Where there's money there's bias

A long, long time ago I came to the realisation that almost all mainstream award shows carry no weight to what is truly great. When there are obvious biases, agendas or picketing involved in getting the winner across the line then why would you even care what the result is?

As a classic example we have The Last of Us Part 2. A game where (I would estimate) at least 50% of fans from the first one did not enjoy playing. Dare I say it, I don't think even Naughty Dog enjoyed making it, considering the multi-year 48+ hour-week crunch to get it across the line. Personally I think the sequel was always in for an up-hill battle considering the first TLOU ended so perfectly. In the wonderful PC/SJW-compliant world we now live in, Naughty Dog (or should I say the simp going by the name of Druckmann) went full woke and created an agenda-laden game which subverts expectations so he could try and feel smart. Perhaps I'm not seeing the point but a game's main purpose should be to entertain you, shouldn't it? Having to play through forced set-pieces involving killing dogs, torture porn, sex scenes (you would rather not be involved in) and characters you wish you did not have to murder (or save) is not my idea of a good time. Maybe in a post-apocalyptic world this is seen as entertainment - but we're not quite there ... just yet.

 

And all would be fine if this game just faded away into the ether of things I do not care about - but, oh no, somehow they thought we should all recognise this masterpiece in mediocrity. And the people spoke and Druckmann was welcomed by the cold, hard facts of reality of the people preferring another game (a really, really good one at that.)

 

And then we have the 'actual' video game awards (where judges account for 90% of the final vote.) To note: Sushi Ghost did not win as much as it should have. And that is that. I put far more weight in the public's vote because, even if certain people have an agenda, any personal biases are washed away by the power of numbers. I played through (the much-awarded) God of War (at a deeply discounted price) and I still maintain that the game really isn't much fun. It's a beautifully produced game which has some fun puzzles opening chests ... and that's about it. The gameplay was boring, annoying and a slog and I got no enjoyment from hanging out with Boy - even the Blades of Chaos weren't enough to warm me up. The end-game conclusion also was dissatisfying and I can honestly say that outside of production, graphics and sound design that game should not have won much else. This was not a fun game to play and, really, isn't that the point of games: to be entertained?

The saga continues (Oh, Microsoft)

On the quest to make my PC all parts ninja I bought a 240Hz variable-refresh-rate monitor. Considering that when you plug a monitor into your PC it does a little handshake to tell the PC which resolutions and refresh rates it supports, you would think that Windows 10 would be smart enough to realise that you wish to use the highest and fastest refresh rate your monitor allows.

 

 

Apparently Microsoft doesn't think so, because your ninja monitor will be set to 60Hz by default. For many less tech-savvy users they will be placebo'd into thinking that their high-refresh-rate monitor is amazing - while only gaming at 60Hz. Even if you have a frame counter stating that you're hitting 200+ FPS (frames per second), if Windows 10 hasn't been enabled to utilize 240Hz, you will still only be playing at 60 FPS. And if you look at your display settings, there isn't any clear indicator of what refresh rate your monitor is running because Microsoft, in their infinite wisdom, decided that displaying the refresh rate of your monitor was too technical - just because. For those who are wondering, here are the steps you need to walk through to get to the monitor refresh rate:

• Open Settings → Display Settings
• Click on Advanced Display Settings (scroll down)
• Click on Display Adapter properties
• Click on Monitors tab
• View/Adjust the refresh rate from the drop-down

 

It's only in that last step that you can even see which refresh rate you're currently using. This seems so ... unnecessary and, really, it is. I don't know of anyone who would use a lesser refresh rate for their target resolution so why does Windows 10 default to 60Hz in the first place? I guess a few years back 60Hz monitors were the standard but as we all know the times, they are a-changing and it seems clear that Microsoft hasn't yet got the memo.

