Thursday, December 15, 2016

If You're Worried You Won't Ever Find Great Love, sorry not sorry, You Probably Will

You might be trying to get over someone right now, or maybe you're waiting for the first someone, or maybe you're waiting for the first someone in a while. When I'm in that headspace, I always think of that one Dance Gavin Dance lyric, "I know we test each other to feel the limits, we all need partners for the pain of existence". I've experienced loneliness and great love, and in some ironic joke played on me by the universe, both at the same time. I've experienced the pain of great love fading and eventually disappearing altogether, I've experienced my heart beating through my chest when kissing that special someone, I've felt the pterodactyls in my tummy, I've felt the chills down my spine, the electricity through my veins, the fireworks going off in my mind, the earth stop spinning for a singular moment. I've experienced awful fights where you're not yourself and you say something terrible because you're hurt and you want to hurt them back. I've experienced moments where you look at that person and, poof. It's gone. The fireworks have turned to ashes, the pterodactyls have turned to air, the magic has gone and nothing. There's nothing there anymore. It happens. Life happens. Love happens. Falling out of love happens. You've probably heard yourself say something like, "What if I go through life trying to find the person I love second most?" or "I don't want to end up alone." or "Love sucks, it's just too painful." or "I thought I was over them, but I'm not. Maybe I never will be."

Maybe that's true for you right now. But chances are, it won't always be.

A while back, I had a bunch of those thoughts, and whenever I feel sad about my own lonely existence or I'm sick or just any not happy feeling in general, I go back and watch How I Met Your Mother. This is relevant, I promise. Around about episode six of season one, there's a moment that I guess stays with you the entire show, and long after you've stopped watching.

.
(Caption: Robin: "How do you do this Ted? How do sit out here all night, in the cold, and still have faith that your pumpkin's going to show up?"
Ted: "Well, I'm pretty drunk. Look I know the odds are, the love of my life isn't going to magically walk through that door in a pumpkin costume at 2:43 in the morning. But it just seems as nice a spot as any to just ... you know, sit and wait")

And the weird thing is, I think that's all of us. Waiting for that moment of serendipity as you walk into the coffee house and he or she is reading your favourite book and you just know. Waiting for that moment where love creeps up from behind and pistol whips you, takes the self-preservation out of your emotional wallet and you're left bleeding feelings all over the pavement while wondering exactly how you got there.

I think the first thing that you have to be is patient with yourself. I do believe that generally, when you look for something, you'll likely find it. But remember that you're exactly where you're supposed to be, and you have to give yourself permission to be exactly where you are in life. And that you do have a life outside the person you'll end up with one day.

But let's talk statistics. You realize that you're one of seven billion human beings on this earth, right? If we factor for gender, sexuality and age, that usually leaves several millions of other humans just like you that are pretty much all potential partners. If you won't listen to me, at least listen to Tim Minchin. The statistical likelyhood of you ending up alone is actually worse than you finding someone you don't mind making pancakes for in the morning.

The other thing is, do you know how easy it actually is to fall in love? As unfortunate as it is that I'm quoting a 2003 sitcom twice in one article, if you have chemistry, you only need one thing. Timing. And timing's a bitch.


(Source: https://za.pinterest.com/pin/413134965786670188/)

Chemistry happens to be pretty easy actually. In an article about the science of falling in love, without going into too much detail about hormones and actual brain chemistry, the prescribed ingredients for seeing the sun shine out of someone's ass is;

  • Find a complete stranger (I hear this is optional, just someone you're relatively attracted to)
  • Reveal intimate details about your life to each other for about half an hour (don't mention your basement full of dead babies, that's second date material)
  • Stare deeply into each other's eyes for about four minutes (although I hear this doesn't have to be done entirely consecutively)
That's it. The actual process of falling in love is so stupidly simple and automatic that you rarely ever realize it's happening.

Allowing yourself to get out there and open up to another human being? That's fucking scary. It's so terrifying that some people go their entire lives without ever doing it. And some people get hurt or go through some terrible things that prevent them from ever letting themselves be vulnerable enough to fall in love. But that's okay. Because we don't always properly mourn or grieve at the end of a huge relationship. We don't bury the past in that same place as our formative memories where they embarrass us at night while overthinking our lives but don't actively influence our every day decisions. We don't create graves for dead relationships. Often, we keep watering dead plants. Often, we keep trying to reconnect wires that have been cut. Try to repair broken machines. Try to find a dead spark.

If your relationship with someone is a person, a separate entity, and that entity is either changed beyond recognition or has passed on, you have to properly grieve for it, in order to move on with your life. And this is the world's most inexact science. If there was a button after every break up and I could remove all the bitterness, animosity, pain, happy memories, shove it all into a box and set the box on fire and scatter the ashes atop Everest, the label would be worn from overuse. But it's not that simple and if you've found a way to make it that simple honestly, I'd pay for your council. The only thing I can say is, there are a couple of things to try.


  • Try a pallet cleanser. The best way to get a bad taste out of your mouth is to wash it down with something else. It's okay to play the field, try something casual before moving onto something serious.
  • Find something of your ex, and destroy it. It's oddly cathartic, but don't go overboard. The point is to make it blatantly obvious to yourself that the person is out of your life, and that you're closing the door behind them
  • Try writing an angry letter to that person, then tearing it up.
  • Talking with your ex like an actual adult sometimes works. Finding out what worked, what didn't, how the two of you will proceed in the future, talking over issues you had with each other and resolving those issues and solidifying the notion that breaking up is without a doubt the best course of action can help speed up the process
  • And finally putting distance between you and your ex. Simply put, if that person isn't going to be the most important person in your life, they don't need to be the person you spend the most time on. Spending time on self-care and with friends, going out and trying new things and reminding yourself who you are outside of your previous relationship helps to ground you in single life again.

It takes time and effort to move on. But before you know it, you'll wake up and the sun will be bright and air will taste different and you'll have started the first day of the rest of your life.

But after all that, maybe it's not that easy. Maybe you won't meet the love of your life or the next great love tomorrow. Hell, maybe you already have and they slipped through your fingers. Maybe you have several times and it just never seems to work out. Maybe you felt it so deeply that you doubt anyone will ever come close to making the sun shine the way that person did.

But hey, news flash. Great love comes at you repeatedly, in different intervals, until one of those fuckers finally gets you to tie the knot and go have kids.

That's just life.

Seven billion humans, all with roughly a lifespan of 80 years. If you don't find great love with those odds, if you don't find at least one in a million in all of those millions, if something so fucking great and as it turns out, not all that improbable doesn't happen to you repeatedly over the course of your whole goddamn existence, you probably weren't meant to fall in love anyway.

Love happens. It'll happen to you.

And where you are right now is good a place as any to wait for it. Just keep your eyes open and let it happen when it comes. Even a broken clock is right twice a day, so don't worry too much about the timing.

"I know we test each other to feel the limits, we all need partners for the pain of existence."

Wednesday, December 14, 2016

Letter to Myself; subtitled 2016

"So if you got a flame that's blazing hot within, take a deep breath and feed it oxygen."
~ Watsky, Never Let It Die

Every year I write a letter to myself to reflect my own progress as a person and to sort of have an army of past versions of myself egging me on to continue with life and not walk into oncoming traffic and to tell me that even though it was tough I made it this far so  I can make it through the next year, and I usually end it off with some stupid tagline like "Thanks for not killing off the main character of your story" which is dumb and cliche but when you're  crying so hard it feels like the veins in your forehead are going to burst and that the only thing you can, have and will ever be able to feel is sadness then stupid sentiments from past me to me help. This year I decided to post mine online as kind of a thing to say, hey, this is something you can do, even if it's dumb and cliche. There aren't really any rules and you can tell your future self anything you want, but I don't recommend writing when you're super sad. Write it when you can say something meaningful to yourself.

So anyway, here goes.

Dear Matthew

This year's been a tough one. It seemed like for every step forward, I took two steps back. Sometimes it seemed like there were more bills than money, sometimes our money seemed to disappear just as it came in. Sometimes things went right, but for the most part, they just went really wrong. Sometimes bad things happened, and they were unavoidable, and so often I got to that breaking point where I sabotaged myself out of poor self-esteem and emotional and physical exhaustion. More vividly than ever, I was reminded that willpower is an exhaustible resource but self-depreciation isn't.

