 Malik
(11/12/04)
There is some real
news this week, so without further ado, let's get this
rolling. I'm Malik and I'll be you host this evening.
Finally, It's That
Time Again
At the beginning
of the week, MSNBC.com
ran a column about the evils of GTA:SA and how it glamorizes
gang life...and all I can say is that I'm happy to see this type of
bullshit. After struggling to find content for my columns for the
last 2 months, this is the type of completely ignorant and pointless
bullshit that makes me feel glad to be alive.
Basically, MSNBC's
column goes into detail on how, with rising numbers of gang members
(real life stuff here), increased gang violence, and how the world
is basically going to shit, that GTA:SA serves as a perfect form of
encouragement, since this game glamorizes the world of gang life.
That only leaves me with two thoughts; The first being how glad I am
to have this type of bullshit to bitch about, and the second thought
is more along the lines of...what game are they talking about?
For those who
haven't played it, or have not played far into it (spoiler free, for
the most part), GTA:SA is the story of a former gang member, CJ, who
returns home from the east coast (to the west coast) to find all of
his friends have been dying, his former gang is in decline, and his
mom has been murdered. So, CJ starts rolling with his former gang,
again. The first dozen missions show how CJ is treated like shit for
his former abandonment of his gang. The next few missions show his
life picking up again and things starting to get better (but not yet
good). Then, he gets manipulated by the police, his friends all
betray him, his brother is (slight spoiler, very slight) thrown into
prison, he becomes a tool of the government (on top of the cops
using him), he gets bruised, beaten, abused, manipulated some more,
forced to do some really tedious and boring shit (like taking pilot
lessons) under threat of his brother being killed...it all just gets
worse and worse with each new mission. Plus, the only real
satisfaction he can get in his station in life is not from his gang
life (as he starts to hunt his friends and get betrayed over and
over again), but rather from his financial investments...you see, at
one point, CJ's sister decides to set him and another gang member on
the straight and narrow to rise up out of the ghetto.
In fact (true, I'm
still mid game, and don't know the ultimate ending of CJ's journey),
in the end, it looks like the road of living a more responsible life
is the ultimate reward. I mean, whenever CJ tried to live the thug
lifestyle, he only got pushed further and further from his goal of
living free and easy. It is only when he starts to take some
responsible roles (well, more responsible than the gang life) that
he starts to earn real money, and then to earn real opportunities.
Plus, the most influential person in his life, being his sister, is
constantly reminding him to forget his past in crime and to just
work for the real betterment of himself.
So, what damned
game is MSNBC.com talking about? There is no game I know of that
shows how glamorous the gang lifestyle is. In fact, SA only shows
how hard, how unrewarding, and how dangerous it is. Plus, it shows
how when in the gang life, betrayal is a dude who walks up and kicks
CJ in the nuts every other mission. Now, if this crap wasn't bad
enough for MSNBC.com (and some "experts") to be crying
about, there's more;
What the hell is
this talk of how GTA:SA is the same technology that is used to train
American armed forces? I've been playing GTA:SA non-stop since the
25th of October, and the only lesson I've learned in how to fire or
reload a weapon is this; to fire a weapon, I first should auto-aim
with the R1 button (I still don't know where the R1 is on a real
AK...but once I learn...), and then I pull the L1 button (I think
it's the trigger shaped button), and then I use R2 and L2 to lock
onto another person (need to find those too), and once my current
clip is empty, I'll automatically reload the weapon on instinct.
Yup, I'm a natural born killer. However, I need to point out
something; I've been playing violent games for the last 20 years
(and non-violent ones for two or three years before that), so I've
had a lot of practice. Also, something else I must admit; I'm being
so damned sarcastic (I feel like I had to mention that since people,
as seen in this news article in question, are too ignorant of life
to catch the finer points of reality).
Also, another
funny point that MSNBC tries to make is how an act of virtual
violence can lead to desensitization to real violence. I don't know
what f%^$ing psychotic maniacs they tried this theory on, but from
what I've seen, I can say two things;
There are usually
two types of people in the world; those who can and those who can't
kill. This isn't just for killing people, but for killing anything
warm-blooded. Those who can, usually will have no problem with
virtual violence, while those who can't usually will have no problem
with virtual violence. I mean, no matter how nicely detailed
Rockstar tries to make a new GTA game, it still looks fake (not an
insult to R* by any means). Plus, the player should be able to
understand that there is no pain and suffering as seen in a real act
of violence.
