On Female Gaming and Segregation

NOTE: This article contains satire and is not to be taken seriously.

I recently came upon an article by a female gamer named Sapphire. She rants at length on how this gaming female talks in this blog article about how gaming females are "segregated" against, and that forming female gaming clans is only an attention-whoring attempt, etc. Sapphire apparently disagrees, thinking that such groups are good in order to show female gaming abilities and prove that female gamers aren't there to be sluts, and so forth.

Personally? I think that acknowledging segregation provokes more of it. For example, if I was gay, but I didn't want people to look at me as a gay person, but just as a person, I would keep my mouth shut. They don't have to know. It's much easier that way than trying to educate the masses on why discrimination is bad, because the masses aren't too keen on learning fairness. In this case, I think that female gamers shouldn't even acknowledge their gender. Who cares, anyway? Joining female-only clans (in this case, PMS, for Pandora's Mighty Soldiers; an acronym that was obviously made before the actual name) will only scream the fact that one is a female gamer, enforcing whatever rift there is between the genders. Kind of like boys-only and girls-only clubs in second grade. Once the barriers, whether barriers of pride or dislike, disappear, the two opposites can mingle, eventually leading to a point where any segregation is simply impossible, due to how intermingled the two are.

There are, in my mind, two kinds of segregation; auto-segregation, and self-segregation. In other words, there is segregation when you are pushed away from the group for being different, and segregation where you push the crowd away for not taking enough note of you being different. Both are bad, and here's why; as long as one suggests they are better than another, whether it is due to sex, race, sexual orientation, or location, will bring about the same amounts of hatred as one would receive if others told them that they were lessers. This also applies to when one over-amplifies their individuality. If I had green skin, I would try to lower my head and fit in as best I could. Why can't those who feel that they have something stupendous do the same? In this case, those of different genders should just go along and do their gaming, since gender makes no difference. In the real world, those who are homosexual should just get along with others without trying to press their habits. It's a free country, in the United States of America, and one has the right to express themselves, but sometimes they just try to get attention by being as different as possible, and then they wonder why people dislike, discriminate, etc.

If you're different, be different, just don't wave around banners and shout that you are different, or else, unsurprisingly, you will be treated differently.

FCC Gets F'ed in the A.

NOTE: This article contains satire and is not to be taken seriously.

Yep, the FCC (Federal Communications Commission, which regulates television, radio, and other media censorship) has been bitchslapped by a new court ruling that says that the FCC has been overly hard with their rulings against the use of profanity and vulgarity, as well as having used their power to break the First Amendment by limiting free speech. They say that the words "fuck" and "shit" are have more than literal (sexual and excremental, respectively) meanings, and so would thus be classified similarly to other "foul" language. Apparently, the worry is that primetime television will be given a "virtual free pass" by allowing cursing of that sort, as long as it does not break the "fleeting, one-time expletives" rule. In other words, you can say what you want, as long as you don't use more than one "serious" curse word per sentence. Apparently, the court ruling also took note of the fact that President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have used such words as well, saying "get Syria to stop Hezbollah to stop doing this shit" and "fuck yourself", respectively.

It seems to me that, as pointed out by some commenters on the above linked-to article, that children will be exposed to things such as the "banned" words sooner or later, and the sooner they are, the sooner they will become used to them and stop thinking that, because they are banned, they are "cool" to spout out like a broken record. Aside from that, some "family" networks will get demand by the majority of their fundamentalist viewers to not include programming that takes advantage of this new court decision, and that means that there will still be "child-safe" content, for those who are unwilling, or unable, to regulate what their kids watch. If nothing else, they can get rid of their television access. I know that I grew up without cable, and I think that others can do just as well without the mind-numbing effects of all-day couch warming. Besides, if it supports the First Amendment, who am I to argue?

Read more.

Fallout-Boy is Coming to Town

Today rocked billions (count may be inaccurate) of Fallout fans as Bethesda Softworks, the company famous for its Elder Scrolls series, released a video (embedded below) displaying some of the art style that will be used in the game (apparently, the game itself is real-time, meaning that it is not rendered in a 3D program, like the Starcraft 2 trailer that I discussed in a previous post was, which is why it lacks detail in comparison). According to the Wikipedia page on Fallout 3, the game is being made under the Gamebyro graphics engine, which was also used to make The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion (which, coincidentally, is the game I happen to be playing through at the moment, having become stuck in the more difficult Protoss levels of the original Starcraft game), allowing the game to be simultaneously released on the PC, Xbox 360, and PS3. As with Blizzard on Starcraft 2, this long-awaited sequel is being finally announced nearly a decade after its original game was released (in this case, Fallout, released September 30, 1997), though it is actually planned to be released Fall of 2008 (my guess being September 30, 1998, which is exactly 10 years after Fallout 2 was released).



