Good Game

Are MLG's taking it too far?

The short answer is yes, but that wouldn't be quality writing, now would it?

MLG stands for Major League Gaming and, in the world of video games, it's a self proclaimed title that essentially means, "I'm better than you." As much as that sounds like a humbling experience, all that equates to is a 17-year-old boasting loudly over his Turtle-Beach microphone before telling his mother that he'll take the trash out later. These are the people who rage-quit just before the game ends in order to keep their scores high, count their K/Ds (kill/death ratio) and proudly come in at the top of the leader-board at the end of every match. Instead of rightfully pointing out that MLGs are virgins riddled with inferiority complexes, I'm going to spend this article debating whether or not the idea of taking gaming to the next level is justified.

The way to start would be to ask the question, why does gaming exist? The answer is different to every person. For some it's for competition, for others it's for socialization and for still others it's for fetishists who like looking at pictures of skanks who can't figure out how to come in a place better than 12th while playing Zelda.

Save Hyrule harder.

Looking at it that way, there's really no true answer to the question, "why do we game?" only a plethora of opinions. I would say that it's a combination of everything. We play games for the same reason we watch a movie. To get away from real life for a few hours, enjoy a story and be social. It's recreational and we need that because all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.

That being said, what does it mean when you play a video game like it's your job? From what I've seen, MLGs don't seem to like the games they play; they boot up Call of Duty, get on a server,  get one kill and quit. Hooray for positive K/D. What part of what I described sounded like recreation, socializing, story or, fuck, even competitive play? There are people who do this sort of thing and for what? So some guy like me can randomly pull up the stats for xXLe3tSn1p3rXx and think to myself, 'wow, he's pretty good at this game', before closing it and then forgetting you ever even existed? There are thousands of people out there with scores just as good as yours if not better. Who are you trying to impress?

No you fucking don't.

I'm sorry, but doing that is like watching movies on 10X speed or sprinting through an art gallery. Any asshole can do what I just described, it doesn't make you good at video games. Yeah, I'll admit that most MLGs don't do that kind of thing, but think, where does it end?

You see, Major League Gaming isn't a hobby, it's a full time job. Do you think that when you finally have the best score in the world you can just hang up your coat and say, 'well, I did it, time to move on.'? Fuck no. If you have any intention on staying there for more than an hour, you've got to keep playing or else, guess what, you're going to get bumped down. People who are consistently in the top spot don't have scores that are just so high, no one can ascend past them, they just play constantly and I mean constantly. One of the former CoD champs, Kim Dotcom, creator of Mega-upload, got put in prison for a few days and his scores never recovered. Once again, I ask the question, who are you trying to impress? Do you think that people are going to be crowding around their televisions, looking at your score, mouths agape, trying to memorize your gamertag so they can whisper it between each other? It doesn't make you a celebrity.

Oh, wait, never-mind. It totally does make you a celebrity.

So am I against competitive gaming? Absolutely not. I think competition is a great source of recreation because it's challenging, gives you something to work towards (winning) and rewards you if you succeed. It's certainly fun proudly flaunting your exclusive, unlocked armor to all of your friends. That's one thing. But in the bigger picture, no one is going to care. There certainly was a time when people online would marvel at your Recon but those days have come and gone (2007-2010 you will be missed). 

Now you're essentially the in-game equivalent of a swag-fag.

No one online is going to care that you're a higher rank than they are. So is every fifth person they come across so stop putting out so much effort to impress people you're never going to meet.

When an MLG enters a competitive game, everyone in the lobby breathes an exasperated sigh because your enemies know that they're going to lose horrendously, your teammates know that you're going to lone-wolf and steal every kill in the game and everyone knows they're going to have to put up with your bragging and swearing.

You don't keep scores when you watch movies, read books, or go out to an art gallery. Those are all forms of art and I believe gaming can be art too. Why should we bring that into the artistic world? It's pointless and it's no fun for anyone. There's nothing wrong with being competitive, hell, I don't even see anything wrong with those big gaming conventions where basement dwellers have an excuse to open up a stick of deodorant and go outside once every year or so. I simply abhor the whole idea that gaming should be work. "Game", by definition, is literally the farthest away from "Work" you can possibly get so stop mixing the two. Let's all plug in to have fun and at the end, we'll all pat each other on the back and say, "good game".

