits. When Nate, Lazarevic, and the others prepare to enter Shambala there are only a handful of henchmen in the cutscene, despite the several dozen you encounter in firefights. The gameplay and story are segregated. Is it a perfect solution? No, not at all. Is Among Thieves still a phenomenal game? Yes, but the argument is no less valid. Some people feel that this dissonance is a big problem with stories in games. Way they figure, for a game to really tell a good story, gameplay should be story and vice-versa. An open world game, like Skyrim, attempts to reconcile all this by giving the player a ridiculous amount of freedom in their actions. Though there is a main story, the player is under no rush to complete it and can even ignore if they wish. Skyrim becomes a sort of choose-your-own-adventure story, wherein you tell your own story through your actions. Journey takes the opposite route. In the award-winning independent game, the player can only do a few things (jump/glide, move, and chirp; compared to jump, move, roll, climb, shoot, hit, etc in Among Theives) and follows a very linear path. The story is simple, but incredibly heartfelt. The simplicity of the narrative and gameplay allows for little ludonarrative dissonance. It works, but it just doesn’t have the depth that Among Thieves has. So what’s the solution? There are some who say that video games are simply ill-equipped to tell stories at the present (I believe Johnathan Blow said something to the effect of to truly reconcile gameplay and story we’d need an incredible AI to be able to adapt to player input much the way a Dungeon Master would in tabletop). Steve Gaynor, who did Gone Home, thinks that one of the most unique ways games can tell stories is through the environments. Exploring a virtual space can be a story in its own way. I think ludonarrative dissonance is something that has to be accepted. Among Thieves would be a very different game were it have only a few firefights. They have to be accepted as part of the game. Furthermore, to remove the game’s linearity (something that does come up) would wreck the finely crafted narrative. Games are, and I say this a bunch, a very nascent medium. Designers and players are finding new ways to tell stories and hear them told, be they procedural like Among Thieves and Journey or emergent like in Skyrim and The Sims. Unlike much of film, tv, and books, wherein the strength of the work is primarily found in the story; games are not beholden to it: Pacman and The Last of Us are both great games, one has no plot and the former has one that rivals — and beats — what you see in theaters. Video games allow for works all over the ludonarrative dissonance scale; what’s wonderful is that they can be good no matter where they fall.

Guess who finally saw The Lego Movie?

sounds like you need an alarm clock!

Well. We're doomed.

Oh god

That is all.

Good essay. One thing that presents an interesting challenge as far as goals are concerned is writing characters who achieve these goals and obtain new goals within an ongoing series. Avatar: The Last Airbender is an example where I feel like this has been fulfilled quite well. Over the course of the animated series, the Avatar's goal from near the beginning was to defeat the Fire Lord and end the war between the Fire Nation and the rest of the world. However, the Avatar's life hardly comes to a close when this goal is fulfilled. It'd be a rather silly story if a person as important as Aang could retire before he even reaches adulthood. Obviously, it's easiest to let characters achieve their goals without their story coming to a close when you make sure not to let any one goal define them. Defeating the Fire Lord was one of Aang's goals, but it's also established that the Avatar has various other duties and responsibilities for maintaining balance in the world. Furthermore, he has other goals unrelated to his role as the Avatar, like starting a life with his girlfriend Katara, helping to restore Air Nomad culture to the world, and being there for his friend Zuko as he struggles with the duties and responsibilities of being the Fire Lord. Since the series ended, Aang's story has been continued in a series of graphic novels. These did a fantastic job of showing how there is still a need for balance to be created and/or restored in the world without undermining the importance of Aang's victory in the series finale. This is one of the things that I think could potentially complicate a BIONICLE revival. For the most part, the goal of the heroes for the entire story, flashbacks like 2004-2005 notwithstanding, was to revive the Great Spirit Mata Nui and defeat the Makuta. By the series' ending in 2010, all these goals had been achieved. But while there's no doubt that there are other threats the Toa will have to protect the Matoran and Agori from in the future (and some post-finale serials tried to introduce some such threats), I haven't found any of these goals anywhere near as compelling or unifying as the goal that previously defined all the Toa. Furthermore, pretty much none of the Toa have ever had individual goals not connected with the goals of their team. Sure, Vakama wanted to understand why he was chosen as a Toa and Jaller wanted to prove himself as a leader. But these were innately connected with their world-saving duties. They never really set any goals for themselves. It sort of makes the Toa seem like workaholics when you think about it — sure, they have moments of relaxation, but you never get even a glimpse of any personal goals they work towards when they're not "on the job". LEGO Ninjago seems to have done a better job of this. For instance, over the course of the series, Zane wanted to find his origins, Jay wanted to be in a relationship with Nya, and Kai wanted to honor his father's memory. Recently, all of the Ninja have devoted themselves to training a new generation of Ninja. Some of these goals have been achieved, others are an ongoing struggle. But in any case, the Ninja aren't purely defined by the responsibilities that they have no choice in. They have lives outside of saving the world, and I feel like this has helped out a lot in terms of keeping the series running smoothly even with a major threat being neutralized at the end of each season.