Since this is a trailer made by recording in-game footage, it seems that Fallout 3 will be taken into a first person realm, rather than recycling the old isometric view that was classic with the first two (as well as Tactics). Now, I would normally say that a first person perspective would ruin a classic idea, but I think that I am willing to give it a try, seeing how wonderfully Bethesda pulled off Oblivion (and how superb Deux Ex was, despite being a primarily first-person RPG). Most likely this is simply to allow for the re-emergence of the classical "talking heads", while still lending an impressive upgrade in eye candy, for the "new generation." I only hope that they stay true to the style of Fallout; the grungy, Cold War-era (late 40s to early 60s) technology, music, atmosphere, etc., as well as the dark, looming plots and humor that Fallout is so famous for. So far, it looks like they at least have the first part going right, and they even end with the famous "war never changes" line heard in the openings of the first two games.

Now I have yet another game to add to my list of interesting stuff coming out in 2008. Strangely, every US presidential election year seems to be the busiest in gaming. Maybe it's all calculated to keep our spirits up in spite of political turmoil. Long live the games!

Read more.

Our Right to Death

As of June 1, Doctor Jack Kevorkian, the controversial pathologist who believe in the right of the patient to die via assisted suicide, should they request such (over 130 having been assisted by him), has been released on parole from his imprisonment after being found to be in terminal condition and expected to live less than another year, due to his Hepatitis C, which he contracted while on duty in Vietnam. As of the writing of this, there are over 12 hundred articles on Google concerning this subject, so it is quite obviously a rather touchy issue.



Many call him a mass-murderer, and perhaps he is. Perhaps he simply uses the excuse of assisted suicide to get his kicks in knocking off patients, but even if that is so, I think that he has a good point. If one is in a mental condition in which they would be able to make proper decisions, and, due to a terminal, painful illness that they were inflicted with to which there was no cure, and possibly not even any way to numb the pain of, I would think that such a person would have every right to welcome a quick and painless death, rather than a long, torturous one. Hell, we're so dedicated to that concept in this country that we actually sterilize lethal injection needles, because, apparently, it is possible of the convict to die of some painful illness within the couple minutes it takes for the poisons to work. If people are worried about those who are convicted murderers, rapists, etc. dying with even a hint of pain during the short time between needle-prick and lethal injection, why don't they give the same options to those innocents who are on their deathbed, but kept alive by doctors, only to endure more agony (and toll up a larger bill for their relations once the monitor flat lines)?

I heard a quite good discussion on this subject by the hosts of the Susan Show today (I will put up a clip later, if I am able), and later chatted the point with a very close friend of mine. To paraphrase, the point is that those who are unable to escape pain or death should be given a chance to face it, rather than cower in the corner as it comes charging at them. For those who are simply depressed and want to die for stupid reasons, however, suicide is a coward's way out (specifically, on the show they said that those who admit that they want to commit suicide just want attention and don't really want to kill themselves anyway, so the best method of dealing with them is either to ignore them, or even go so far as to encourage them to do so, to make them prove to themselves that they really don't want it).

Read more.

A Peeping Tom Named Google

NOTE: This article contains satire and is not to be taken seriously.

Google has updated their Google Maps with a new feature that allows one to see various metropolitan areas, along certain streets, in a ground-level, 360 degree shot. This new feature has been named Google Maps Street View. Some are claiming that this is a way for people to "spy" on others, despite the fact that shots are not live. There have been reports of one being able to see into some open windows and observe (old) snapshots of certain personal acts.

Now, I find this to be insanely stupid. First of all, either a Google employee or someone from a related company had to go out into the streets of New York (among others), set up a tripod on the sidewalk, mount their camera, and finely focus each shot as they went along. If someone had a problem with being caught in a photo shoot by the strange guy taking pictures along the streets, they should damn well have moved out of the way. As for those whose actions can be seen through their open windows, it seems to me that if they don't care about the throng of folks walking along the street who can see, why should they care that, with very careful searching and much eye-straining squinting, one may be able to make out something going on in the dark interior of their apartment? Even if the details were crisp and one could see the facial features, Google admits that the Street View is not completely accurate to their map, so it would be very hard, if not impossible, to locate said person (and for what reason?).



No, this is just another attempt by whiny people to poke a booming business (retort), in this case Google, with some kind of crime to make them the enemy. As for me, I adore most Google products (obviously Blogger being one), though I admit freely that Google Video is redundant compared to YouTube, and far less pleasant to use.

Read more.