 

twitch triggered

Ever since I was a young lad I was one of those people who enjoyed going to the arcades to watch people play fighting games well. I vicariously played the game the way it was meant to be played - even if my skills weren't quite as stratospheric. At the downfall of the venerable arcade scene (circa 2000's) we all moved indoors to play multiplayer games - but I at least still wished for a medium where I could watch people play games competently. And this was where twitch stepped in. And all was good in this world - up until now.

Perhaps it was the level of moochers or perhaps it is the ever-driving desire to wring every last dollar out of the unwashed masses but Twitch in recent weeks has made a serious misstep. In the early days it was relatively easy to watch a Twitch channel and get some instant entertainment - and possibly a few ads every few hours or so. This is no longer the case. Now, if I click on an unsubscribed (i.e. unpaid) channel I am greeted with an unskippable 15-second ad (or even five ads back-to-back) before I have even seen one second of this channel. This is incredibly alienating and, at least based upon my viewing habits, motivates me to avoid watching Twitch (for the most part.) 

It really disappoints me - and I would presume the content creators - that Twitch has turned to this model for making teh moneys. But, rather than simply complaining, I would suggest a few different options which may prove more palatable:

• Have the heavy-handed ad break 15 minutes into previewing the channel - that way at least you get to see whether you like the current stream
  
• Integrate the ad break into a break-out panel - rather than overriding the live stream (and missing out on clutch plays)
• Buffer any lost content while the ad is playing and then allow the viewer to fast-forward (at their own volition) or continue watching from the buffered offset
  
• Allow the channel creator full control of when ads are shown with, possibly, a minimum ad quota on an hourly basis
• Provide the Twitch viewer an x-minute window of free viewing before forcing an ad break - ideally with some kind of count-down

Dependent upon Twitch's desires to maximise ROI any of these options are better than the current solution they have in place. Unless Twitch is very careful they will lose their audience (and their content creators) to better solutions which don't have heavy-handed revenue models which penalise new viewers and dissuade you from discovering new content. 

 You have been warned, Twitch. You have been warned.

 

How not to fix racism

So, I came across an article which points out that one of the Microsoft gaming heads stated that there needs to be more black leaders ... whatever that means. My first thought, even before I even read the article was, aren't you missing the point? How exactly do you fix this 'racist gaming industry' by simply appointing a person not based upon their abilities but the colour of their skin?

Now, before you think I'm some kind of bigoted white supremacist, don't you think I have at least an iota of a point? I'd like to think I would never judge a person based upon their outward appearance but rather their actions. That is not to say that I haven't prejudged - I am human after all - but at least on a few occasions my initial prejudice has proven to be incorrect. We as a society have yet to reach the zenith of treating all humans as equal (until their actions say otherwise.) It is unfortunate that in many circumstances we have yet to even strive towards removing these biases - but that doesn't excuse taking the opposite approach of promoting <under-represented minority> for the sole reason that they are an <under-represented minority.> This is working under the misconception that every gender, race, creed and so forth should be uniformly represented in their institution ... which is fundamentally wrong.

Dave Chappelle, you genius

If you still remain unconvinced, I will point you to mathematics as your source for what should be deemed a truly unbiased representation. In mathematics, if you were to graph an unweighted and truly random distribution, you would note that with a reasonable sample size there would be perceived clumping and outliers - that is, certain areas of the graph would be perceived as being 'unfairly weighted' in comparison to other sparser sections. This is to be expected. What would not be expected, however, would be a uniform straight line distribution - this, contrarily speaking, would be perceived as a non-uniform distribution. That is not to say that it isn't possible - just that the chances of a completely balanced distribution being graphed from randomly-generated values would be astronomically unlikely.

 

By taking a truly unbiased perspective and employing, promoting and befriending based upon a persons' actions, you will truly reach a moment in humanity where biases can be set aside. That is the future I look forward to ... but I don't think I'll see in my lifetime.