Life will very often take away your belief in yourself that you can survive the harshest storms and overcome the tallest obstacles.

Life will often leave you with deadlines too close to make and fear too strong to conquer and too little direction to even start plotting a course to somewhere.

This is not weakness.

This is life.

Life throws curve balls. 

Strength of person comes from laughing at the absurd odds you beat. Strength of person comes from knowing how unfair life is, taking the blows in your strides, and getting back up after you fall. After all, it's not about how hard you can punch, it's about how many you can take and keep on fighting. And it'd take way too much time to remind you that you can take a whole lot of blows. In short, I will simply say, you survived 2016.

To the end of self betterment, I would like to ask that in 2017, we wait for the second marshmallow. Because I am nothing if not self-aggrandizing, I just mean that life is a little like the Marshmallow test. We can either eat the one in front of us, or wait a little while and have two marshmallows. I suppose that's my round about way of asking that in 2017 (and hopefully every consecutive year until the day I die) we decide to save money for a better day instead of buying a tub of ice cream and eating our feelings. In 2017, instead of discounting time spent studying now as time wasted for a test we might fail, we study now and reap the benefits of having to do less work in the future.

It's hard to feel it but fear and hyperbolic discounting control everything we do. 2017 is a year I hope isn't about that.

All in all, thank you for staying true to yourself. Thank you for making it this far, thank you for trying to go farther. Dad always says that you can only lead as far as you've gone, and you can only go as far as you work to get to.

It's been a tough year.

But so was 2015. And we made it through both. Maybe 2017 will be awful, and we all know, in trilogies, the third is the worst. But life always regresses to the mean. It might not always be good, but that also means it won't always be bad. And when it's bad, there are always friends to nag to, a blog to give your unsolicited views on the world to, and the knowledge that it won't be that way forever. Life is a series of tough years each varying in levels of toughness. Every year since the doctor delivered you and slapped your butt and gave you screaming to your mamma is a tough year.

Life throws curveballs.

Dust yourself off, get back on your feet and yell real loud, "Is that all you got?"

There's a flame inside you that can never be snuffed. There's a sparkle in your eye that can never be dimmed. There's a song in your heart that never stops playing. There's a wit in your voice that will never start fading. There's a universe in your mind that's always expanding. There's a story you're writing that just hasn't ended. There's that instinct to survive so sharp, it'll never dull. You always talk about the day you'll walk into traffic, but live like it'll never come. There have been better men, but a whole lot of them never made it to where you are. There are plenty of worse men, and they've made it really far. There's that part of you that you can trust to be right when everything else says you're wrong. There's a swagger in your step that never truly goes away, waiting for the right song to come on.

You're a writer, and artist, a genius, a madman, a singer, a guitarist, a pixel artist, a programmer, a loving member of a loving family and a man with a whole lot of good friends you can count on, a survivor, a fighter, a visionary who sees a whole different future, just a man with a couple dreams, a man with wounds to suture, a conquerer, a strategist and a straight up panicker.


But for all that, remember that everything and anything can change in a single moment.

Life throws curveballs.

And I know it sounds a little like I'm saying everyone experiences it, so you don't have to be sad. I know it can be hard, and it's okay to cry until the tears reach your nose and the snot reaches your eyes and it's okay because you will feel insufferable sadness for a little while but it all ends and you'll see the sunny days again. You walk through dark trenches and you you fight as an atheist in a foxhole.

Life throws curve balls.

But you catch a few of them.

Friday, December 9, 2016

A Rumination on Sonic Heroes; It's Kind of Underrated.

Not often does a game come by that makes you stop, pause and think, “Huh, you know what, that’s actually a pretty clever.”

And Sonic Heroes is somehow, against all the odds, one of those games.


Sonic Heroes is a 2003 PS2, Dreamcast and Gamecube game (with a lost Australian PC port that is very hard to get one's hands one, believe me) that sold reasonably well and was on release received very well, but as it aged more and more people started just hating the game, roasting it as if it were a 12 year old beauty vlogger posting her first video and utterly failing on camera.

Now it's not hard to spot that the game hasn't aged very well and truthfully it's a little unfair on the completionists (and may Segata Sanshiro have mercy on whichever poor fool attempts a 100% on a Sonic The Hedgehog game) but I haven't played the game since I was a wide eyed child and it wasn't until recently that I picked up a copy of the game that I could truly see it for what it was;

A rough around the edges masterpiece that deserves more love then we give it.

I will admit to my own bias here. I'm in love with the idea behind the game more than the game itself. On paper, this is the most well designed, conceptually brilliant action-platformer I have ever had the pleasure of just swirling about in my brain. And if it weren't for this game solidifying Sonic The Hedgehog as the cornerstone of my childhood gaming experiences, I'd probably be a very different person today. But if you'll allow me to gush for just a second, I promise, I do eventually get to talking about the great game design in Sonic Heroes.

Trying to articulate the plethora of thoughts I have about it is almost impossible. Every time I try, a new idea pops into my head. While the final product may barely be worth an IGN approved 7/10, teetering dangerously close to 6 or maybe even a 5, and while Railway Canyon munched through my lives faster than any of the teams could blast through with Sonic speed, I have put this game down, picked it up, put it down, sat up thinking about it at night and picked it up again in a vicious cycle.
As a kid, this was only the second or third Sonic game I actually played. I remember being wholly nonplussed by having to play as Sonic’s shitty friends and kinda just wanted, well, a Sonic game. And whilst I didn’t hate the game, when I received the PC port of Sonic Adventure DX, I had a much better time with Adventure, owing much to the fact that I never bothered finishing anyone’s campaign other than Sonic’s in Adventure and thereby preserving the mirror polished sheen of nostalgia I have for the game. I finished Team Rose, 70% finished Team Sonic, 40% finished Team Dark and barely touched Team Chaotix. I’d never really had much of a drive to return to Sonic Heroes but once my PS2 died and I had gotten better at playing videogames and learnt more about game design, I thought that I definitely owed it to myself to revisit it. But I still delayed playing it. I don’t really understand why but I wanted something new. And it wasn’t until I had picked up and dropped Sonic Unleashed, purchased Sonic Adventure 2 off the PSN and gotten the Sonic Humble Bundle and finished Sonic CD that I thought, now is the time.


So a funny thing happened when I booted it up. I’d always had a gigantic soft spot for Sonic Heroes’ theme song. It’s cheesy, wasn’t very well mixed and definitely dated, often called straight up garbage by many fans but somehow, I knew all the lyrics to that fucking song. All of them. And is the intro cinematic played out I screamed them along.

Okay, so maybe I liked the game more than I thought. But I mean, this game just aged poorly, it's definitely not as great as I remember it being as a kid. Hell, I didn't even like it that much as a kid, I liked Shadow The Hedgehog more because I was an edgelord shucklefuck with bad opinions.

But then I went into Seaside Hill WHICH IS STILL ONE OF THE BEST DESIGNED SONIC LEVELS OF ALL MOTHERFUCKING TIME HOW IN THE HELL CAN ANYONE EVEN HATE THIS GAME (more on this in just a moment).

And then Ocean Palace came, and still. Sure, some control and physics issues popped up but nothing game breaking. The water looked gorgeous and the world was vibrant and all these bright colours were on the screen and Sonic Heroes was hitting all the right notes in a scarily tight rhythm.

And that's when it hit me.

It's not just my nostalgia.

I've gone back to games before and hated them, even if I loved them as a kid. I've gone back and recognized my own biases many times before and still loved games that I knew were utter filth (looking at you, Sonic Adventure DX). But this, this wasn't bad. This was great. This was amazing. This was, dare I say it... Perfect. Of course I did have to face reality when I managed to remove the nostalgia facehugger impregnating me with sparkling eyes and an inability to notice genuine flaws, and it wasn't perfect, and of course, I eventually did manage to get an less biased and better thought out view of the game, but the first three levels is just honestly fantastic. I can't gush enough. But anyway, I'm going to move away from the nostalgia boner hardening in my pants as I write this because Seaside Hill, and maybe Seaside Hill alone, subverts the Sonic level design formula in such a brilliant way that it still blows my mind to this day and I need to meet Yuji Naka and hug the man for his wonderful contribution to the world.

