Why do people continue to insist on lamenting how horrible the world has become? Were things really that much better 10, 100, or 1,000 years ago? Take it from an American of African descent, "the past" does not equal "a better time".
And on the subject horrible things in the world, I'm also pretty tired of the question "but what can we do about it?" Why do people even ask that question? Is it meant to be rhetorical? People ask this all the time, as if it's a mantra meant to absolve them of any guilt for having sat on their asses and never making any attempt to do something about the horror in the world. People, don't worry about how grand your actions are, just DO SOMETHING. No one said we have to be omnipotent in order to affect change. Do you really think you have to be able to throw lightening bolts or walk on water to have the power to affect someone's life? Do you really think it requires extraordinary circumstances in order to have an opportunity to make a difference?
Let me put it this way. Have you ever seen a skyscraper? Who in their right mind would believe one person could build something like that. Now think about how things like that actually get built. Welders, cement workers, electricians, and a multitude of other professionals show up and simply do the one thing they're good at. They contribute their unique skills, at a specific point in time, in specific areas. Over time, with each of them doing their part, a vacant patch of land becomes home to an immense structure.
Put another way, this is how all change in our history has come about. Everyone points to historical figures as "great men" with the ability to shape the world. These people are simply architects who applied established standards in unique ways. It was the small actions of the average person that constitute the change those "great men" are credited with.
Anyone who has ever had an idea as to what can be done to eliminate horrors such as those I posted from happening could be the next Martin Luther King or Mohandas Gandhi or Mother Theresa. The difference between them and the average person? The number of people willing to actually DO what needs to be done, versus the number of people who simply throw up their hands, overwhelmed at the prospect of doing more than simply talking about how horrible the world can be.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
High tech, low brow
I've recently watched as people have discussed the relative merits of video games that place their emphasis on shooting things or blowing them up. These games, commonly referred to as "shooters" are touted or panned, depending upon how original they are, with their proponents forever looking to avoid games that become "formulaic," copying the successful elements of past games.
With apologies to fans of this genre of video game, ALL shooters are formulaic. Enemy. Weapons. Terrain. All with a vaguely story-like framework to hold it together. Once you've played one, you've played them ALL. And no, I do not differentiate between, say HALO and Call of Duty. In the context of the broad potential games have in this era of technology, that would simply be splitting hairs, not comparing separate experiences.
But this is not what disappoints me about video games.
One source of irritation for me is the fact that video games are one of the last bastions of misogyny, gleefully flashing the same tired, juvenile, knuckle-dragging mentality that causes every comic book heroine to look like they just stepped out of the Playboy Mansion.
Game designers remind me of fashion designers: all women are essentially the representation of the early-developing girls these guys pined over when they first hit puberty: leggy, skinny, busty, with no hips. Either that, or they simply enjoy imagining 14-year-old boys with long hair and boobs. These are not realistic representations of women; they are simply a remnant of the pre-adolescent longings of geeks and horndogs.
In my life, I've seen one...ONE...game in which a woman was prominently featured and became a fully fleshed-out character rather than the product of a wet dream. For anyone with access to an X-Box, get the game Beyond Good & Evil. It was left in the dust because Splinter Cell and Prince of Persia were released at around the same time, but it remains every bit the equal of these games.
I mention this because, among other things, I am continually disgusted by the stereotypes I see constantly in video games. Like the Academy Awards, where the surest path to a nomination is to play a whore or an adulteress, women can't seem to appear in video games without being victims in need of rescue, ass-kicking men in the bodies of hot busty babes, side-kicks that serve as a moral compass for the player-hero, or some combination/permutation of those same, tired stereotypes.
This is one reason why even my extreme love for this entertainment genre hasn't sustained a fanatical interest in playing these games: the wondrous achievements in technology we all rave about and admire have yet to be equaled by comparable achievements in writing and characterization. Why do we get James Cameron-level technology to look at, but are still forced to suffer through Nickelodeon-level plots?
As of last year, the American video game industry surpassed the American movie industry in terms of revenue. Unfortunately, while motion pictures consistently manage to rise to the level of art, video games are still mired in the muck. I am not the only adult waiting for video games designed to push the boundaries of what is possible with story and interaction. If designers would only look beyond boobs, blood, and body counts, I might actually consider spending more money on games rather than cable, movies, or DVDs.
In the mean time, on the eve of the release of yet more sequels to such gore fests as God of War, Grand Theft Auto, Resident Evil, and other mind-numbingly repetitive games, I'll take a pass and keep on walking. At least Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen ends the pain after $8 and two hours of your time. Who needs to spend $300 on a game system and $50 on a title just to suffer through 20-30 hours of story even more shallow than that?
With apologies to fans of this genre of video game, ALL shooters are formulaic. Enemy. Weapons. Terrain. All with a vaguely story-like framework to hold it together. Once you've played one, you've played them ALL. And no, I do not differentiate between, say HALO and Call of Duty. In the context of the broad potential games have in this era of technology, that would simply be splitting hairs, not comparing separate experiences.
But this is not what disappoints me about video games.
One source of irritation for me is the fact that video games are one of the last bastions of misogyny, gleefully flashing the same tired, juvenile, knuckle-dragging mentality that causes every comic book heroine to look like they just stepped out of the Playboy Mansion.
Game designers remind me of fashion designers: all women are essentially the representation of the early-developing girls these guys pined over when they first hit puberty: leggy, skinny, busty, with no hips. Either that, or they simply enjoy imagining 14-year-old boys with long hair and boobs. These are not realistic representations of women; they are simply a remnant of the pre-adolescent longings of geeks and horndogs.
In my life, I've seen one...ONE...game in which a woman was prominently featured and became a fully fleshed-out character rather than the product of a wet dream. For anyone with access to an X-Box, get the game Beyond Good & Evil. It was left in the dust because Splinter Cell and Prince of Persia were released at around the same time, but it remains every bit the equal of these games.
I mention this because, among other things, I am continually disgusted by the stereotypes I see constantly in video games. Like the Academy Awards, where the surest path to a nomination is to play a whore or an adulteress, women can't seem to appear in video games without being victims in need of rescue, ass-kicking men in the bodies of hot busty babes, side-kicks that serve as a moral compass for the player-hero, or some combination/permutation of those same, tired stereotypes.
This is one reason why even my extreme love for this entertainment genre hasn't sustained a fanatical interest in playing these games: the wondrous achievements in technology we all rave about and admire have yet to be equaled by comparable achievements in writing and characterization. Why do we get James Cameron-level technology to look at, but are still forced to suffer through Nickelodeon-level plots?
As of last year, the American video game industry surpassed the American movie industry in terms of revenue. Unfortunately, while motion pictures consistently manage to rise to the level of art, video games are still mired in the muck. I am not the only adult waiting for video games designed to push the boundaries of what is possible with story and interaction. If designers would only look beyond boobs, blood, and body counts, I might actually consider spending more money on games rather than cable, movies, or DVDs.
In the mean time, on the eve of the release of yet more sequels to such gore fests as God of War, Grand Theft Auto, Resident Evil, and other mind-numbingly repetitive games, I'll take a pass and keep on walking. At least Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen ends the pain after $8 and two hours of your time. Who needs to spend $300 on a game system and $50 on a title just to suffer through 20-30 hours of story even more shallow than that?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
