Why Comic Sans?

As always, whenever I see a baseless "hate" movement, I feel compelled to rebel in extremely childish fashion.  Especially when the reasons for the hate are equally childish.  For example, when I see the hate garnered towards Twilight, I feel compelled to write an article about what the Twilight movies and books do right.

Or, when I find a hate towards a particular font, especially when such hate comes from designers acting like there's a 'right' and 'wrong' way to use fonts, and hate the font because it is "overused" (not like Times New Roman or Arial are, of course not.) or "Easy" (What does that even mean?) Or "Easy to Read"  (How is 'easy to read' a bad thing?)  I feel like doing something childish, like starting up a "I love comic sans" movement, or changing my blog to be entirely comic sans, or perhaps simply creating a post in the font of "evil" (i.e. Microsoft).

That's just it, though.  I suspect that much of the reason why people hate Comic Sans is because the Evil Microsoft corporation (of evil)^tm  made it, and not Apple (or their patron saint Steve Jobs)

Honestly, why not hate Times New Roman because it's usually the default font and an "amateur" way to look professional?

Oh, wait.

Ah, the 'professionals', why is it simply so easy to laugh at their idiocy?  Malstrom, Malstrom, you've opened me up to a whole new world of laughter.

You want to have a larf to?

Here you go (I just can't help myself):

We believe in the sanctity of typography and that the traditions and established standards of this craft should be upheld throughout all time. From Gutenberg's letterpress to the digital age, type in all forms is sacred and indispensable. Type is a voice; its very qualities and characteristics communicate to readers a meaning beyond mere syntax.
Early type designing and setting was so laborious that it is a blasphemy to the history of the craft that any fool can sit down at their personal computer and design their own typeface. Technological advances have transformed typography into a tawdry triviality. The patriarchs of this profession were highly educated men. However, today the widespread heretical uses of this medium prove that even the uneducated have opportunities to desecrate this art form; therefore, destroying the historical integrity of typography.
Like the tone of a spoken voice, the characteristics of a typeface convey meaning. The design of the typeface is, in itself, its voice. Often this voice speaks louder than the text itself. Thus when designing a "Do Not Enter" sign the use of a heavy-stroked, attention-commanding font such as Impact or Arial Black is appropriate. Typesetting such a message in Comic Sans would be ludicrous. Though this is sort of misuse is frequent, it is unjustified. Clearly, Comic Sans as a voice conveys silliness, childish naivete, irreverence, and is far too casual for such a purpose. It is analogous to showing up for a black tie event in a clown costume.
We are summoning forth the proletariat around the globe to aid us in this revolution. We call on the common man to rise up in revolt against this evil of typographical ignorance. We believe in the gospel message "ban comic sans." It shall be salvation to all who are literate. By banding together to eradicate this font from the face of the earth we strive to ensure that future generations will be liberated from this epidemic and never suffer this scourge that is the plague of our time.

I do like how they made it so easy. 


I've thought about showing up to a black tie event in a T-shirt and Jeans, but a clown costume?  Now that's an idea!  Or maybe I'll go in my Link costume, not even wearing pants!  Maybe I could convince Malstrom to do it instead...

Now if you'll excuse me, it's time for me to go to bed and perhaps return to 'professional' posting tomorrow.

I need to watch more Anime

I've been thinking about the sort of TV/Movies/games/etc. that I like and I've come to a few conclusions about the sort of things I like: Fun over-the-top 'awesomeness,' generally with lots of camp and cliché, with plenty of "what the crap?" moments that are just so crazy awesome you just can't help but laugh.


Examples of this are some of my favorite movies: Press Start, Dragonball Evolution and, G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra. Games such as Castlevania, (where you whip a wall and get turkey,) Super Mario Brothers (What the crap is a goomba, anyway?) and many other games full of those "What the crap" moments. Malstrom wrote in his blog about this sort of things, the "What the Crap" moments making a game fun, but I can't be bothered to look it up to give you a link.