The second thing I
can say is this; I have killed more people in GTA games than I know
of anyone else killing in a GTA game (I am obsessed with these
games). Also, I am a giant pacifist (I hate the harming of
anything...it's not a religious type of thing, but I simple made a
moral decision in life to not harm anything...I mean, to summarize
my philosophy in this; life is not something that can be returned,
so treat it with respect). So, how, if violent games (and GTA is one
of the most violent series) cause people to be desensitized to
violence, can I (a huge GTA fan) be living a moral path that says to
not kill is MSNBC's article is correct? I'm not the only person, I
personally know, who has these same views on GTA (being teh roxor)
and violence (being teh gay).
Solution
In the end, there
are a few obvious facts. The first and most important one is that
any person who lives a violent life should stop. However, it is also
needed to be seen that if a person lives a violent life, it will not
be due to a game. While said person could try to use GTA:SA as
justification for their lifestyle, it is only an excuse (not a
reason). I mean they were doing it before GTA:SA came out, and
they'll keep doing it after the next GTA comes out and gang life in
GTA is no longer new and cool. I mean, the easiest excuses one can
make are stemmed from something current, popular, and easy for a
large audience to understand. Plus, an excuse is simply something
people will use when they don't want authority figures and peers to
think something along the lines of "Billy had no excuse, so he
did
because he's a f$%#ed up psycho".
Secondly, video
games, with their unique control pads, are not able to teach (well,
not clearly with any games that have actually been released) how to
use a firearm. There is no real trigger on a PS2 control, there is
no place to pull out an old clip and put in a fresh one. It's just a
simple fact.
Thirdly, people
who commit acts of violence do not do them for any reason beyond
having some problems with understanding how other people perceive
pain, what us moral and amoral, etc. In other words, these people
need treatment for psychological disorders. They don't need to sue a
game designer for millions because the game warped their fragile
little mind...their minds were warped long before GTA:SA, GTA:VC,
GTA3, Mortal Kombat, or whatever other violent game, ever came into
their lives.
Fourth, this type
of bull shit news reporting is exactly the type of shit that puts a
social stigma on us geeks. This type of "news" on how
games turn people into psychotic gang members from hell who know the
workings of every weapon ever made is nothing short of slander on
the name of gaming. It not only slanders gaming, but it slanders us
geeks who choose to get our enjoyment from gaming. I've been playing
the most violent of games for about 80-85% of my life (literally),
and I have never acted out in a violent manner due to the games I
play. I am not alone in this. Slandering gamers is not the
solution...it's just another problem.
The Ignorance
Astounds Me
So, in another
article, that is way behind the times, at
MSNBC.com, they tackle the several month old issue of how there
are too many major releases hitting the shelves at once. The one
problem is that not only is this coverage really hella late, but
they seem to remain ignorant of every possible aspect of this
definite problem.
First off, they
chose to ignore some major releases on their calendar of the most
anticipated games for November. Yes, Halo 2, Half Life 2, blah,
blah, are all highly anticipated, but isn't there also the DS? I
mean if you're writing a news story on how there are too many things
coming out at once, why not make your point as evident as possible
by including the (enter: sarcasm) easy to forget items that are so
forgettable that you can't even pre-order them anymore (exit:
sarcasm). Actually, the DS is so over-sold right now that you cannot
pre-order one due to the lack of supply to meet the excessive
demand. I mean, I don't think Vampire can exactly have that same
thing be said about it...nor, The Urbz.
With how ignorant
MSNBC's story is, they cannot even see that there is a problem to
speak of. Which there definitely is. Not only will it be a burden on
the entertainment of us geeks, since we will not be able to play
everything, and a lot of the less publicized titles will go so far
under the radar and will, thus, sell so poorly that the future of
sequels being released in the US may just be a fact less fantasy.