Unquantifiable

Why I think music can't be rated

You may have noticed that I've been talking about music a little more lately. I try to shake up the variety by doing that sort of thing. As this is primarily a reviewal page, you might be weirded out by the fact that I never attach any finite numbers to songs, albums, whatever. As I touched on during my rant over the Grammys a few months back, I'm against the whole idea of deciding how good or how bad music is.
There's really no established criteria for rating music. I have no idea how those ass-clowns over at the Grammys decide which songs are better and which are worse but they apparently have some sort of secret formula that they input the music into which produces an answer.

This isn't fun! This is science!

Now, obviously, I know that that's not what they do but in all honesty, how they choose the winners is a complete mystery to me. I think that it's immoral to stamp numbers onto music based on how "good" it is. Why? Because music is an art.
They say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder and that couldn't be more accurate when you're talking about music. Testament to this is the fact that music itself is so diverse. How does one even compare two totally different genres and pick the better song?

Decide which is better. Start by comparing and contrasting.

However insanely different those two songs are, they're both music no matter how you look at it. You may not be crazy about Daft Punk (because I know there's no way you don't dig some Goregrind), but there's no denying that simply it's existence goes to show that someone out there is, otherwise the music wouldn't exist.

While it's true, however, the way you were raised has a direct effect on the music you enjoy, your taste is generally out of your conscientious control. It's a bit like fetishes in that you don't choose 'em, they choose you.

Weirdos.

But to digress, music is an art and I don't think DiVinci ever competed with anyone to make the prettiest canvas. Furthermore, rating music takes away from the creative ocean that is music. You have a group of famous, respected judges take a bunch of songs and say, "Yes, this is good. We like that." what do you think everyone is going to try and do?

Make that happen again so they can get a big shiny sticker on their latest single.

Art isn't a contest, it's a form of take-it-or-leave-it expression and music is no different. Even though genres like pop are based on doing the exact opposite of what I'm talking about here, it still applies. Giving music a rigid this-is-good outline is what made the Baroque period an imaginative wasteland. With music, you have to be willing to create and experiment and try things that have never been done before. Music is the penultimate of creativity.

Therefore, saying "You like things I don't like. Your music sucks." is bullshit and makes no sense in my brain. It's one thing to joke about that sort of thing over the internet but it's another to act that way in anything official and I'm looking at you again, Grammys.

Because this is what music is all about.

Music is an art. An unquantifiable idea that cultures have created and personalized over all of human history and while I still think that you're a fucking idiot for listening to Grindcore, you can do what you want because, hey, it's your fetish. In music there are no laws, no truths and no right and wrong. There are only opinions and ambiguity.

Less is More

Is prudence more effective in cinema?

What we can do in movies today is, admittedly, quite amazing. While I've certainly voiced my standpoint on the gratuitous usage of computer effects in modern cinema, it's impressive nonetheless. There's certainly a brand of movie that benefits from that over-the-top style. Evil Dead, which I just gave a positive review a few days back, is a good example. In my mind, we need movies like that. We can't just have one kind of movie, it'd get boring if all we had was dead serious, drama.
That being said, let's ignore drama right now because at this point, you should have my priorities figured out. Let's talk about horror.
Horror is my favorite genre of film and is the one that's generally most affected by what I'm about to put down here. Let's first start with an example. I'll use Saw since it so perfectly illustrates what I'm getting at.

I've gone over this movie more than once. It's a great film. Thrilling, suspenseful, unique and engaging. Unfortunately, there are far too many sequels and no one in their right mind would ever say that any of them come close to topping the first. In fact, most people who praise this movie emphasize that the sequels should be ignored all together (me, for instance).
So what is it about the first film that the succeeding ones never got? Every new movie was desperately trying to top the original by way of increasing the body count, violence, upping the stakes or whatever else to make the new movie seem bigger (or crazier). This is a woefully common trend in horror movie sequels that ultimately leads to the absurd, over-the-top and generally hated conclusions. Of course Saw is far from being a unique case. Other series's that come readily to mind are Scream, Halloween, Texas Chainsaw Massacre (sort of), From Dusk Till Dawn, The Hills Have Eyes, Lake Placid, Friday the 13th, Child's Play, The Fly, Nightmare on Elm Street, Children of the Corn, The Final Destination, Hellraiser and Return of the Living Dead.

(Sigh) I pass.

Yeah. Like I said, not uncommon. There are plenty of other reasons those are bad and that trend is far from being specific to horror but I'm not here to talk about sequels themselves, I've done that before. I'm just using these examples to prove a point. For each of those series's, which installment would you say is the best? Most people (and critics) would agree that it's generally the first that takes the cake.
Why?
Is it because it was the most original with it's story? Partially, yes. But I say the cause of this incongruity of quality is prudence. That's right, the age old saying that less is more.

