Change You Cannot Believe In: GTA V Pulled By Target and Kmart

So, this just happened. A petition on Change.org has successfully convinced Target and Kmart to pull Grand Theft Auto V (GTA V) off their shelves on the grounds that the game promotes sexual violence against women. This annoys me on a number of levels, which I shall neatly outline in a variety of dot points later on, but on a whole, the petition itself pisses me off because this is a wonderful example of how factual inaccuracy, media coverage and sheer utter ignorance results in a moral panic towards a medium that already has enough criticism levelled at it from within and without.

While Target and Kmart have every right to pull GTA from their shelves and people have the right to complain and take action against what they perceive to be a potential threat and/or dangerous to the social fabric, I detest the fact that the success of this petition rests on faulty claims and clearly being used to further a particular agenda. An agenda criticising the portrayal of violence against women, a proposition that I do not disagree with but nonetheless is misguided in this instance.

Firstly, I shall pick apart the petition and point out exactly what is factually inaccurate about the claims made and hence undermine the entire premise of the petition.

• The authors claim that GTA V "that encourages players to murder women for entertainment. The incentive is to commit sexual violence against women, then abuse or kill them to proceed or get 'health' points."
• First of all, the game incentivises you to commit crime in general. It does not differentiate between violence against men or women, allowing the player to indiscriminately attack and potentially kill both men and women in various ways.
• Second of all, there is no mechanic allowing the commission of sexual violence against women. I will concede that you can abuse women by choosing to punch them but at the same time, you can abuse men by choosing to punch them, so I'm not sure what the issue is here.
• Third of all, there is literally no point in the game where hurting a woman will forward the game's narrative and there is absolutely no way to get health points from killing women, let alone anyone. On the contrary, attacking a woman (or a man) will almost always get the attention of the police who will bear down upon you as a force of almighty vengeance, which actually harms your health, not helps it.
• The authors also claim that "after various sex acts, players are given options to kill women by punching her unconscious, killing with a machete, bat or guns to get their money returned."
• Yes, but you're given the exact same options to deal with any non-player character in the game.
• Also, you can't punch anyone unconscious. Typically punching an NPC results in death.
• The author clearly has never played the game because machetes are not present in GTA V at any point. A knife, yes. A golf club, yes. A police baton, yes. A machete, no.
• "This misogynistic GTA 5 literally makes a game of bashing, killing and horrific violence against women. It also links sexual arousal and violence."
• Again, the game lets you kill any NPC regardless or race, gender, body size, body weight, body shape, religion so, I wouldn't call it misogynistic.
• I'm not sure what she means by the linkage between sexual arousal and violence. A further explanation would help.
• Games like this are grooming yet another generation of boys to tolerate violence against women. It is fuelling the epidemic of violence experienced by so many girls and women in Australia - and globally.
• Oh good, another person in the camp of every gamer gamer is an idiot who cannot differentiate between reality and a video game world. Yes there are people who cannot tell the difference but they are in the minority.
• Also, the same could be said of violent books, television and movies, why not get rid of those as well?
• Gamers are not all boys either. A lot of them are men. And a lot more of them are women, for crying out loud.

Secondly, I should point out that the authors highlight the fact that they themselves have encountered sexual violence in their past. If this is true, I am honestly sorry for them but it does not justify this false crusade based on strawmen and factual inaccuracies. While the game may glamorise the criminal life and allow many depraved acts of violence, it should be noted that the game is also a work of satire. It often pokes fun at the player for committing violence with wanton abandon and punishes the player for excessive violence through a vigilant police force. 

Thirdly, I'll cover why the results of the petition are disappointing.

• People actually genuinely believe that the game is misogynistic and promotes violence against women now. If you don't believe me, read the comments in news stories about it or why people signed the petition on Change.org. This further delegitimises and adds to the already weighty opposition to video games as an entertainment medium.
• We, as in gamers, fought for an R-rating in Australia for so long for the reason that we do want to play games with mature themes but recognise that they should not be accessible by minors. That is the point of an R-rating. By simply pulling the game off the shelf, this undoes years of work to provide gamers the freedom to make their own choices while trying to protect minors. 
• This is not a victory for Target and Kmart as responsible corporate entities. It simply removes a form of revenue for them and redirects business to other companies. It's not as if the game cannot be bought anymore. People can just go elsewhere to get it.

365 Days Later

Hey everyone, it's been a good solid year and I'm quite happy with how far this little project has come. Thank you so much for sticking with us (for those that have) and welcome to our tiny little speck of the internet (for those who are new to the blog) which I hope we'll maintain for the years to come. We're still lacking a proper dialogue between us and you but I understand it's a little daunting to comment on a stranger's blog. If you do want to say something though, please feel free, be it criticism or praise or suggestions or anything really, unless you want to spam us with spam sites, then, please don't come back.

Anyway, one year in and we're still going quite strong. We're working on a couple of things aside from writing here and we'll be happy to reveal them to you when the time comes. Hopefully, the major thing will be being able to transition from the blog to our own proper website where hopefully, we can create a fun and vibrant community, a little corner of the internet you can call your virtual home, like PlayStation Home except not terrible. Again, thank you to anyone who has stuck with us for however long you've stuck with us and we look forward to hearing from you.