This is only spurred on by some of my favorite TV shows when I was a kid: Power Rangers, Xiaolin Showdown, Jackie Chan Adventures.  These all have that same over-the-top awesomeness/silliness.

Anime has it too.

All of the things I've mentioned have that same over-the-top awesomeness/silliness that comes from anime.  I haven't even mentioned my favorite shows growing up that were anime: Pokemon, Yu-Gi-Oh, Digimon, Escaflowne, and others.  Power Rangers is pretty much just a live-action anime.


And so we come to today, where I've browsed through various anime and found this (it's about a half hour long, so be warned.  Also apparently Veoh won't work in some countries, so sorry if you can't watch it):

View More Free Videos Online at Veoh.com

This is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about.  This is what I mean when I say that games, movies, music, books, et cetera, are all getting too 'serious,' 'artsy,' and generally just 'adult,' and aren't fun anymore.  They should be more like this.  Fun. light. Not afraid to be corny, cheesy, or campy.

People are funny #5, "Biggest innovation in gaming this generation"

http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=102705&page=1

There is, at least some semblance of sanity on the internet, even on what I would expect to be a haven for 'hardcore.'

However this thread and the people trying to defend their points are borderline hilarious.

Let's look at our options for 'biggest innovation':


Online Multiplayer:Oh, yes, because this definitely hasn't been around for thirteen years or anything like that.


Achievements: Right, because high scores haven't been around since arcades or anything like that. 

The same people today that obsess over achievements and gamerpoints would be the same as the kids years ago at the arcade, except instead of being the "1337 Haxx0rz" "p0wning n00bz" with their "N1nj4 Sk1llz," they were "da bomb," wasting the wannabies big time with their totally wicked badness.  I kid you not.

Technological Leap:  Bringing PC graphics of 10 years ago to a console! Such an innovation!  Don't believe me?  Computer graphics have been capable of 1280×1024 resolution (enough to display 720p) since 1998.  1920x1080 (1080p) was emerging around the time sony announced the PS2.  Such innovation.  What, you mean the resolution of the games?  Computers have always had better graphics in their games.  (not to mention that the nature of PCs make it so you can adapt the computer to your game, and games are made to let you adapt the game to your computer)

Not to mention that "Technological Leap" is pretty much what defines a generation from it's predecessors (8-bit generation, 16-bit generation, 64-bit generation, and so on), so the 'technological leap' isn't so much your biggest innovation, since it's kind of expected.  If that's you're only innovation, then there is something horribly wrong.  I'm looking at you, PS3.

It's like what Iwata says about the rumored "WiiHD" or "Wii2,"  Of course it's going to be HD, what else are they going to do?

DLC: Downloadable content?  Like, stuff from the developers that I download enhance my game?  Like a patch?  A map pack?  Expansion?  Or the stuff you got with the Dreamcast?

Hm, it seems there hasn't really been any defining innovations this generation.  So sad that the Video Game Industry has run out of ideas.  Wait, did I miss one?  What was it again?  Oh, yes.

Motion Control:  Oh, yes the Wii remote!  A computer mouse fused with a remote control!  Gyroscope technology, first invented in 1817!  Peripherals for the Wii just like in the NES days!  The Miis, planned for the NES!  Motion games that totally have never been done in arcades and the like!  So innovative! 

What? You're shocked?  You thought I was going to pick motion controls?  Why would you ever think a thing like that?

There is, of course, the final option.

Other: The real innovation this generation comes from the Wii, but is not motion controls.  If it were, than Microsoft and Sony would stand a legitimate chance with Natal and Arc, respectively.  It is not a graphical or technological achievement.  It is not a feature. To modify a quote: "It is not what they are on the inside, but what they do, that defines them."   It is not the Wii, it is not the Wii remote, but what they represent.  It is the revolution. 