For example, Katamari Damacy snuck under the radar, and will
probably never have a sequel released in the US. Or there is Phantom
Brave, which is probably selling far less than it should due to the
abundance of big name games that have come out around the same
time...which could effect the number of copies released for future
NIS (the developer of PB) games in the US.
In fact, this
whole season is going to cause business problems for countless game
industry related companies. The major developers and publishers
should do quite well (despite lower sales than they could have
achieved at another time of year), but the smaller companies who had
the foresight to schedule a release for near the holiday season (and
then got screwed by Square, ID, etc, releasing delayed games at this
time of year) are only going to stand to lose. No matter how well PB,
for example, does, it will not be nearly as well as it would have
done if released in the middle of a game-drought.
When a game sells
well, it can change the entire outlook for a smaller publisher or
developer. For example, when NIS had Disgaea published in the US, it
was a quite limited release. However, when La Pucelle (another NIS
title) was released in the US, it sold so well that Disgaea was
re-released with a much larger printing of new DVDs compared to the
original release. The also works the other way; if a game does
really poorly, then the company will try to keep it's possible
losses smaller on the next round of games, and thus future games
will receive a smaller release.
Not only is MSNBC
showing, in this article, how the only "problem" is how we
have too many outlets for fun, but they also show gaming culture is
an ignorant and retarded light. I personally hate these news stories
that show geeks as stereotyped geeks...yeah, all we discuss
is;
"Half-Life
2" is going to suck. No, it's awesome. And when is it coming
out, again?
True, some of us
who are 6 (the ones who are likely to have their caps lock stuck on
when they type) may talk like this. However, a good deal of geeks
are actually quite pissed about this situation...not excited with
the prospect of so many fun games at once.
Solution
Ok, first off,
different serious sources of news (like CNN, MSNBC, etc) need to lay
off trying to translate how geek culture is to the yuppie crowds. I
mean, I could liken myself as a geek news source and I could try to
write a news story about yuppies, but I'm not so full of myself to
pretend to know anything about how the business minded think. I
don't know what a 401-K is beyond it being something I should put
money in but I'm too damned poor to afford to. I don't know the merits
of a Lexis versus a BMW versus a Jaguar (unless we're talking about
a Jaguar that has 64 pseudo-bits of processing power and a CD drive
that makes it look like a toilet). I sure as hell don't know why I
would want On-Star (which is expensive) in my car to tell me where
to drive to when I could just go to Yahoo Maps and find out for
free. So, in short, I'm not going to try to bullshit my way through
writing about someone I know nothing about, so these damned
close-minded yuppies should back off and leave the geek perspective
to us geeks.
Secondly, as I
keep saying, this season needs to NEVER happen again. This is bad
for business (which MSNBC's story never even touched...way to skip
the real news part of this story!), bad for those of us who want
more than just the major releases, and bad for those of us who don't
like the thought of going in debt just to play the games we want to
play. There is no silver lining. None. As for those of us who try to
play all of the good games at once by pre-ordering them ahead of
time to afford them all...well, these people are going to have some
rather warped opinions of the games from this season when they
manage to play only about 3-5 hours of each title.
Thirdly, news is
supposed to be just that; news. It is not news when it's been
discussed for the last 3 months. It is not news when the views are
all so warped and distorted that they no longer match reality. It is
definitely not news when the important information is ignored and
only the pandering to the masses is left intact.
I think that G4
and MSNBC should team up, so a final low can be achieved in geek
news...then, they should both go to hell and leave us all alone.
Security That's
Too Secure or How To Be An Ass
I know it is a
rare situation in today's world to have a highly advanced PC that
could run all the latest games (like Doom 3 and Half-Life 2) and
still be without Internet...incredibly rare...yet, I do know a
several instances, first-hand. The reason I'm bringing this up, is
because, with Half-Life going out in a few hours (probably before
this is even posted), this is actually a pretty big issue for gamers
who don't have Internet (and don't view that as a problem).
You see, as
mentioned many times before (including this
link at Gamespot.com), in order to prevent piracy and to control
illegal access to HL2, Valve decided to require an authenification
process during the installation. This process requires the computer
to connect to Steam (Valve's one-stop-does-it-all online
utility/store) to make sure this is the only copy of HL2 from said
CD/DVD. It's a lot like with how Microsoft requires a PC to go
online to authorize use of Windows XP within 15 days of XP's install
(except, there is a tighter time limit for HL2...it's when you
install, or you're not going to play).