So for those of you who don't know, the rule for any given Sonic game is high path is best path and low path is death path. You're encouraged to stay on the higher, faster path and rewarded for the skill you display by managing to stay on it, but punished for bad play in the slower, much more "platformy" lower path. The bottom of the stage usually has the most spikes, pitfalls, long stretches of slow and tedious platforming, water, enemies. While I do appreciate the nuance of the logic, where you're forced to get better at the game by having to do more challenging sections in the bottom of the level that teach you more about the game's mechanics and intricacies of controlling a meth addict blue hedgehog, it's almost a guaranteed trap for newbies. You will fall into the bottom, and because it's so easy to fall to the bottom, it feels like the game is subtly corralling you towards the lower path but in truth the game is trying to challenge you to stay high, the route which guarantees the fastest clear time and most secrets.

Sonic Heroes takes that formula and says fuck you, here's how we do it.

So Sonic has always had a very natural difficulty select built in. Tails is easy mode because flight let's you get back to the top. Knuckles is intermediate mode, because he glides and can climb walls, so he's how you get to know the levels the best and explore without being burdened by tail's flight limit. Sonic is 'hard' mode, since he takes the most skill to use, is the fastest, but he offers the most rewarding gameplay. 

Sonic Heroes then took that concept and threw it right into the very level design of the game. 

So you control Sonic, Tails and Knuckles all at the same time, or rather you control one of the three at any given time and the other two are delegated to being two AI nincompoops who for the most part stay out of your way and sometimes even help you get shit done faster, and you switch out who is the "leader" aka, the character you control. Each character comes with their own unique team formation. When Sonic leads, everyone gather behind him in a straight line and runs in his slipstream. This is the fastest way to get around and is dubbed Speed Formation. When Tails is the leader, the team forms in a totem pole formation to make it easier for Tails to take off at a moments notice. This is called Flight Formation. When Knuckles is the leader, he literally uses his best friends as either fucking boxing gloves to pound everything from the environment to enemies, or he curls them up into balls and hurtles them as hard as he goddamn can into the ground. This is Power Formation. You can also glide in Power Formation, by performing a "Triangle Dive", but unfortunately you can't climb.

Got all that?

Now the whole level is designed to modulate the difficulty, pace and aesthetic of play to which formation you end up playing in most.

Like speed running and fast paced platforming challenges? Play in Speed Formation and you'll get taken through super hazardous super fast routes with loops and twists like the rollercoaster a Sonic game should be. Need to take it slow and explore the level? Play in flight formation and you'll do more platforming but it's slower and easier to navigate. Like brawling? Play in power formation and you'll have plenty of enemies and destructables to abuse like Michael Jackson's dad abused his kids. 

So instead of High Paths and Low Paths, you have Speed, Flight and Power paths. You can easily change from one to the other and you can play as any formation on any path, and often certain sections demand a quick change in order to progress. The greatest thing about this fluidity is that it asks the player to use the game's mechanic's creatively to find the optimal route through the stage. There's a whole lot of replay value because your runs don't ever look the same as you take different turns and change to different formations. The mechanic of formations create a fluid dynamic of path finding and platforming challenges but create three entirely different aesthetics. I think I jizzed in my pants a little writing that sentence. 


I lie awake in bed at night thinking to myself "Fuck me, who ever designed Sonic Heroes is just really fucking brilliant." The complex dynamics the mechanics form, the nuanced gameplay, the variety, the creativity, I just swirl it around my mind and wonder how anyone can so easily write this game off.

And I think now would be the best time to talk about my criticisms of Sonic Heroes, or rather, everyones criticisms. Because these are huge errors, and it says so much that I can honestly call this game a rough around the edges masterpiece knowing full and well how bad some of these are;

The physics is garbage.

For one, Sonic moves just a little too fucking fast. Or rather, he accelerates too quickly, you shove the analogue in any direction and he goes and rockets off without consent, blasting through with Sonic speed when a brisk walk would have done just fine. The problem is as much with the acceleration as it is with the deceleration. You have to run in a tiny little circle once you've asked permission from the board to stop and filed the proper paperwork because there's no real way to stop yourself dead in your tracks. But at least Sonic will stop when he reaches the edge and do a little edge pose.

Power characters will slide right the fuck off.

Ground combat is also for the most part worthless, considering that you could slide right off the edge midway though a combo and if you don't like a power character (I'm fucking glaring at you, Big the obnoxiously voiced Cat) too fucking bad. You need him. Every member of your team is vital because some obstacles can only be overcome by certain members. Since only the power characters can glide, they're the only ones who can use the fans to rise to higher platforms. 

Other than that, the major criticism and missed opportunity I must bring up is that you can't change formation mid air.

I dream of the day where my team all homing attacks in unison onto an enemy, we change mid-air so that tails can fly us up, and from as high as we can, we use the triangle dive to reach a far off platform safely.

I understand that the scope of the levels would be changed and the size of some of these levels are already fucking huge, some taking well over ten minutes to finish.

But damn if it isn't a nice dream.

Sonic Heroes isn't just a great game, it's a proof of concept, a show that unlike his contemporaries, Sonic doesn't only work well in a team, that's where he works best. The team formations create interesting platforming scenarios and if we just had better spaces to play in and slightly better physics, I honestly think Sonic Heroes could have been one of the greatest games of all time, it might even have put Sega back into a place where they were a dominating force in the gaming industry.

But alas, it is not so, and Sega hasn't voiced any plans to make a sequel or a reboot of the the game, which is a crying shame. 

All in all, the soundtrack is phenomenal, it's a Sonic game, that's a given at this point, the levels are well designed even if they get more linear as the game goes on and while I miss hubworlds and the chao garden from Sonic Adventure, they aren't necessary.

All in all, I do find it tough to recommend just because it is a Sonic game, but if you can stand the roughness, honestly, it's a great fucking game.

But play it in sessions.

Because they shitty physics will kill you dead, and even I rage quit no less than six times.

Being Bisexual; Sex, Depression, and figuring out which chopstick is the fork

"So like, when you, you know, do it with boys, which one of you is the girl?"

The other day someone asked me one of those questions that comes up in every "Things you should never ask gay men" video which I'd assume is common knowledge about basic social interactions. As I bisexual, I have the privileged of being able to "act straight" in most company, so the questions I get about my sex life are usually of a mostly hetero-normative variety. People tend to perceive me as being more "straight" and I am a E2-E3 on the Purple-Red Scale which I believe far better describes my sexual orientation than just simply stating "bisexual" or 3 on the Kinsey Scale. As a side note, no one has really developed a system for non-binary gender attractions, which is very unfortunate since I don't think I could state mine any more eloquently than "As long as they got da booty".  For the most part, I'm not a very flamboyant or eccentric person(or maybe to a lot of people I am, but I like to think myself at least a little bit grounded), my usual demeanor is usually either cynical or exhausted, unless you allow me to go off on a tirade about something I'd display socially unacceptable levels of affection for. Another fun complication this brings about is that the gay-dar doesn't really go off around me and no one really gets any signal from the bi-wi-fi either, which makes dating boys a lot harder than it should be. When my queerness does come up it seems to be this sensational piece of gossip that isn't usually talked about, and while I strive to live in my full truth, I gotta say yet again for the people in the back;


(credit; inhumanshieldsketches)

So I'd like to ask everyone in the world to really read this next sentence over, read it a couple times, even if you've taken this advice to heart and you're the strongest, most active LGBTQ ally out there and especially if you don't know a lot of queer folk;

Our sex lives are as personal as yours is, so unless we're really close, don't ask us anything that would be too forward to ask a stranger on the bus.

Especially anything phrased as awfully as which one of you is the girl. I like what someone said about gay sex, and to butcher the quote, gay sex is literally one of the manliest things you could do because there's literally only men involved, so why do we keep asking questions like "Who's the 'girl'?"