Medal of Honor: Warfighter - A Retrospective

My, how time has passed. It's almost a year since I started writing on the interwebz and it's been a fairly rough ride. Getting content on isn't easy and getting people to read this stuff wasn't any easier. Hell, I'm still not sure if anyone actually reads this stuff other than the bots and spam-machines that occasionally drop by. As some of you may know, I started this whole project because I was disappointed in the state of video game "journalism", with the impetus being the disastrous reviews of a game I thought received a lot of undeserved criticism, Medal of Honor: Warfighter. As I predicted when the game came out, the negative reviews would lead to some pretty severe consequences. Thanks to the poor reviews the game received, the sales tanked and EA yanked the Medal of Honor series out of rotation for an indefinite period, marking the end of what I felt was the series that really launched a great era of first-person shooters. Furthermore, a majority of the development team was let go following the closure of Danger Close with some lucky enough to be transferred to the newly-created DICE Los Angeles, an off-shoot of the Swedish studio responsible for Battlefield and Mirror's Edge.

This infuriates me to no end because the Danger Close team were not a bad team of developers and they did not put out a shoddy game. They put out a decent game that unfortunately had to take the hit for the modern military shooter subgenre. Sure, the first-person shooter genre is flooded with military shooters but that did not make it fair for Warfighter to take all the criticism that could've rightly gone to Modern Warfare 3, released the year before and was seriously a re-hash of the previous games in the Call of Duty series. At the end of the day, because a few "journalists" decided to trash a game as an example rather than because it was a poor game, a lot of people lost their jobs and a great series has been put on ice, perhaps even killed off. Look, I'm sure there are a lot of detractors out there who would disagree with me, saying that reviewers were right for calling the game a buggy, unfinished piece of trash. To those people, I say they're entitled to their opinion but they should recognise that at the end of the day, it is an opinion. Sure, Warfighter had its fair share of bugs but what game doesn't? In addition to that, I can think of a few examples of games with fairly massive flaws that got ignored because the reviewers like the game so much (e.g. Fallout 3, Fallout: New Vegas, Skyrim, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, Call of Duty: Black Ops for the first week or so on the PS3 etc.). I don't know about you but that seems like a huge double-standard to me. The point is, all the reviews for Warfighter were just opinions. Understandably, the general consensus that the game was bad would turn any sane person away from purchasing the game but unfortunately, reviewers aren't always right.

I've always recognised that reviews are opinions and they should be taken with a grain of salt, but the problem is, most people don't see it that way. I'm not going to claim that reviewers should receive all the blame for Warfighter's dismal sales but if you read the comments or are even remotely tuned in to the internet at large, many people basically decided not to pick up the game because of the poor reviews it got. Fair enough, people want to spend their money wisely and a poorly-rated game across the board seems like a pretty risky purchase. I get that. The problem is, reviewers are stating opinions as fact and people actually believe that. Not that I blame them. Reviewers or video game "journalists" have been trying to convince people that they are actual journalists for a long time. There are definitely a few actual journalists in the field but unfortunately, their work isn't as popular or widespread as their more populist tabloid-y counterparts who work for the major gaming networks. These people are not journalists just because they are paid to report on gaming news. They are basically glorified bloggers with fancy job titles. Now don't get me wrong, not everyone in the business of reporting gaming-related news is a pretentious or elitist snob. On the contrary, I'm sure a lot of the people in the business are passionate and dedicated writers trying to improve their craft. The problem is, they work in an industry that keeps trying to convince itself that it is a serious business that people should take seriously. This isn't a negative thing. As an Arts student, I completely understand the need to justify your choices and your work because people don't take you seriously. My problem is that these people fail to fulfil the basic requirements needed to be a journalist. Many cannot spell properly and have terrible grammar and even worse prose making it somewhat difficult for me to take them seriously as journalists. Furthermore, there is a disturbing lack of ethics particularly when certain sites advertise the games they are supposed to be impartially reviewing and receive special gifts or trips from companies publishing said games. On the subject of impartiality, there lies the biggest problem I have with video game "journalists". They seem to have none although they try to portray themselves as experts reporting facts to the public. If they really are professionals who are reporting facts then they shouldn't be accepting special press trips or gifts from publishers. Even if they have the utmost integrity, it is completely unacceptable for a journalist to be getting preferential treatment. And on the flipside, journalists should thus not throw a hissy fit because they failed to get a copy of a game early from a publisher especially one that is notorious for not handing out early copies. This was the case with Warfighter when reviewers flat-out accused EA for withholding early copies because it was an unfinished product that they didn't want the public to see. Or perhaps it was because EA is wary of reviewers who give their competitors higher scores because they get showered with special events, previews and gifts way in advance of the game being released.