The outline for Book 2 of Bionicle Mafia Uprising is complete, and is over 5000 words long itself. I am still debating about whether an additional narrative POV would benefit the story; if I decide it will, then the outline is still incomplete. It will be at least twice the size of Book 1, for those who felt that Book 1 was rather short. I shall begin writing Book 2 proper this week; for now, enjoy a brief teaser of what else is coming: Mayhem.

akdskfnakjdjadkfjaewn *Translation by Kristophe* Sven here, just posting a blog. Starting to get warm up here on the Mountains, now that winter's over. adkfkjadslkfjjadsfjakjsdfl Also, Ana needs to-- I can't type that Sven! adsjf Fine.

First off, thanks for all of those nice comments on my last entry. ^^ They were really sweet. AND NOW TO STOP WITH EMOTIONALLY DRAINING BLOG ENTRIES AND BACK TO SUPER IMPORTANT IRREVERENCE AND TOMFOOLERY! Anyway, I finally watched the bonus content for Frozen today (after I rewatched the movie. Still fabulous by the way. I hope the creators keep doing movies because I thoroughly enjoyed their works thus far). I am soooo glad they didn't make Elsa the villain. Every other rendition of The Snow Queen I've seen thus far has made The Snow Queen the villain. She was not the big bad in the original stories, folks. She was just a lonely ethereal spirit that kidnapped a child thus making his loved ones think he was dead. Because, you know, protagonists totally do those things. Currently ending my day listening to Let It Go. That song is the reason Elsa wasn't made a villain by the way. Amazing how such a simple element can change the tone of an entire story. GET OFF MY ICE PALACE! ~Tekulo <3

I saw bits of it in the thumbnails on Youtube, and noooooppppeeee not touching that, ever. It just looks absolutely terrible even at first glance.

Are you referring to the Russian one that came out last year? The voice acting was so bad I could barely get through the trailer.

don't don't don't let's start this is the wooooorst part

I still remember how many people absolutely flipped out when that happened. :c This needs immediate correction. Go see it next time you're off!

Not me. *sobs*

This is my favorite physics, but it took me a while before I really understood it. What parts are particularly troubling you? As for more intuitive ways to think about it, sometimes thinking of bras and kets as vectors helps, but I think grasping them in an abstract way is most beneficial, and its that transition to the abstract understanding that can be particularly difficult.