There is no girl. That's literally the point of homo pro boning. Which chopstick is the fork?

But the actual meaning veiled behind some sincerely disturbing ideas about masculinity is even more perplexing. Who wears the strap on when you and your husband do anal, Deborah? Who is topping and who is bottoming isn't really anyone's fucking business. Some guys are also versatile and do both, just like some guys like fucking girls and boys because why deny yourself half the world's pleasures? Also, and I cannot repeat this enough, anal is not the only form of sex gay/queer men can have.

Once more, in bold this time, anal is not the only form of sex gay/queer men can have.

Sex is a conversation covering so many broad topics and some of the best sex you might ever have could involve no penetration whatsoever. Sex isn't just hump hump hump cum roll out of bed and go back to hating yourself. Sex is intimacy. Sex is fun. Sex is beautiful and wonderful and whatever you and the person you should be unashamedly fucking decide it is. Sex can be sloppy or romantic or a drunken flurry of limbs or missionary while staring unblinkingly into each other's eyes or mutual masturbation or three hours of 69 but as long as it's consensual and fun and you and your partner communicate that's all that matters.

But those are just some of the most recent things I've had to deal with. The other thing is that, for one, coming out kinda throws your identity out of whack. For the longest time I ignored or disregarded all of my same sex attractions because I knew I was into girls and that definitely without a doubt made me straight because if I wasn't straight then I wouldn't be into girls. I had a lot of toxic thought processes like that and once I overcame those thoughts it also threw everything else I knew into a different perspective. And now, I look back and I'm finding my tastes are also changing because I'm allowing myself to like things that I thought I couldn't like because I liked other directly conflicting things, for example, I found myself unashamedly enjoying Kanye's Power and 2013 me would have slapped my shit broken for doing something the muggles would do. I'm still finding new hardcore and metalcore bands every day and Stray From The Path's new single brought a tear to my eye with how unbefuckinglievably dope it was. And that's great. I used to be the kind of elitist fuck that wrote all of hip hop off as garbage made by garbage musicians. Which is an incredibly naive thing to think because if I heard Watsky's x Infinity or All You Can Do three years ago I would have spun on a fucking dime. Or maybe not, I mean, three years of personal growth is nothing to discount. But things I really used to like I'm finding a little awful now. Some of my favourite anime seems super awful and unbearable. Most anime actually. I used to be able to identify with it because of how much of an outsider I used to feel like and a lot of shounen is written specifically to help people relate to and overcome that feeling. But everything I watch nowadays simply just misses the mark with me. I find myself much more of a snob about animation quality for one, but as soon as I see some awful homophobic or misogynistic trope dancing around the screen for a cheap laugh, it gives me that feeling in my stomach I got in highschool when my friends kept saying "that's so gay!" when they really meant "that's so shitty!".

This transition of character has kept me up at night honestly wondering if I have any idea who I am, or who I want to be any more. Life keeps handing me curve balls and every time I think I know something with absolute certainty, I get punched in the gut and told, lol nope.

But oh well. Such is life.

The takeaway from this is that people change. And that shouldn't depress you. It depresses me sometimes but it's ultimately for the best. We all have to be deconstructed in a cocoon of formative years before we can emerge as nihilistic but ultimately content with our general place in the universe butterflies. So just to reiterate;

-Our sex lives are as personal as yours is, so unless we're really close, don't ask us anything that would be too forward to ask a stranger on the bus.
-There is no girl, it's the literal point of homo pro boning. neither chopstick is the fork
-Anal is not the only form of sex gay/queer men can have.
-People change, you're going to change, but that shouldn't depress you.

But like, seriously, ever notice how hard Kanye goes in Power?

Thursday, December 8, 2016

Saints Row, and how to properly manage spectacle creep

"It was too crazy for Saint's Row."

As I neared the completion of the Enter The Dominatrix DLC, after having my mind fucked sideways in a dirty alley without a condom, I had an odd thought; Somehow, for four (and a half) games, Saints Row has managed to constantly churn out these batshit crazy third person open world GTA parodies that somehow are actually really good.

On paper, I'm pretty sure the design document of any Saints Row game simply states;
"Make it like Grand Theft Auto, but throw in the craziest scenarios you can think of, toss in huge set pieces and then tie it together with ridiculous character creation. Add a dash of whatever seems to be popular this year."

Saints Row 2 had that Need For Speed; Underground visual aesthetic. Saints Row The Third threw in a bit of Just Cause with some Left 4 Dead, Saints Row IV threw in Prototype. Gat Out Of Hell threw in a dash of mediocrity (honestly should have just been DLC man). But the spectacle of it all never wears out. It's like one of those carnival freakshows, you keep coming back just to see if it has anything else that's so unimaginably weird that you just stare agape and wonder how much cocaine was involved. But let me get to the point.

So when you're making the sequel to a film, book, game, play, whatever you can think of, you have to deal with the inevitable spectacle creep. "The stakes are heightened as they've not only Taken his daughter, but they've also Taken his wife." Every new iteration has to have bigger explosions, bigger bad guys, bigger blue sky holes, larger amounts of CGI alien soldiers to fight, epic battles in space... But there's a ceiling. You cannot keep rising.

So how have they managed? Well, I have to assume at least some cocaine is involved. Look, after driving into oncoming traffic with a tiger in the shotgun seat, fighting zombie clones of a giant russian man named Oleg, after riding velociraptors out of a computer simulation, after beating Santa Clawz with the actual fucking north pole, after jumping out of a plane and hijacking an airborn a tank while shooting hostile skydivers, after going to hell and shooting the ever living crap out of Satan whose daughter had fallen in love with you, after preventing nuclear war and becoming president, after fighting sentient toilets, beating up mexican wrestlers with sex dolls, after beating up prostitutes and gimps with gigantic weaponised dildos, even you'd question the sobriety of whoever the fuck even wrote this shit.

In all fairness, try spending an afternoon just coming up with insane scenarios. Try right now. Just start with Abe Licoln, a Batman cosplayer and a barrista who curses like a sailor but has a soft spot for fluffy kitties, and ask, what's the weirdest thing these three could get up to? Maybe fly to the moon and witness an alien orgy gone wrong. Or visiting the city of Atlantis but accidentally starting a civil war over whether are friends or food. They could get trapped in a computer except it's running Windows XP and every ninety minutes a different teenager comes to wack off to hardcore porn and they have to fight off the malware being downloaded onto the hard drive.

That's just off the top of my head.

Saints Row has embraced spectacle and made it a selling point. Saints Row may have started as "GTA, but batshit", but it's quickly become an acid trip monstrosity that is full of cheap thrills and just enough substance to lose hours to. And it has, for the most part, pretty tight gameplay. For all of the parts that make it a Grand Theft Auto clone, at least mechanically, those parts are always done really well. What also carries us through all the insanity is a somewhat revolving cast of genuinely likeable characters, from the ever cool Johnny Gat, to the chronically sarcastic hacker Kinsey Kenzington, to the adorkable Matt Miller and even Keith David, no connotation needed.

Saints Row is trying to sell insanity and Spectacle Creep is its ally, not its weakness. I'd wager the first order of the day in the writing room is to push the spectacle all the way to its ceiling and tone it back from there. Instead of aiming to go crazier than what came before, aim to go as crazy as possible and then compressing it all into a gang management sim slash Grand Theft Auto clone and suddenly you end up with a solid game with tons of replay value and a word of mouth marketing campaign that includes a bunch of people inadequately trying to describe how crazy Saints Row is. All the character customization and the vibrant city to explore and the cars and gang operations is the just the platform it's delivered on, and you see the progression of the game through its history there, in the dynamics, and not in the presentation.