Lyrical Analysis - Sister Christian

I was listening to the classic Night Ranger song 'Sister Christian' and my mind subconsciously began trying to make sense of the lyrics. By the end of the song I had come to a hilarious conclusion. Similar to the antics of Tarantino and his interpretation of the song 'Like A Virgin' I will now (perhaps) put a different slant on this song merely being about a guy hooking up with a chick.

It all begins in the opening stanza with:

 

        'Sister Christian, oh, the time has come. And you know that you're the only one' 

- so far so good - 

        'To say okay'

What? The first line feels like he has found his life partner and that they are perhaps about to exchange vows. And then this is dashed as we all know that 'okay' is not a facsimile for 'I do' but rather implies that he's referring to an opportunity to bump uglies; with uglies being the appropriate word (as you will soon see.) 

 

This guy has to be one ugly mofo. He's tried peddling his wares across town but with no luck. Even back-alley Betty wouldn't accept money for her services. That is until he gets to his sister (?) who's is presumably named Christian. I'm sure the by-product of this unholy union would be wondrous.

Then we get to the following stanza:

        'Where you going, what you looking for
        You know those boys don't want to play no more with you
        It's true'

This one is jam-packed. This implies that she's the village bicycle - who has been a few too many times around the block such that none of the boys want to ride her anymore. But he does. This implies that not only is the singer one ugly mofo; she's no oil painting, either. He points out that all that remains of the revolving gyro of male companionship is his paltry offering of congealed and rancid off-cuts which remain uneaten in the drip-tray.

 

To add insult to injury, apparently this guy still has to pay for her services with:

 

        'You're motoring, what's your price for flight?

        In finding Mister Right'

 

This dude must have a second head for the village bicycle to still require payment.

        'You'll be alright tonight'

Even with her payment procured, he still needs to give her reassurances that it won't be so terrible, in fact, it will be alright. He is neither an oil painting nor particularly adept in the bedroom department. Which probably shouldn't come as too much of a surprise if she's the only one to permit him through the gates of heaven.

The rest of the song basically repeats those lines and, with every repetition, the song becomes more hilarious. Now, if you were born beaten to a pulp with the ugly stick then I feel sorry for you but even you would have to admit that the lyrics are pretty funny.

Oh, Microsoft

You would think that with all the billions in your bank account you would direct a few more dollars towards your marketing department. Case in point: the current naming scheme of the Xbox. The first release was unimaginatively called the Xbox - or DirectX Box. For those not in the know, Windows uses DirectX for all its graphical and audio needs, and so, Xbox was basically a Windows PC which can only play games. This was then followed on by Xbox 360 ... and then the Xbox One - or X-Bone. Colour me confused - the marketeers had somehow created a new numbering system where they go from (1) to 360 and then back to one.

 

And all would be right with the world if their marketeers had just left it at that. They then decided that they would fragment the X-Bone with the X-Bone S (which is the refactored/diskless version) and X-Bone X (which is the slightly more powerful version of the stock X-Bone). They then decided that this wasn't confusing enough so the next generation of XBox will be known as - wait for it - the Xbox Series X (for the top-end version) and the Xbox Series S (which is the less powerful than the Series X and less powerful than the X-Bone X ... but with raytracing). I look forward to having parents around the world picking up the last generation X-Bone X and thinking they got a good deal on their next-gen console.

Notably, the Xbox Series X can be (puerilely) abbreviated to Xbox SeX. At this time I must think the marketeers are leaning into their five-year-old mentality - or they're taking a leaf out of Musk's playbook. Whatever the case, having two different hardware targets will cause fragmentation and result in sub-par releases for the top-end version as developers will not be arsed utilising the full capabilities of the top-end if that means having to dedicate twice the level of effort testing and optimising for two different hardware targets. Even if I'm a PlayStation fanboy, the two PS5 versions scheduled for release will utilise the same hardware for both the disk and non-disk version. There won't be any fragmentation and will result in games fully utilizing hardware (if the developer is worth their salt.) 