You following so far?

Many of these series's started out indie and with poor budgets. Because of that, they had to be resourceful and come up with ways to draw the audience in that didn't involve gore or special effects. This often meant creating horror on a less literal and more psychological level. I'm not saying that Lake Placid was ever psychological horror but I think you get my point.
These two are not like oil and water however; they can be mixed, but it's seldom pulled off. Certainly deserving of honorable mention is John Carpenter's, The Thing. That movie has a great plot, relies heavily on suspense and has gore and special effects up the ass. It works almost perfectly too. The special effects make the movie feel a little lopsided just because they're so jaw-droppingly incredible.
Like I said though, that's a rare example. It's so often that those two values are exchanged. This is largely because of the disparity between the kind of writers/directors/producers that make the film. There are some who want to communicate their story and others who just want to make cash. I'm sure you can guess which kind does what.

We meet again.

But it's not always that simple. I'm not talking about just roping an audience in. Remember when I asked about which movies were more memorable? Prudence is far more effective than simply showing off with gratuity. Gratuity is amusing and it's fun to watch with your friends but when it comes down to it, a movie that operates that way will never be remembered or re-watched generations later. A movie that piques your interest with psychological tactics gets in your head and stays there. You think on it long after you've seen it and you watch it again and again to gain even one more iota of it's plot.

While the topic here is different, the message is the same I've already given. Sure, it's harder to come up with a riveting story as opposed to filling that gap with violence or whatever else but in the end, that effort is what should be given to a film. Film is an art that's respect is dwindling. You have to care about what you're creating or no one else will. Sure, you can go and make a movie that thrives off of graphic violence and special effects. It'll be entertaining but that's all it will ever be destined to be: entertaining. Only with thought and care, will a film be great. Less truly is more.

Double Standards

The perceptions and standards of different forms of media

Can you remember all the way back to two and a half weeks ago when I posted about Mass Effect 2? I had briefly talked about how the sex scenes in that game were considerably less explicit than in the first game. This was because somewhere during the three year interval between the games, the first had come under fire from the media which was claiming that the game should be banned due to it's "graphic depictions of sex, nudity and sodomy." One blogger, Kevin McCullough, said about it,
"Mass Effect can be customized to sodomize whatever, whomever, however, the game player wishes," and "with it's 'over the net' capabilities, virtual orgasmic rape is just the push of a button away."

Now, obviously, this is a load of bullshit. After the media had been met with outrage from the fanbase and the devs, they retracted their statements. It turned out (not surprisingly) that not one of these accusers had ever once played the actual game. When they were shown the footage, one of them, an author named Cooper Lawrence, stated that she "has seen episodes of Lost that are most sexually explicit."

So, why the uproar over something that a public channel rated for ages 14 and up could get away with? Mass Effect is rated M for Mature. As the "Mature" part implies, it expects it's audience to actually be mature. But what that rating means, is that the content in the game is not appropriate for gamers under the age of 17. Keep in mind that that rating is equal to the film rating, R. Furthermore, Mass Effect is a video game. The characters, and anything, depicted within the game is digitally rendered, AKA not real people. Now, it's true that animating technology is quite amazing these days. We've come a long way from...

Yeah

But that still doesn't excuse the brazen disparity in treatment between the two mediums. Why does the media hold the video game to a different standard? No one ever had an aneurism over the sex or other such graphic content on TV or in the movies; parents bitch about it every so often, but there's generally not a huge upheaval.

The true issue at work here is simply a double-standard and in this case, it happened because something is defying a preconceived notion which, conscious or not, is deeply-held. Someone got word that Mass Effect had some sexual content and ran with it, probably sensationalizing it somewhat and everyone freaked out.

Trust me, if these games were half as graphic as people claim, they'd be much more successful.

So, where is the conflict here? It comes down to the fact that the older generation, the one making all of these accusations, grew up in a time where their kid's games looked like some obscure little bricks and you had to use your imagination. Games were generally aimed at a young audience and the content of those games reflected that. Over the years, as games became more advanced, they could flesh out and try to reach older generations as well. Nowadays, games have the power to shoot for any audience, there's no taboo on an M rated game, but despite this, the generation that knew the first games still holds that image in their mind. They unconsciously expect games to still be for kids. Therefore, the idea of explicit content seems abhorrant.

It begs the question, if the older generation can't handle some sex, but the younger one can and can just move on with their life, which is the more mature?

Behold, the most explicit frame in the entire trilogy.