The other thing you can do is also sell the same game every year with a fresh coat of paint and never try to innovate or push the ceiling or break the mold in fear of a fanbase that only worsens with its expectations as time goes on, but who am I to question the giant that is <Assassin's Creed/Fifa/PES/Call Of Duty/Gran Turismo/PGA Tour/NBA/Any EA sports game ever made>

I guess the take away from this is that more games should experiment just for the sake of experimenting, but we shouldn't get caught up in just delivering bigger and better. It's okay if you just deliver better. It's okay if you scale down the size of your city but tighten up the gameplay and sell the player off as a sex slave as cover for infiltrating an organized crime syndicate. Doing insane things every once in a while is what makes life worth living. But don't do insane things just to be the bigger better iteration of yesterday's game. Approaching the design of your sequel with this in mind is a pitfall many creators fall into, and it's how franchises end up at that point of uncertainty, where they no longer have an identity. Look at the scope of any trilogy of Marvel films. It just widens until you have to ask the question; "We've saved the world, where do we go from here? How do we increase the stakes?"

Saints Row is still asking the question "Is it too insane for Saints Row?".

Wednesday, November 30, 2016

Life Is Strange is everything wrong with the modern adventure game; but I still recommend you play it

"Rachael's Bracelet".

This phrase will probably trigger me for the next seven years. There's a point in Life Is Strange where one of your four dialogue options is "Rachael's Bracelet", whilst speaking to a man wearing the bracelet of missing local teen, Rachael something or other, it just occurred to me that I hadn't bothered learning her last name. Honestly, I had tuned a lot of the game out at this point. It had made me sit through obnoxiously lengthy set pieces and everyone's terribly acted out and terribly written dialogue combined with the stiff expressionless faces the models had plastered onto the the front of their heads now pushed me to the point of simply tolerating playing the game, not being actively invested in it;

And then I chose to bring up the rather factual point that the man in front of me was wearing the bracelet of a missing girl.

And that prompted main character Max Caufield to fly off then handle and accuse a known drug dealer carrying both a switchblade and a loaded gun of murder and keeping secrets, when in reality, I just wanted to point out the man's fucking choice in jewelry

This was the moment where all disbelief could be suspended no more, when the immersion broke, where the glass ceiling shattered and I saw the game as it truly was; kind of a garbage fire.

You could see developer Dontnod had only the most basic grasp on some of the things Telltale managed to perfect years before.

Mention Bioware and a lot of players will groan and think of dialogue trees where the on screen text prompts say one thing, and then the words that fly out of your avatar's mouth are completely different. It's honestly a little unforgivable. Imagine other games did this? Imagine Dark Souls said, press Circle to dodge, but then you do and instead your character starts doing the Cha Cha real smooth whilst a three headed dog demon barrels towards you and you've now committed to standing there and allowing your last moments to be of you shaking dat ass before it's swiftly introduced to the pavement.

But this is just the beginning. There are invisible walls everywhere. This wouldn't be a problem if the game didn't hide beer bottles in fucking obscure locations while Max walks with the urgency of a pensioner taking a sunday stroll and barks out vocal ques that are too vague to actually help you.

I'd say those are the games worst offenses, but I'd be leaving out one really large one; Life Is Strange just has no fucking respect for your time; yes, you can fast foward through dialogue you've already heard; But you can't skip a lengthy conversation you know is dull and meaningless, especially if you just want to get on with whatever bullshit meaningless fetch quest the game has sent you on and this is the fourth NPC you're talking to. It's just unwelcome at that point. And let me not forget to spread a circle of fucking salt around that clusterfuck of a bottle hunt that I swear even the fucking developers hated.

There's padding, poor lip synch, awkward animations... The list goes on. I could fill this post with nothing but criticisms and nitpicks and we'd be here until next Wednesday.

But I think let me address one more thing that honestly bugs me about the game probably to the greatest extent. Now the most of the problems I've mentioned were either technical issues or nitpicks, but one of the things grating on the back of my skull was just Chloe.

The cringe fest that is Chloe's dialogue aside (I'm not sure if it's supposed to be some form of ironic patronising millennial speak or if she's supposed to be the hip alternative indie girl of your dreams but I spent the majority of her time on screen looking into my own eye sockets and wondering if somewhere an ex-Disney screenwriter was silently contracted to speed up production by copy pasting from the worst of their sitcom line up) the immediate first thing that came to my mind was Cosima Niehaus from Orphan Black who had that bad ass moment where she firmly declares


And trust me, Cosima is a bad ass queer icon who makes me happy I didn't bleed out at that one twenty first I went to where I got exorcised and banged my head on a corner table.

However, the most interesting thing about Chloe however is that her hair is blue.

I mean, yeah , she has a tragic backstory and all, and she probably likes vaguely the same music your dad liked in his punk phase while high on cocaine under a nearby bridge living with his parents in the suburbs and yeah she wears a beanie and probably skates and reads manga and curses like a sailor and graffitis the walls of her room... I'm not sure I'm perfectly articulating what I'm trying to say.

Chloe is punk waifu bait.

Like there's always this neon sign above her head that says "I'm so fucking counter-culture" and along with the other groan worthy things in the game, it just never goes away. It makes me think of Poochie from The Simpsons and I'm almost certain Chloe was created with a similar thought pattern. There isn't really any sense nuance or originality to the character, hell, we already have a Ramona Flowers, and at least Ramona swings around a cool smiley hammer and Bryan Lee O'Malley at least wrote the word bi-curious in the panels. Hell, if someone at least said the words gay, lesbian or bi then it wouldn't feel so damn queer baity but it does. It's like you're supposed to love this character on the superficial things about her like her taste in music and the colour of her hair and her generic ass sobstory instead of the one thing that Life Is Strange actually does half decent, and that's an organic same sex love story between two girls caught up in a time travelling adventure. You learn to really care for Chloe through her interactions with Max, like that moment she photobombs one of Max's selfies in bed, and when she intervenes when Nathan starts picking a fight... Your interactions with Chloe count for so much more than her too cool for school attitude and vague liking of things you may also like, but like, in a cool, hip way. Chloe isn't entirely unbearable but why the hell is the game trying so damn hard to make me dislike her?

Okay, now that I have drawn my circle of salt and positioned myself firmly in the middle of it, I guess this is the part where I say, despite all that, you should play Life Is Strange.

So, despite all that, you should probably play Life Is Strange.

The reason is because it doesn't do anything related to the adventure genre very well, but the things it adds it does do very well. The over the shoulder camera comes to mind.

Telltale has a habit of using very static, planned shots in their scenes. You view from one angle, usually with a little wiggle room, but it's all very cinematic.

Life Is Strange, for the most part, let's you move the camera around when not in dialogue or QTEs. You can move Max and move the camera, and this let's it the game feel a lot more like a game than an interactive film. Which feels really great. The camera itself just swings in a really nice way and I spent the first five minutes just wiggling it around and looking at all the interactable items in the room.

The HUD is really quirky. It's got that Chalkboard drawn feel to it, so along with the folk/indie soundtrack the game feels super grounded. It never feels like some huge Triple A production but more like something aiming to be it's own. And this is the closest it actually gets to relating to the market its aiming for, by using game feel to communicate with the player. It's easier to get into the frame of mind the game wants you to be in because the HUD combined with the soundtrack draws you into it.

And the soundtrack is really amazing. The Indie/Folk stuff is the best, it's moody and a lot of the time just fills up all the space in the air, and you always feel like you're a moment away from some life changing introspective thought and that's really nice. It really conveys that coming of age, finding your way in the world story every teenager goes through. And it's not just some generic blend of 90s punk and grunge, which would have been the easy pick. 

There are lots of moments where you can just sit around and let Max think. I love when games let you organically modulate your own pace. This is a fantastic one. Just letting Max think, and recap her day, or the week, and ask questions, mull over events, just sitting down and doing nothing is an idea that games could use way more of. Pacing especially is everything in a good, emotionally connecting story and Life Is Strange absolutely nails that much.

The game itself is really pretty. There's some chromatic aberration, the scenes always feel soft, I have to congratulate the colourist on making everything just pop. The game does fulfill as a sense pleasure, and that is one of it's biggest strengths.

And Max and Chloe do have a great, organic relationship dynamic which I never felt regrets about going through. Chloe could be a little one note at times and honestly I found myself questioning over and over again if she's even a good person, hell, a person worth going through half the trouble you do go through for her. But you can't help but get attached, especially during this one scene in Chloe's bedroom and sure, there's another option, but it just feels so satisfying to make Max take that leap of faith. It's a great emotional pay off marred only by some awkward performances from the characters, but that you can chalk down to the low fidelity of the game's models in general.