This is yet
another example with PC games of requiring further and further
system requirements than what should be expected from an average PC
owner...and definitely a greater requirement than should be needed
from a gamer who may only want to play the single player game.
I bet some of you
are probably thinking something along the lines of; if you have that
high end of a PC to actually handle HL2, then you have Internet,
obviously. Well, this is quite true in a lot of areas, as long as
you have the money. However, in some areas, phone lines are too old
and run down to handle dial-up Internet connections (these areas
usually have trouble handling a simple phone call...and, yes, they
do exist). Usually, the only option available, in these poor phone
areas, would be to go with cable for Internet. However, many people
who live in areas this rustic don't do so because they are loaded.
Usually these are economical areas to live, and if you're living in
such an area, then you probably can't afford otherwise. In which
case, the cost of cable Internet, which depending on your home area,
could be quite costly...more costly than you can afford (my cable
Internet is about $50 and going up each freakin' year thanks to
Comcast and their insatiable greed).
Another example;
some people only have cell phones (I'll soon join said ranks since I
can't stand how my land-line number has been handed out to every
damned charity, company, business, political organization,
load-consolidator, blah, blah...and no, the "Do Not Call
List" can't do shit if these people have had anything
resembling business with you in the past or if these asses are
political- or charity-based). These people can live about anywhere.
Now, there are many rural areas that can now handle cell phones but
still cannot properly handle cable (cable companies are a lot slower
to expand than cell networks). Once again, Internet is going to be
quite costly and annoying to just install one freakin' game...and
then to do it again when your computer crashes or you decide to
uninstall it and then change your mind.
That's the other
problem; it's not a one time thing. It is about the opposite. I have
never seen a single PC run smoothly enough to not have to reinstall
a very high end program (like HL2) during it's entire lifespan.
Also, most geeks are rather bad with priorities and attention spans.
For example, a geek will install HL2, get tired of it a month later,
and then want to reinstall it again because a new mod came along or
a new person started to play again, blah, blah.
Solution
My problem is
simply that requirements for PC games are climbing not only quicker
than the technology becomes affordable...nope...it's that some
programs now require parts, procedures, etc, that are not even
needed. If I buy a game like HL2 and didn't have Internet, I would
feel ripped off. Internet is not a cheap thing, and to get access
just for a one time install is bullshit. Most ISPs cannot be
canceled immediately after you join them or you will have contract
termination fees. This is nothing more than Valve becoming paranoid
and not thinking of how they phobias will affect their
customers.
Just because their
game got pirated at one point, and the source-code was stolen last
year, they have taken it out on everyone. First off, a source-code
theft is no excuse for delaying a game so much (of which, it was
probably just a timely excuse to cover up that they were behind
schedule and would need to delay the game anyway), and it's no
excuse for anger towards the world. One can run their life or
company or whatever in one of two ways...you can either live in fear
and expect the worst of everyone, which will make you look like some
idiot with his head up his arse, or you could just have a little
faith and trust in people (still remain cautious, but don't abuse
the innocent).
Conclusion
I started off, as
usual, thinking there would be no news this week worth bitching
about (again). I'm just glad that I had forgotten the stupidity and
ignorance of the people who try to shape out world. I mean there is
nothing to pick up my Bitchings like people telling me how I'm an
evil ass who only cares about torturing and maiming small children
and furry animals because of my fondness of GTA:SA. Plus, it helps
to see that people try to justify their existence with a video
game..."I'm a gang-banger because of GTA:SA"...imagine
that with any other games ("I roll this ball around trying to
pick shit up for a living because of Katamari Damacy" or
"I'm trying to build a giant robot because of Xenogears...by
the way, I'm the slayer of god!"). It's so damned absurd. Plus,
when you throw in yuppies trying to understand geek culture, and
game companies once again forgetting that their audience does not
work for a living to simply pay for their addiction to your games, I
feel like a gang-banger playing GTA:SA (that's sarcasm)...like my
work is being validated. Blah. So
feel free to write
me or put it on the forums,
if you think you've got something to add.
Malik
|