This doesn't apply just to the realm of video games, although that is one area where it may be the most prevalent. Another area that a censure is held is anime. It's quite true that these days, anime has much more freedom than it did. There are plenty of no-barred, TV-MA shows that you can find.

Fucking ahem

Of course, it wasn't always this way. Back in the 80's, Dragonball Z had first came to the states. The infamous Canadian crew, Ocean, was responsible for the atrocious original english translation and dub of the show. Considerably less admonished, but still prevalent, is the horrible censorship of it; my personal favorite example is in one of the movies, Bardock's entire squadron was murdered by traitors and all he has to say is, "Those... meatheads!"

The older generation at that point was familiar with children's cartoons. The thought of having an animated show aimed at adults seemed silly. In other places, namely Japan, the medium had already reached an older audience, so shows like Dragonball Z were designed accordingly. If you've ever seen DBZ subbed, then you know that just about every other word is "damn". Regardless, the American culture refused to recognize that and the script was rewritten and scenes were cut to accomodate the young audience.

Now, I'm not condemning children's cartoons. Over time, people were slowly able to adapt to the idea of having a sophisticated and mature anime. It took anime a very long time for it to be taken seriously in the western hemisphere and it still isn't truly respected; most people assume it's all powering up and screaming, ignorant of shows like Eden of the East or Death Note.

On that note, this sort of standard is not simply for violence and sex, it also applies in the plot. Video games are at a point where they're finally starting to be taken seriously. That's why games like Heavy Rain can even be made.

That's a very high-brow and adult game. Games have come very far from charming fantasies like Mario or Zelda. Now, those games are great, no one disputes that. They're kids games but can be enjoyed by any age group. This generation of gaming is significant because it's debatably the first where sophisticated games like Heavy Rain and Mass Effect, that are geared towards a mature adult audience, can also see commercial success.

So, is this standard exclusive to anime and video games? No. It applies to cinema as well only in this case it's in reverse. In the modern day, movies are generally rather grounded in reality. Even the ones that aren't, the science fiction and fantasy, moviegoers have a hard time suspending their disbelief. They'll endlessly nitpick at films that have even trivial "mistakes" such as an unrealistic moment. Movies like Godzilla are unwatchable to a western audience; they just can't let themselves enjoy it. It's great to see that movies today can be as intellectual as they are, but it seems that you can never have both ends of the spectrum.

What could be done to refine the gaming standards? Making more games like Mass Effect and Heavy Rain. Over time, the generations will change, and the ones who are familiar with games such as this, will be used to the idea of a mature game and no one will freak out over trivial things like they did with Mass Effect.

Am I saying that all games should be full of violence and sex? No. Am I saying that all movies should be dumbed down? No. I just hate the idea of any medium being limited due to any sort of established precept. You shouldn't have to be forced to restrain a story based on some set of unwritten parameters. These mediums are often about expression. I'm not begrudging those "rules" because I want to see more graphic alien porn. The bigger picture is about the freedom. Throughout history, things like art and literature have been shunned due to this sort of conduct. It's unfortunate that similar things happen today. It's the kind of thing that can only be changed over time.

My Thoughts On CGI

You may have noticed that I've complained about this before

That is you would if you existed, viewer. I warn you, this is going to be a rant and it'll probably get pretty long so, prepare your body. CGI stands for Computer-Generated-Imagery. What I (and most people) refer to when they talk about it these days, is it's use in cinema. Modern-day technology has allowed filmakers to enhance movies by editing images on-screen or editing in completely inorganic objects that never existed in the first place. I have strong opinions toward this technology and I've wanted to get it down on 'paper' for awhile now. This is a large topic, so I suppose I'll dissect it and approach the topic one point at a time. Let's get started.

It ages faster than Julian Glover in The Last Crusade

Star Wars is one of my all-time favorite movies. Many people would agree with me, I'm sure. Star Wars is a good example of a movie that ages well. It still feels relevant in today's society, the story is still compelling and the special effects, though a little dated, do not detract from the movie itself. I don't mind black and white or silence in a movie, but I admit that certain moments in old movies can be hard to watch when they were being a little too ambitious for the time (Watch any Alfred Hitchock movie that involves a falling moment). One of the big reasons I don't like CG, is the rate at which it causes movies to age. Movies made now have a much shorter lifespan than movies made several decades ago. Don't believe me? When was the last time you watched the movie I, Robot?