This is where I'd usually find more to complain about but I'll definitely just leave it at, go play Life Is Strange, if only just the first episode, which is free. But really, if you get to the bottle hunt in episode two, look up a guide, it was designed against you and it's not worth the fucking time it takes to complete it.

Monday, November 14, 2016

Ghost In The Shell's Whitewashing

Scarlett Johansson has made a name for herself as an action heroine. With huge roles like the titular Lucy and Natasha Romanoff/Black Widow in several Marvel Cinematic Universe films, she's all but set for a top billing in a major Anime adaptation from director Rupert Sanders. She's capable and has the talent and popularity to drive box office sales.

The issue however comes in when you realize just how difficult it is for Asian-American actors to land leading roles.

To say one thing in the film's defense, it's pretty huge for a blockbuster action film to have a female lead, let alone to be a high budget adaptation of a critically acclaimed Japanese animation.  This brings a lot of diverse culture and ideas to mainstream audiences. And any leading female cast in the type of role that is generally played by men is also a huge win for feminism.

However, Kelly Hu, Sandra Oh, Lucy Liu, Yunjin Kim, Davon Aoki, Rinko Kikuchi , hell, even Kristin Kreuk could have been cast and none of the above would be invalid. It's not like Hollywood is devoid of Asian actors with long careers and star power. And even so, some of the best selling films of all time have had relatively unknown leads.

But here's where it gets tricky yet again; Anime itself has an issue with race. Let's take... Say, Unbreakable Machine Doll as our case study.



Of what ethnicity would you guess this character is? That wavy mostly straight hair, big blue eyes, pale skin, I'd definitely wager he's European, maybe even from a Germanic country. But he's not, this is actually Raishin Akabane, of the very Japanese Akabane clan. To make matters worse, he's voiced by english voice actor Clifford Chapin.

And this is an unnervingly common practice. Because of how hyper stylized Japanese animation is, mangaka and animation studios often have trouble designing Japanese characters as... Well, Japanese looking.

Unbreakable Machine Doll is my favourite case though. Look at the other cast of characters in the show and apart from vocal ques (I'll admit Lisette has a really pleasant Irish voice in the English Dub) and their names, I couldn't tell you their country of origin.

One of the many reasons so many western cartoonists opt to use anthropomorphic animals as their characters is that there are only so many different ways to draw a human face. I mean, Bugs Bunny, Mickey Mouse, Felix The Cat, Garfield, Snoopy, Hobbes, Sonic... Half of these characters would be unremarkable as humans.

Anime gets around this unfortunate handicap with it's unique visual design quirks and stylization. Light Yagami is as recognizable as Bugs Bunny from that sinister look in his eyes to his ridiculously perfect hair and that eerie smirk that he wears on his face.

(The face one makes when they take a potato chip, and eats it)

 So it's perfectly natural for a medium to struggle to represent the subtleties of human ethnicity through it's abstract design when the phrase exaggerated subtleties is in itself an oxymoron.

What about when it does?

Image result
(Soichi from Detroit Metal City)
Image result
(Nakai from Bakuman)


(Afro from Afro Samurai)

(Balalaika from Black Lagoon)

Conversely, a Nicktoons show called Kappa Mikey managed to solve this ethnic incoherence by matching two extremely different visual designs together, and a lot of the humour of the show comes from the cultural differences of Mikey versus his Japanese cast members. I remember a whole lot of laughs coming from the spoofs of popular shonen tropes and just the silly situations the characters find themselves in.



What I'm saying is, it's possible to to both stylize and communicate ideas through creative design. And this is probably where the issue itself was born. Add to the fact that most popular anime protagonists are fair skinned males with European facial features and one might reach the startling conclusion that anime has kind of... Whitewashed itself. Don't believe me? Here's a picture of the Shonen Jump Ultimate Stars roster.

2598949-9943537956-3.jpg.jpg (831×1200)

In a recent video published by That Japanese Man Yuta we see that most of the randomly chosen Japanese citizens on the street are perfectly fine with the casting. And while a handful of folks on the street don't represent an entire ethnic group, we can safely assume that to a lot of the general public, this is just a non-issue. Even the creator of Ghost In The Shell has supported and approved Scarlett Johansson's casting. While that makes for a separate discussion on whether or not a creator necessarily knows what's best for their own intellectual property and the adaptations thereof, the crux of the matter is that Scarlett Johansson has been cast, the film has already started production and is likely near finished and this won't be the last time it happens.

In future, I think I'd like to appeal to manga publishers like Shonen Jump, Tokyopop, Tanoshimi and the like to publish works with more ethnic diversity and racial themes. I'd also like to appeal to mangaka to create more protagonists that aren't the default harem attracting fair skinned Mary Sue Sasuke Uchihas in favour of more ethnically diverse heroes.

And finally, I'd like to appeal to anyone who likes anime to stop shitting a brick and screaming for the death of SJWs whenever anyone raises a legitimate concern about the state of the industry. Feminism, black activism, LGTBQ activism and political correctness are not going to kill your grandmother and take your toys. And to everyone else, it's okay to not go watch Ghost In The Shell because it did take a great anime and plaster a white face on it like the Kardashians claiming to have invented braids, but it looks to be a good film and to be honest, it might end up being the closest thing we ever get to a truly great major Hollywood adaptation of an anime, and if you can stomach ScaJo's face, it might be worth watching (I'd wait until the Rotten Tomatoes scores come out though).

Otherwise, there are plenty of live action adaptations from Japan that do their source material justice. I quite liked the second Death Note live adaptation because it ended in a better way than the anime did. So find a copy or stream it, grab popcorn and remember, the subtitles don't bite.

But fuck that Light Turner bullshit. That shit should get it's own theme song. Like fucking, Light Turner was an average kid that no one understands, his dad and the investigation unit always giving him commands. Gloom and doom up in his room, appearing instantly, is a magic shinigami giving him a book and in reality Ryuk's his god of death, odd god of death.

Fuck dat noise.

Thursday, November 10, 2016

The Gamification Essay I Never Got To Write

Okay, a little background. In one of my university modules I was tasked with writing an essay. At the time I frowned upon the idiots around me who couldn't tell gamification from Grand Theft Auto if one of them bettered the school system and the other riled up controversy for the murder of prostitutes. So I opted for copyright law, the one I at the time had more knowledge and experience with. Since then, I have watched so much Game Maker's Toolkit, Extra Credits, PBS Idea videos, read papers on Mechanics, Dynamics and Aesthetics, played a whole lot more videogames and realised that I could write the ever loving shit out of the gamification essay, so that's what I'm going to do, except for the fun of it. Now, I could actually go write this in a super academic sense with citations and everything BUUUUTTT THAAAT'S REAALY BOOORING so I'ma just wing it, this is a personal blog and I'm just here for a good time. This might be a little long winded but you know what, I got a lot of shit to say and no word limits or goals.

Anyway so let me start by what I mean by Gamification and a little bit more of a focus on what the topic is. I'm going to be talking about Gamification in regards specifically to a school and university environment, how it can be applied to studying. I'll be using a lot of more out there game design theory, and the field is relatively new so any terminology I use could be outdated already since it is being advance literally every second I write this piece. However, most of it should still be relevant.

Anyway, let's dive right in.

The first thing I'll say that education isn't a game. If it were, it'd be the ET on the Atari 2600 of modern games. It fucking sucks. Universities, most highschools, prep schools, middle schools, they're all still using *really* outdated teaching methods and honestly this shit might have worked 20 years ago, but we're at that new age point where we're preparing students for jobs that don't exist yet. It's an incredible time to be alive and the fields of study are progressing so the way we study them should progress as well. In this very formal blog post (puts on monocle and sips tea) I'll be approaching schooling as if I were designing it like the game I've always wanted to play.

The first issue I'll tackle is iteration time.