 I don't enjoy any company merely being successful because there's no competition - we are all better for a healthy triopoly (if you include Nintendo) as that will force all parties to do their best. I really hope that I am wrong with regards to the next-gen XBox's ... but my spider senses are tingling even now.

I blame you, Goscinny

 For those of you not in the know, he was the original writer for the classic and beloved Asterix and Obelix comics. Unbeknownst to my younger self, almost all the names were based upon real world romanified or gaulified words. Generally speaking, for the Gauls (re: French) characters usually had X's replaced for certain English words to form their names, whereas Romans had 'us' appended to similarly normal English words. For example:

• Getafix => the name associated with the village Druid
• Vitalstatistix => the name associated with their overweight village Chief
• Cacofonix => the name associated with the village bard (who cannot sing)
• Geriatrix => a very old member of the village

And then we have Asterix (the unofficial hero of the village). His name is, I believe, the main reason people pronounce * as asteriks (as opposed to asterisk.) I am pretty sure I am in the minority when I (begrudgingly) say asterisk sounds wrong. But this not the only infraction I see/hear on a regular basis. We have others like:

    vice-versa. I would say at least half the population says vice-a versa rather than vice versa

    etc. or et cetera (or and the rest in English). Almost everyone says ekt cetera.

NOTE: did you know that ampersand or & is actually et (or 'and' in English) which has been distorted and run-together? I thought that was pretty cool

All in all, if these were the worst regressions to the English language, I could let it slide. If I am in the minority, would that make me the one who is wrong? My mind recklessly recoils back to the wonderful punchline at the end of In the Mouth of Madness at this notion.

It's all jacked up ... but in a good way

So, in the pursuit of watching all of the bad/schlock movies, I was trawling through the recommended listings on Hulu (burn!) and came across a movie called 'The House That Jack Built' with Matt Dillon playing the eponymous Jack. When I discovered that this was also written and directed by Lars Von Trier, I was concerned - I did not want another Antichrist (I would strongly recommend you do not watch that movie, even if it does star William Dafoe.) For those who are not into art movements, Lars Von Trier is catnip for all those arty-farty so-and-so's and is, usually, very self-indulgent when it comes to what he chooses to present to the general public.

But - back to the movie - Jack is about a serial killer who wants to build a house. So far, so unassuming. Now, even though there have been many films which have covered serial killers, I think this is the first to do so in such an original manner. Every scene seems to cover at least one topic of commentary on either the blase approach to violence, the willingness to ignore violence (quite topical at this point in time) or perhaps the fallibility of the human psyche and its willingness to still hope for a positive outcome even while facing their impending doom (which will continue to be topical for the foreseeable future.)

Usually I can gauge a film's quality by the opening few minutes and, after said minutes, I was hooked. It starts with the story behind his first victim, Uma Thurman - but her death ends with a fascinating post-mortem dialog between Jack and what is seemingly a German psychiatrist of some kind. They talk on many aspects of the murder, tool used and also (unsurprisingly) somehow segues into a discussion on renaissance art.

Now, before you think that this movie is some heady, aloof, violence-glorifying art piece, take a step back. The writer/director also manages to inject a strong under-current of very (very) black humour. This plays out even in the initial scene where Uma plays more as the antagonist than the victim, while she verbally assaults Jack saying how he had (hypothetically) messed up his alibi when they were both seen together while fixing a broken car-jack. At this early stage Jack is conveyed simply as an enduring victim under the strong-willed and sharp-tongued determinations of Uma. If I had been presented this scene as a concept, I would not have thought it would work ... but somehow it does just that. Matt Dillon gives an Oscar-worthy performance throughout the movie as he manages to be charming, belligerent, homicidal and somehow still not unlikable to the viewer - which is no small feat. It is this common thread and perhaps the viewer's curiosity to see where the next discussion will go which keeps you invested throughout.