The revolution is more than a discarded name for the Wii.  It is the gamer, playing his shiny, expensive HD (or 3-D) game, with all its 'art' and 'story' who has the ability to say "this sucks" and shut it off.  Maybe he turns to an arcade-style 'old-school' game and has some fun.  Maybe he makes his own game.  Maybe he goes out and does something else with his time.  Maybe all three.

It is games like Wii fit, a game where I stand on a scale and shift my weight around (whee?)  and actually have fun doing so.  It is games that push the boundaries of what a game is.  It is games which, rather than say "look how awesome I am, look at the one who made me and how awesome he is," turn around and say, "Forget about me, forget about that guy, look how awesome you are!"

It is a change in the perception of the game.

Nintendo appears to understand this; they did, at least, through the development and launch of the Wii, but the lack of complete, solid Motion Plus games does not bode well.  Malstrom says that Nintendo pushing their "Super Gamecube" games at first opportunity is so that they can announce true Motion Plus games at E3.  'Gaming' sites and analysts say Nintendo is pushing the last of their 'core games' so they can announce a new console.

Honestly, looking at Nintendo's recent actions and the news/buzz, I don't know which to believe, though I hope Malstrom is right.  Whatever Nintendo is planning, they obviously think it's big.  We shall see.  Only time will tell if Nintendo will ride the revolution they started or grow content and let it crush them.

I think I'm gonna be sick

 

Ugh, what is this space-marine game and what the heck is Samus doing there?

Do developers really think that Metroid Prime 3 sold the most out of the trilogy due to its (sub-par) space marine 'story' added in?  It was the worst part about the game, and one of the many things that keeps it from being the best (for all it has working for it.)

That being said, some the rest of the screenshots look pretty promising, and I do think I'll still buy it.

Wait, what was that? Did someone say something?

Within the first hour of the game, you're introduced to a handful of characters, including a number of folks from Samus' past. Without giving too much away, the game begins when Samus answers a distress call from a partially destroyed space station. Once she arrives, she finds that the Galactic Federation has already arrived and is composed of her former crew members. A voice-over shown in a flashback explains that the now-bounty hunter had left the Federation due to an "incident," surely to be explored later in the game's story.

 Really? Well, it might still be good, despite the cutscenes.  I'll wait and see.

This focus on cut-scenes and dialogue was striking and unexpected, if not alarming. In these opening scenes, Samus speaks more, and is spoken to more, than in all previous Metroid titles combined.

....Okay, on the other hand, I think I'll rent it first.

killing enemies will no longer provide you with health or missiles. Instead, tilting the Wii Remote vertically and holding "A" can replenish your supply at any time. The same can be done for health as well; if it dips into the red, tilting the remote and holding "A" will replenish one energy tank. Also, weapon and suit "upgrades" won't be found through exploration. Instead, in the sections I played, the Commanding Officer of the Galactic Federation (whom you'll be working alongside) "authorized the use of" morph ball bombs.

*cries*

On 'immersion.'

Many people complain because many games on the Wii don't let them 'forget they're playing a game' like what Mass Effect or Oblivion do. I recently played Oblivion. I got 'lost' in it. At times I forgot I was playing a game. I spent entire days lost in the immersive world that it provided.

I hate that game. I had fun, sure. I enjoyed it immensely. However, there was never any sense of accomplishment. I would play the game for more than five hours at a time and, while doing many things, I never felt as if I ever really accomplished anything. I got to a point where I simply fast-traveled to finish off the guild quests (I had already finished the main one) and then when I finished those, I just said I was done and left. I still have lots of things to do, I've barely started the Shivering Isles, but I was done. After over a hundred hours spanned over several months, I had finally had enough. And I have no intention of picking the game back up anytime soon.