Iteration time is basically the time it takes to get from a fail state, to a state where you can try again. A lot of older videogames took a whole bunch of pride in murdering your ass. There'd be a big Game Over screen and then you'd be taken back to the title screen and then you'd have to reload a save and URRRGH it's frustrating. Thankfully the practice is more f a remnant of a bygone era now. These days you'll die in some World War 2 based shooter, time will rewind and you'll be put moments before you got killed. Bioshock especially doesn't even respawn the enemies you killed. Prince of Persia will literally rewind time to right before you messed up the jump. So what's the iteration time of schooling right now? Well, if you fail a test, you can't retake it. If you fail a subject, you have to wait 365 days to retake that subject. Imagine if you failed a level in a videogame and it said, no no no, come back in a year when you've gotten good, scrub. Fucking learn some pro strats before you walk up to me with that weak ass shit again.

I'd say, fuck this game, I'm going to go play some Super Meat Boy, Why bring up Super Meat Boy? Well I'm glad I asked so you didn't have to! I'll link to Mark Brown's episode of Game Maker's Toolkit on redesigning death, which is my primary inspiration for this part of the essay. Okay, here's a link to a Let's Play of Super Meat Boy, specifically around 3:33, Jacksepticeye dies. But pay attention. Notice, he died, the screen fades for about a second, and he's immediately at the start of the level.

The iteration time is half a second long.

Now, iteration time in games can be used to control the flow and pace of a game. Sometimes it's used to evoke a certain feeling. Dark Souls especially likes to evoke the feeling of existential dread and insignificance, and likes to remind you, in BIG BOLD RED LETTERING that you, have in fact, died.



That's no fun, is it? Imagine after every botched test the world went dark and in bold red lettering it spelled out YOU FAILED. At least Super Meat Boy doesn't taunt you, it doesn't make a huge fuss, you died, try again.

Now imagine you're taking a math test, and let's say it's electronic and multiple choice. You've just answered say six out of ten questions incorrectly, which is a fail.

However, instead of just grading you and failing you, what if the screen faded to black, put you at question one and said try again?

This is a concept known as motivational punishment, and I'll let Snowman Gaming tell you all about it in his video. The point is to reset the game from a fail state as quickly as possible in order to make sure the player is not discouraged by their death but motivated to try again as the opportunity is quickly and readily available. Why wait 365 days to retake the test that cost you passing the semester when right after you fail, you could take the test again, and again, and again, right until you got the grade you needed. While someone could probably find a better solution to the problem, I'm here mostly to point out flaws and create a starting point. Currently, in the game of educatin' yo'self, you have to wait a pretty long fuckin time to play again after you "die". So the iteration time needs to be lessened dramatically. Also, it'd be nice not to put anxiety fuel messages on out student portals like "Did not qualify for exam entrance". That shit is just hard to look at man, it hurts deep.

Anyway but say we've cut down the iteration time. What else seems to be plaguing our game? It's nowhere near that IGN 10/10 so what else can we do?

Let's talk about Game Feel.

While Dark Souls is still fresh in our minds, what feeling is the game trying to evoke? In other words, how does it feel to play Dark Souls? Now this is an inexact science, I'll readily admit that. For the most part, it's pretty hard to nail Game Feel. But what it comes down to is a dumbed down formula of control plus atmosphere. So, how does it feel to learn in the modern schooling system?

If this website is to be believed, Suicide is the second leading cause of death for kids ages 10-24. That's pretty fucked up. Every day I hear at least one person out of my fellow Computer Science students make a joke about jumping off the Humanities building. Let's face it, it's fucking stressful. Worse, it's needlessly stressful. We can do so much better! Let's start with the problem that for some reason we think our classes need to be these strict learning environments that are prim and proper.

In highschool, I remember my math class having a board at the back with Demotivational Posters. They were huge back when the internet was new but it always managed to make me laugh. There. That's Game Feel. The environment was made less oppressive and stressful by a couple funny posters. Now, I will hold back no blows, I fucking hate math. I'm bad at it, it never feels intellectually stimulating, it's been one field of study I've never had any interest in. Unlike logic puzzles or memorization puzzles, is none of those. It's simple enough when you understand the rules and common solutions, *but is unsolvable if you know neither*. That's how it always felt to me, anyway. However, I'd been doing really poorly at the start of grade 11. But the point my grades picked up was pretty significant. I was sitting next to my best friend in class, and something amazing happened.

I started singing a Panic At The Disco song.

It was just stuck in my head, and we had worksheet in front of us, and I couldn't give a particular fuck on that particular day so I was jamming to this Panic song while doin' mah math. But my mate was also particularly into Panic At The Disco. So he sung along.

And that is how the math class jam sessions were born.

My grades immediately picked up because while doing our work, my best friend and I were just humming our favourite jams. It was crazy. But the learning environment had changed. My math class was no longer this dreaded place of failure, it was where my best friend and I went to have a good time. There. Game Feel. It felt rewarding to do math because it didn't feel like a chore anymore. By simply adding music. Ta da. The power of the arts everyone. Get that art degree, make fine art, change the world. We need artists as much as scientists.

The important takeaway here is that music can change how you feel in any situation. It can change how you feel about about doing a certain task. And that's the takeaway. You can change Game Feel by simply changing the music. And you can change how learning feels by adding some sweet tunes.

Now, Game Feel also comes down to how it feels to control your character. It feels super fun and bouncy to jump around as Mario, but Ezio has a decidedly harder time trying his best to reach for ledges and making these stressful perfect jumps where one misstep could lead to bone breaking painful death. The avatar you control also plays a huge role. For example, when my mate was playing Saint's Row IV, I looked at the game and thought meh. It's okay. Doesn't look great but oh well, I might try it if it's on sale. And then it was, and lo and behold, do you know what a difference it made to play with my own President? The thing is, when you play with an an avatar you yourself designed, when you get to make a fashion statement, or just run around in comfy clothes, it changes game feel. You feel more comfortable with something familiar to you than you do with the moldy testicle that you play as in Dark Souls (until you reverse hollowing but with the amount of death in that game, get used to seeing your desiccating wrinkled ass running around)

This is why I personally vouch for abolishing uniform. Now this applies more to Private Colleges and Private Schools but you can't exactly feel comfortable in uniform. You can't pick out a cute outfit or dress up as a naked obese clown. And honestly, I feel very comfy when dressed as a naked obese clown.

The long and short of it is that how it feels to be in a learning environment should feel fun. It should feel like playing a Mario game. Just look at Super Mario 3D World. It just looks fun to play and feels good. It has good game feel. And as a caffiene dependent vegetable, I can tell you straight that uni has garbage game feel. But here's a video from Cagey on the subject of Game Feel (watch both parts, it's really good).

Lastly, a lot of game feel also comes down to how the game responds to your input. Like the sound it makes when your fist connects with some punk's jaw in Streets Of Rage or the vibration in your controller when you're firing a gun while playing Call Of Duty. It should feel good to succeed at Uni and School. So instead of this pitting us against each other crap with top student and trophies, I'd just love it if every time I learned something new and useful, that little Zelda jingle played. You know the one.

Now that we've talked about Game Feel, and now that I've mentioned Mario, you know what Universities and Schools could use a little more of?

Dat sweet, sweet invisible tutorial;

In the original Super Mario Brothers, the first level teaches you so much about the game. It gives you a lot of space to figure out the controls, the first Goomba moves slowly and gives you plenty of time to react, and overall it's so iconic that it's stuck around and is used as an example of good game design to this very day. Here's another Mark Brown video on the subject (his voice soothes my soul). Snowman also does a video on the subject, which he titles Teaching Without Teaching (by the way, Shovel Knight is just fucking fantastic. If you haven't played it, I highly recommend you do). This is just a concept that could be littered EVERYWHERE in schooling. From applications in the design of the campus, to introducing new themes in a specific subject, the invisible tutorial is a powerful tool.

All that's really required to make it work are a safe space in which a concept is introduced, control is never taken away from the student and they can learn it at their own pace, everything should be introduced one step at a time to keep the student from being overwhelmed and the environment should be designed in such a way that the student reaches the conclusions they need to naturally. This is a little harder for me to try give an example of how to implement since I'm not good enough at any of the things I'm studying to set up such nuanced learning experiences, but I'll tell you about a dissection I did in the ninth grade for Biology.