Even if I have painted a seemingly alluring painting, this movie is not without its share of shock-value. There are many scenes which will surely make you grimace but are somehow smoothed out by a discussion or a twist of humour - or even a few bars from 'Fame' by David Bowie. Even though a lot of the film is portrayed realistically, there is always a surrealist element playing just below the surface which perhaps softens some of the scenes and actually assists when reality breaks down in the final throes of the film. Similar to the movie The Voices, you have been primed to go along for the ride by the time it goes off the rails.

In summary, I would recommend watching this movie. This is probably one of the most original and approachable films (by Von Trier's standards) to come out in a decade - but only if you can handle the squeamish parts and see beyond merely the violence. This is a movie which is rife with symbology and does not shear away from the heady topics. Now, more than ever, this movie seems so strikingly poignant. It is well worth a discussion or two.

I am not sure what all the fuss was about

I was super excited to learn that the oscar-trumping Korean-made Parasite was now on hulu, and so, I set aside the obligatory number of hours needed to watch this masterpiece of theatre - or maybe not. Perhaps no movie could live up to the hype of best director/film/writing/international film ... but I did expect a little more than I received. For some reason I thought this was going to be a psychological horror film where the rich folks were somehow unhinged ... but I was wrong.

On the surface, it's a far-fetched story where a family of (literal) gutter-dwellers finagle their way into all working for an upper-crust family. The main themes cover the hackneyed tropes, like the one percent, classist struggles and (perhaps) some pointless nuclear bomb commentary. Maybe I didn't get the significance of the nuclear references - perhaps due to the tensions between North and South Korea - but I don't think it added anything to the story.

From a cinematic standpoint the movie was beautifully shot and, for the most part, relatively well acted. The story builds very nicely, although I don't think you should rate some of the acting or story points on a western scale. Even if I may have enjoyed watching an amazing film like Oldboy - but, at least for me, it had at least a few scenes which didn't seem like a realistic response. So, perhaps, I shouldn't be too harsh with Parasite - but I should at least list a few issues I did have:

• The rich family is really dumb and unbelievably gullible
• One man kills a man because that man is repulsed by another man's smell
• The family trashes and abuses the house of the rich family for no good reason
• The Have vs Have-Not allegories are bludgeoned into you to the point of being comical
• A man lives in a panic room for 10+ years and whose sole purpose in life is to turn on lights on the stairs
• The conclusion didn't have much weight due to some strange tonal shifts

Perhaps not the most scathing list of issues ... but I just couldn't get a bead on the tone of the film. I was unsure whether to watch this as a drama, thriller, social commentary or comedy. Maybe this hodge-podge of styles was intentional ... but I found it distracting. This movie follows a classic three-act structure but, by the end of act 2, I didn't really feel much desire to want to watch till the end which is not a good sign. Structurally, upon reflection, it was actually done pretty well. I can see that there was some good framing in place which would allow even a virgin viewer the ability to notice some of the cues but it wasn't enough to rescue (what turned out to be) a pretty weak ending. In conclusion, I did actually enjoy parts of the movie but the 'tonal kaleidoscope' kept me from reaching the heights I had expected. I would say you should probably watch the film but probably not expect anything amazing, even with all the accolades.

As welcome as a vagorant

Ah Valorant (or vagorant, as I like to call it). You promised us something new ... but I'm unsure whether your definition of new aligns with reality - but I'm getting ahead of myself. Valorant is the latest Beta-stage IP from Riot games, who is most famous for LOL which, in reality, was a clone of DOTA (which was responsible for creating the MOBA game genre), which is a mod for an RTS called Warcraft 3. Now that I've escaped the acronym soup, I would be okay if it were merely a poor man's amalgam of CSGO, FN, AL and OW (perhaps I'm stretching with a few of those acronyms) - but they didn't stop there, which brings me to the crutch of this article.

... or perhaps not. 