Meanwhile, I've started playing Bejeweld Blitz on Facebook after my Mom convinced me to start playing. That game is fun. I was surprised since I was finally able to grab some semblance of accomplishment. Which is ironic, since the game is impossible to 'beat.' Reading up on Malstrom's opinions and doing some thinking on my own, I've realized what I think a game should be. After beating Oblivion, I started playing Castlevania on my Wii's virtual console. That game is really fun. Just a few days ago, I was playing level 15. I lost count of how many times I died, but it was well over fifty. When my brother (the hardcore gamer) came in and I told him this, he laughed. I believe his exact words were, “and you're still playing?” Yes, I was still playing. I kept playing (with breaks) until I passed that Medusa head-infested nightmare and sent the Grim Reaper back to the afterlife. I am currently in between attempts to defeat Dracula himself.

So why do I enjoy Bejeweled Blitz and the original Castlevania more than I do 'game of the year' Oblivion? Easy. They have that sense of accomplishment. What does that come from? A good old fashioned challenge. See, that's the thing. In Oblivion, once I got around level 21, the game stopped being hard. In fact, it stopped being hard around level 6 and 14, too. However, there was a spike in difficulty in level 10 and 20, which ended up being annoying more than anything else. See, the game was far too easy and far too long. There's no fun when I can easily kill anything in sight, when I can storm a cave/ruin/etc. and easily dispatch every creature/bandit/etc. inside.

Anyone else remember the days back when beating a game in six hours was an accomplishment, rather than a criticism? When games like Castlevania had you dying constantly? There was no 'immersion,' since dying kept you objective. Why are games that do that today (such as the ones on the Wii) now deemed 'casual'?

Final Fantasy 13 bombs! Hardcore Shocked!

I, for one, am not.

I've been predicting this for months, since back at the end of January when it was number one release week in Japan and then started a rapid decline as the month wore on. I mean, a Final Fantasy selling bad in Japan? That was a really bad sign, and should have been obvious for a lot of people.

But of course, it's 'not doing that bad', and 'had a strong release' (whatever that means.) It 'of course can't compete with Mario' or the other 'casual games' on the Wii. The 'Xbox 360 release sure helped it', though.

I guess it's just something to do with the so-called 'demographics.'

I could tell from the trailers that it wasn't going to be very good. I haven't really enjoyed Final Fantasy since Squaresoft merged with Enix and the result spat out androgynous emos with increasingly convoluted storylines.

But wait, it's Final Fantasy, so it can't suck. It's HD, so it can't suck. 'Weaker' games like the Conduit suck. (because it's on the Wii, so therefore it's shovelware.) It had a lot of hype, so it can't suck. What these people think while saying the above is I spent $60 on this game, so it can't suck! I'll play it for over 40 hours just to prove to myself that it doesn't suck! I'll lose my status as biggest troll if I admit that I didn't actually like a massively hyped game!

How do I know what they're thinking? Because I was once one of them. I spent years trying to delude myself that the Zelda series didn't suck. I tried so hard to accept Twilight Princess as a game that didn't suck. I tried to convince myself that Phantom Hourglass was worth the purchase. It went so far that when they put a friggin' TRAIN in a Zelda game, I still bought it. I convinced myself that the train would be 'fun' and might be a 'new experience.' Or, my favorite self-delusion, 'It might have a train, but it will still be Zelda.' I'm going to have to save all that for a proper review, though.

One can only take so much crap before he decides it's time to take a shower. I never finished the game, and I doubt I ever will. I wonder when the breaking point will be for these people.

When will fans of these New Final Fantasies figure out that these games are crap? When will the 'Hardcore' crowd figure out that the so-called 'shovelware' is the stuff they're buying? 'But it has such good graphics, how can it be bad?' I recall a Mythbusters episode where they proved that it is, indeed possible to polish a turd.

A game cannot tell you that it is awesome, and be awesome. Hype and viral marketing cannot make a mediocre game awesome. Fancy graphics and 'epic' cinematics do not a good game make. The game, itself, has to be the one to convince me that it is awesome. It can't show me that it's awesome. It can't tell me that it's awesome. What does a game have to do? Convinve me that I'm awesome.

To revise a phrase, then. You can polish a turd, but it's still a turd.