So, I'd never worked with a dead animal before, I was pretty much clueless and really, I wasn't even good at Bio. But my teacher was genuinely some kind of genius because the way she managed to teach us was pretty brilliant. So we were put into groups and each group had a sheep's head and we were each told to remove a part. First, she did a small demonstration, with safety procedures and all. From observation, I learned how to hold most of the equipment we'd be using. Next, we all got a turn to remove a piece. I was on his eye, and it was pretty tricky to remove. But there was also  all these posters on the walls with anatomic diagrams and helpful tips. So when I was stuck, all I had to do was look around and the answers were right there in front of me. At the end, we had to do a small report and I remember feeling really great that from that little practical experiment, I had learned a whole bunch of new body parts, the names of different pieces of equipment, how to use them, the safety procedures and all that. It felt good to learn that day. And I wasn't treated like an idiot either. I was given all the tools I needed to succeed and the knowledge was a byproduct of just a little experimentation in a carefully controlled experience.

I didn't even know I had just went through an invisible tutorial. It wasn't an hour long lecture on how safety and then on body parts. It was hands on, and practical. I could see what I was suppose to learn and I had to apply it. A concept was introduced, I had a safe space to play around with it, and then the knowledge I gained from the experience was tested. Bam.

There's a certain feeling you get from it. Like the game itself wants you to beat it. The game isn't indifferent to your presence, it wants to be played and it wants to challenge you and it wants you to overcome its challenges to it can present you with more complex ones. And I just don't think schools ever try really instill that feeling into students. You're a student number, they say. You pass or fail by your own hands. You have to be here. You have to do this amount of work to pass. Study at least this amount of hours per week. Some of the greatest videogames of all time would never even have been given a second thought if they locked all the fun behind studying their mechanics for six hours a week.

So we've talked about Iteration Time, Game Feel, Invisible Tutorial. What else? I mean, this is just the tip of the ice berg. I want to talk about the two golden accomplishments of gaming, Speedrunning and  100% completionism.

So for those who don't know, videogames have built up quite a culture around running through games as fast as possible. There's a real mastery shown in players who can take a six to seven hour experience and cut it down to about 24 minutes. Games Done Quick is a convention where gamers stream their speedruns and the money raised goes towards charity. It's great fun and some of the things gamers do at these events are honestly just ridiculous. My favourite is a three hour speed run of Metroid Fusion and Metroid Zero mission using the same input. It's insane, a game that took me hours upon hours to finish due to all the deaths, someone can finish in three hours WHILE FINISHING ANOTHER GAME AT THE SAME TIME. It's these feats that stand out and really make the community stronger, and what's great about them is that they can be replicated.

So, why not let us speedrun subjects? If I can learn first semester psychology in three weeks, should I not be allowed to do so? You always hear about those wizkids who finished two years of highschool in one, but honestly, if we were allowed to learn and then write off certain subjects, I think a whole lot of people could do it. Now, speedruns also have certain conditions, there are any percent speedruns which just means anything goes as long as you can get the credit sequence to trigger as fast as possible, then there are 100% runs, which means you must complete any and all objectives in the most timely fashion for the run to count. This is the more useful method as anyone can barely pass four tests and an exam in four weeks. But like winter school, where you devote several hours a day to a subject and try get it all in at once, then write an exam afterwards, we should allow students to go through different courses at different paces. We owe it to them to respect their intellegence as such. Some games even offer little rewards for doing this. Although I don't think we need to show kids a naked Samus Aran for running through geography as fast as they can (that is a dated reference, friends).

As for completionism, this bounces off what I said about iteration time. What if you could get 100% for a subject? Sounds great, right? If you got 99% on a test, what if you could retake it right afterwards and then try again and again until you got 100%? Kind of like getting all the achievements in a videogame. Welcome to Completionism. Guys like Jirard have built carreers upon playing games until they see that sweet 100% on their save files. Check out anything he's done, I'll link his channel here. Imagine you could do this with school subjects, especially ones you really enjoy? Imagine taking all the tests back to back until you get a passing grade, then spending the rest of the semester gradually retaking those tests until you know all the answers and can get 100% for them and 100% complete the subject? That sounds like so much fun. I love it when games reward you for this. Additional content, secret endings, bonus levels, tougher dungeons... It's just feels great when you put in the extra effort for playing all there is to play of a game, it gives you a little something for your troubles. This'd be a great thing for studies. Recommendations for jobs on your permanent record, scholarships, anything of the nature. Everyone has that one game they're willing to sit through all the tedious side quests and shitty missions to complete 100% just because they love it so damn much, so why can't we do it with university subjects? (time constraints for starters) But I just feel like every student could benefit from gamification to this extent.

*EDIT: My friend Joshua reminded me of a really important part, and that's the motivation to play any videogame. Which is also about the motivation to finish studying. In his words:



" A big change needs to be made with how teaching is done at all levels and how we motivate kids and students to get them to really succeed, as a fear of failure is not enough to motivate people to do so. If the motivation you're using for subjects in highschool or varsity is "if I pass it gets me closer to never having to do this subject again" then there is a problem."


So there are about eight or so core aesthetics of play and most games build themselves around two or three of those (the best generally fulfilling about five or six games, and go home and test this with each of your favourite games, it really does work). Ideally a game should encompass all of them, but realistically people play different games for different reasons. They could include a mode in Banjo Kazooie that appeals to the hardcore WW2 era FPS crowd that puts you in first person mode but most designers know to rather do really well with one aesthetic than to half ass three. To name them, it's Sensation, Fantasy, Narrative, Challenge, Fellowship, Discovery, Expression and Submission. There's an Extra Credits episode that can explain it way better than I can (Linked here:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uepAJ-rqJKA)

So to get a student to be motivated for any particular subject, you'll probably have to design it around one of those aesthetics. Let's take History for example. We can start with Submission which is Game as Past Time. It's incredibly easy to just sit down in front of the History Channel or Extra History, tune out after a long day and just watch that kind of thing for the fun of it. It's really fun to listen to the story of Hannibal Barca trek through the alps to fuck with Romans. It's an incredible story. You can watch Historic films or such. You can turn a subject like History into something as easy to do as playing Candy Crush or Angry Birds. History can also fulfill the aesthetic of Discovery, which is Game as Uncharted Territory. For example, let's say you have a huge list of significant events in history you have to learn about. Each time you learn about an event, it gets ticked off. So kind of like filling in a map in Diablo by walking to an area in it, you can "fill in" this timeline of significant events in History by learning about it. History also by default fulfills Narrative, Game as Drama. It literally writes itself. You want to know what happens next in a great story, and we as a species have literally created so many just by doing what we do, which is living. I refer again to Hannibal trekking through the alps on the backs of Elephants to fuck with Romans. It's an incredible story and as long as it's told well, you wanna hear more of it.

With motivation, it does come down to whether or not the student is into what aesthetic a subject can fill, but if we treat subjects like game genres, there's also no reason any student can't have a great time learning any subject. I don't like First Person Shooters but I love Borderlands and Portal and Dr Brain and Mirror's Edge. A lot of people don't like Zelda, but they loved the hell out of Darksiders (which is a Zelda clone in every sense of the word). I'm not a fan of Grand Theft Auto-esque sandboxy games, but I put in a stupid amount of hours into Saints Row IV.

With enough work, any subject can attract any student, it just needs to fulfill *one* of the aesthetics that student is drawn to and boom! Motivation to learn.
I love games. Hell, everyone loves games. If I could use my love for games to broaden my horizons and increase my knowledge I sure as hell would. And while not every idea in contemporary game design is particularly useful, gamification of education could educate generations of kids who would otherwise be left behind in the modern school system because it simply doesn't account for them. There are dozens more ideas I have and honestly, I'm just a little sick of writing this essay and you're sick of reading it so I think, maybs, let's call it a day here. But Gamification could do so much for us.

Perhaps its time we really start consider using it to change the way we learn.

I still wanna go to campus as a naked obese clown though, just saying.