I remember liking this movie a lot when I first saw it. It came out in 2004 which is, now, just under a decade ago. It's an interesting take on the robot apocalypse whereas, rather than go for a Terminator style, all out war, it's about a one that almost happened. I rediscovered this movie last year, remembered how much I liked it before, and popped it in the DVD player with some friends. We ended up turning it off partway through because the CG was laughably poor. This movie way overdid it with the CG, and now, only nine years later, it's practically unwatchable because you're sitting there, trying to ignore it the whole time. It may be hard to see that, even just by looking at pictures from the movie, until you see it in motion.

 This blew my mind because I remember thinking this exact thing when I was first watching it.

"People say that someday special effects in movies like this will look bad, but there's no way that could be because the effects in this movie are so incredible!

Yeah, I was that naive. I knew that all movie eventually look dated but I never would've dreamed that that would happen within ten years. And movies like Watchmen, which came out in 2009, only four years ago, are already starting to show their years. That's depressing, because I really like these movies but I know that they'll all suffer the same fate.

Sure, other movies look dated, as I said before, but often those were only moments within the movie rather than a constant annoyance. I just don't understand, why would anyone make a movie that they know is going to look bad in just a few years?

Bad Vibes

There's something that needs to be said about the atmosphere of a movie that 'overkills it' with the CG. There's a very different feeling that you get from a movie like that versus a movie that is more prudent with it. A movie that only uses CG when it needs to, feels more organic, more geared towards an adult audience and it feels like there was more time and effort put into it. A movie that overuses CG often feels more childlike, unrealistic and shoddy. There's a big difference in a movie that had a lot of thought, time and detail compared to one that was just, made. It's just a whole different feeling when the crew actually went on site, did all kinds of stunts and used innovative special effects.

Quality over...?

If there's one thing about CG it's that, to be pulled off, it has to be done well. What I mean is, movies that just don't have the budget shouldn't try. But yet, many still do. Take any sci-fi B-Movie and you'll see what I'm talking about. CG is very expensive and it can be painful to see a movie with no money attempt it.

Ever seen this movie?

Not that necessary to begin with

The thing I hate most about CG is it's lack of pure necessity. Take a series like The Lord of the Rings. Most people I know like those movies and even if you don't, you cannot deny that they were very well done. The true secret to the success of those films is the detail. Sure, you need CG for the trolls, the fiery volcanoes, dragons, enormous cities and armies, thousands of soldiers strong. That all makes sense to me. CG is a good substitute for animatronics, puppetry, minis, and thousands of extras. Other than that, the films built sets, shot on site, costumed... all sorts of things. The orcs for instance wore masks and makeup and every piece of armor in the films was hand made (fun fact: all of the chain-mail in the movies were linked by hand by the crew). All of that work was what made those movies legendary. People may argue, "What if you don't want to do all of that work?" My answer is that you should. People always bitch about movies today and how they suck. Wanna know why? Well, there are dozens of reasons, but one big one is the lack of such effort. Movies should be made with detail and care because that's what it takes to make a great movie.

A matter of morality

This kind of goes along with my previous point. This is probably the most frivolous of points I will make but it still holds true to an extent. When you watch a movie, old ones in particular, it's almost like a cinematic magic. You see incredible wonders executed flawlessly on screen and you just sit there and think, "How in God's name did they do that?" Movies like the 30's King Kong are a great testament to that sort of work. They invented new techniques for that movie and now it's all CG. I'll see a trailer for a movie that includes scenes that, I guess, are supposed to make me go "woaaaah" but I never do anymore because I know it's all CG. I know every trick. It's like the magicians always say, "It's no fun if you know how it works." Contrary to that, there are still plenty of movies that use conventional means of  special effects that go unnoticed because anyone who saw them assumes it's just CG. Take Inception for instance. The scene with the water shooting into the building, the crazy gravity in the hallway, the exploding street and several other memorable moments were not CG, but you wouldn't know that.

I've mentioned before about how in LOTR, the Hobbits were made to look smaller by way of crazy forced perspective shots whereas in the new movie, The Hobbit, they're just superimposed via CG. Yay.

To set the record straight

I don't despise any use of CGI, not at all. What I'm against is the overkill of CG in the interest of not having to put out as much effort. That's being lazy and yes, I know CG is difficult to animate and yadda yadda so is anything, but that's not the point. Conventional special effects are dying out, and that's a sad thing to me and to cinema in general. CG should be used as a tool, not a crutch. It's great for touching-up, adding in sequences that would've otherwise been impossible and other such things, but it should never be used to the extremes that it is. I can't even get excited about new science fiction movies these days like Oblivion, because I know it'll look more like a videogame than anything else.

And you don't want that.

My only hope is that because CG is indeed new(ish), that this is only a passing trend in modern movies, that will eventually die out. I'll just keep crossing my fingers.