So I don`t really define myself with technicalities, or at least I try not to. I also try and grant the same perspective to other people because that`s just how my mind has always worked. There is a member in my family that has different needs than most people. I never really realized it until that family member met briefly with a childhood friend of mine. I had always just thought of that person as another member of the family. "Yes, that person acts differently, but Mom acts differently than Dad. Mom is Mom, Dad is Dad, and this person is this person" That was how my mind worked as a child. I like to think I carry a fraction of that mentality with me even today, though honestly I have no clue if that's the case. I know it`s not always easy to believe other people when they say "I know what it's like to be..." You can never just trust anyone else with your opinions, especially when you feel so personally and so strongly about that one trait that you relate with. People build morals, ideals and their very identityies around those sorts of things. How can anyone trust someone else with something so personal? Even so, I still try to get some sort of message across. Just here and there mostly, but I just want everyone to stay calm and think important aspects of their lives over rationally. It doesn`t sound like a lot, but sometimes people just can`t be rational or calm. They`re too proud, too stubborn or they have something that just means so much to them that they won`t ever consider taking their ideals lightly. And that`s fine, I guess. I am only 22 years old as of right now. So, what have I learned? Things change. I used to be a bratty kid with a hot temper. Then I was a miserable adolescent dealing with depression on my own. Now I`ve gone through treatment and I`m actually more or less content with my life. Sure, things aren`t perfect, but nothing ever is. That`s life I guess. But I`ve also learned that, yeah, I am different. Now, I don`t really have a label for myself that I fully appreciate, and I don`t keep up with personality studies, though I have taken a couple. (DISC - I think I was an I\C? Myers Briggs says I`m an INFJ). Ever since I was a kid, I grew up overweight. I know it`s not the most tragic thing you`ve ever heard, and yeah I am responsible for my own life choices and it`s not something that someone`s born with. That`s just how I was and still am. And yeah, I got bullied for it. I never got beat up, but throughout my schooling I would be a target for teasing. Some kids would hug me out of curiosity and tell their friends it was like hugging a big marshmallow. My bad temper didn`t help me any either. The more I reacted, the more it happened. I ended up just shutting up and ignoring people around me. That was a pretty unhealthy way to deal with it looking back now. When I went through my depression in highschool and college, it took me forever to finally come to terms with the fact there was something wrong with me, and even then it took me longer to actually tell my family. I hated that I was different. I didn`t feel comfortable in my own skin. I would go for walks after school and other kids (while sometimes meaning no harm) would make comments. I never lost my temper despite being quiet. I wanted to fight. I wanted to punch. I wanted to scream. But I put all of that aside. It never got any better. At least by ignoring they could have their fun and then get bored. That was just the way I was. That was just the way life is. You can spend a lifetime reasoning the ramifications of bullying, but ultimately it will still happen. That was just how my life worked. They were them and I was me. I had to deal with it alone. That was just the way it was. Anyway, as bad as things could get sometimes, I always told myself I was lucky. I have a good family, I have my health (more or less =P) and I have reasons to be happy, even if I wasn`t happy all of the time. Well, I don`t know if any of you guys have dealt with being overweight. I don`t even know if any of you can relate even a little bit to what I`ve said so far. Still, I think that no matter who you are or what you do, there will always be someone who tells you who you are and what you are capable of. When I was in college studying to become a baker, a student in the culinary program told me right to my face that no matter how hard I worked I would never find a job (And he was so stuck up about it that I wanted to punch him. Still, I was set to ignore, so that didn`t happen). I think we will be told our place in the world many times before we die. That`s the world. That`s just the way it works. But that doesn`t mean you can`t do anything. That doesn`t mean it doesn`t get better. Yes, I am still overweight. Yes, people around me still take notice. Yes I can be treated differently because of it. But for the first time in my life I feel comfortable in my own skin. I am 22 and I am employed as a baker. Not only that, but my bosses actually want to keep me around. Go figure. I have no idea what the people who made fun of me or told me who I was are up to now. I honestly don`t care. Karma could punish them, or they could be super rich and popular. It makes no difference to me. I like myself the way I am, and yes, I am imperfect. Yes, I should lose weight and I should probably work on my own personal identity more than I have in the past. But honestly? Right now I'm just glad with who I am. And I know my story doesn`t end here. I`m going to change a lot over the years. That`s what life does. That`s the way it works. I say bring it on.