 I get tired when vendors don't even iterate on a proven formula - they merely copy - like what happened with all the BR's attempting to emulate the success of PUBG (just with slightly different contexts) . <*I promise* that is the last of the acronyms> Where has all the creativity and growth gone in the AAA games industry? I find myself having to lean on the exploits of single-man indies with any semblance of evolution on an original idea. But, anyway, here's the break-down of what vagorant has delivered:

• Tight weapon mechanics (CSGO)
• Weapon buy (CSGO)
• Slow player movement (CSGO)
• Colourful maps and colours (OW/FN)
• Snarky one-liners (OW/AL)
• Power-ups (LOL/DOTA/OW/AL)
• Deagle (CSGO/AL)
• Brimstone = Gibraltar (AL - not even trying)
• Viper = Caustic (AL - not even trying)

I could go on but I won't. You get the point that there's clearly a lack of originality when it comes to this 'New IP.'  I could go into the basic map design (very cubist - FN/CSGO) but I think that was intentional; so you could clearly see opponents against the spartan surroundings. In a classic (and unoriginal) modern twist, this game is free ... but it does come at a price. You can (unimaginatively) buy weapon skins and such - but the real price comes in the root kit that's installed to fight cheaters. From what I've seen, it is having great success at fighting the script kiddies but even if it was a good game I'm not going to subject my PC to getting infected with a backdoor just to play something that isn't even fun (VNSFW - sorry).

Even if this were the bees knees of free-to-play (or F2P - sorry) I wouldn't play it. Especially considering Riot games is owned by Tencent which may just mean that the Chinese government (if they were so inclined) could force Tencent to force Riot games to data-mine or create a network of zombie PC's. Tin foil hat off: this actually could be a reality and I'm unwilling to help them with their nefarious plans. You have been warned: treacherous - but dull - waters ahead.

A tale as old as time

Ah, PayPal, you promised us seamless money transfers but delivered us price-gouging, bureaucracy and a useless payment process instead. Perhaps you are merely successful by sake of proxy but, sweet jeebus, you certainly rest upon your laurels while doing so.

Now listen, children, to a tale as old as time; in the early years of the internet there was a time when paying for things was fraught with danger. Where things like 'HTTPS' were mocked and evil-doers could easily extract credit card details at the drop of the hat. But, fear not, a plucky young hero going by the name of Elon Musk decided to put a stop to those antagonistic ways by putting up a relatively secure payment method going by the name of PayPal which would be able to bridge between the far-off lands and allow peasants, such as myself, the ability to pay for goods and services rendered.

 

Now, from the start, I wasn't much of a fan of it. It was heavy, cludgy and awkward to use and the price-gouging on fund transfers was pretty hard to swallow (although they did have to make money somehow). This also became the default payment method for all Ebay purchasers (which, of course, they had bought) - but the process remains awkward - even today, and so, our paths diverged as I moved onwards toward greener pastures. Later, approximately 8-9 years to be exact, I decided that it would be best to close my account. But, apparently, there remained an account balance which needed to be transfer to my linked account and then, finally then, I would be able to end the curse of PayPal. 

And so, began my quest to squeeze blood out of stone. 

First problem: I had forgotten my password; no problem - just use 'forgot my password' to leverage my (still-remembered) security questions. 

Second problem: the confirmation code is sent to a defunct cell phone number; no problem - just call customer support. 

Third problem: customer support can't do anything useful; no problem - actually, wait, big problem. 

I'm in a wonderful limbo state where I can't request my account to be closed; I can't request my balance to be transferred; I can't request my password to be reset; I can't request an iota of sanity to momentarily regale within the organisation of PayPal. And so, we have a wonderful stalemate where incompetent people within an incompetent organisation withhold funds from me due to stupid bureaucracy and stupid policies. And so, the not-so-evil Elon Musk (since he has disassociated himself from it) can rest easy in the fact the former aborted abomination can relax with a few more ill-gotten dollars to its name.