Back on the subject of Warfighter, the reviewers/"journalists" demonstrated an epic misunderstanding of what their job involves by nitpicking on small things rather than focusing on the whole package. As a fan of the game, I'm more than willing to admit that Warfighter had its shortcomings but it was a genuinely decent game. It had problems and there were some things it got wrong but there were so many things that it did get right that none of the reviewers noticed or bothered to point out. First of all, the graphics were, on the whole, excellent. Sure it's not up to the same level as Battlefield 3 even though both games use the same engine but you have to give Danger Close some props, this was the first time they were working with the Frostbite engine and they managed to get quite a lot out of it with so little experience working with it. Furthermore, the game had a nice degree of realism to it with realistic weapons, gear and equipment and if the advertising is to be believed, even fairly realistic recounting of real-life events. I mean, come on, they even bothered to actually put in and animate the fire-mode selector so that it actually moves to the correct position when selecting various fire modes! I think the problem in this respect was that the realism was in the details rather than the big picture. The way the weapons were handled, the camouflage used, the types of gloves the operators wore, the weapons and equipment they used as well as the realistic dialogue were all things I noticed because I'm an avid military enthusiast. I'm not suggesting that all the reviewers should have known this but with realism being the major marketing point used by EA, it probably would've paid off if they did their research and see if the claims of realism were right. Keeping on the theme of realism and details, the developers definitely put a lot of work into the weapons and attachments, allowing a vast array of customisation that actually affects the performance of the weapon based on whatever accessories were equipped unlike another big-name competitor where the balance is so fine-tuned that attachments barely do anything and occasionally aren't even modelled correctly (Long Barrel, anyone?). Furthermore, the sound design was brilliant with some of the best audio I've heard in a game since Battlefield 3 or ARMA II with the guns actually sounding like guns, the suppressors actually working like suppressors rather than magic silencers and the various sounds made when a bullet hit various surfaces.

I suppose Warfighter's downfall can be partly attributed to their focus on the nitty-gritty and putting the devil in the details while failing to account for how people might perceive the big picture. At the same time, these people reviewing it are supposed to be and often call themselves professionals. If this were the case, they would've done their research and actually tried their best to present an impartial case when reviewing any game. If they keep reviewing games as they do now though, that's perfectly fine but it'd be nice if they acknowledged that their reviews are simply opinion and not fact as they lead people to believe and people do actually sometimes believe, a misunderstanding that I find is still prevalent. On the specific subject of the Warfighter reviews, I was extremely disappointed by most of the reviewers who had a need to trash the game because they didn't get an early copy (only a smattering raised this point) or because they were burned out by the genre (a majority of reviewers). If they wanted to express their disappointment with the military shooter genre, then write a god-damn opinion piece on why the market is saturated with military shooters and how much of a disaster it is, not attack a fairly decent game because you want to make an example. The absolute best part is, when Black Ops II came out, apparently everyone got over their disillusionment with the modern military shooter and praised an old game with a few small tweaks sold as revolutionary and innovative.

In short, I have two main points:

1. Reviewers should try and act with some semblance of impartiality if they want to present themselves as experts in the field that offer recommendations and advice, if not, stop pretending like they are more qualified than anyone else and mention that their reviews are merely opinion, not fact.
2. Cut Warfighter some slack. It got a bad rap because of an unfortunate series of events which led to it taking the fall for the modern military first-person shooter as well as some poor reviewing on the part of a majority of the major sites. Gamespot, in my opinion was the only major site that gave a fair score, the rest sort of gave scores that don't seem to match the descriptions of their scoring system. I mean, a score in the 30s or 40s would mean some pretty serious problems and somehow, Skyrim for PS3 which had A LOT of issues, including freezing and massive lag, but was nonetheless a good game got scores in the 80s and 90s.

The Last of Us, Again

3 months ago, I paved through The Last of Us on both Normal and Hard difficulties. I loved every second of it. Without spoiling too much, I found myself crying and having to put down the controller from shock on at least one occasion by the end of my first playthrough.

I moved onto its engaging Multiplayer mode a few weeks later, when Renegade Sandwich and Brancake had received their copies. We desperately combed battlefields to feed the needs of our crumbling virtual clans. It wouldn't last though. We eventually got too busy, or too frustrated at the Multiplayer load times. Following the untimely demise of Renegade Sandwich's PS3, we basically left The Last of Us for other prospects.

Because The Last of Us is one of my most cherished gaming experiences, I suggested it to many of my friends. One of them was hesitant, so I offered to let him test it out at my place before his (totally inevitable) purchase. Watching him play the game again made me want to jump back in (not at the moment of course; that would make me a terrible host). Despite my attempts to convince him to bring it home, he left it my place.

Playing The Last of Us again obviously became quite tempting. So I'm stepping into Joel's shoes once more, but this time on Survivor difficulty. I tried it once, but the absence of a Listening Mode (Joel's ability to gauge enemy presence in the environment) made it hard for me to imagine how to survive for very long. Now that I'm a little older and a little bolder, maybe I can survive the hordes of Infected and Hunters and beat the game again.

I think I'm ready. Wish me luck!

Bernt Toast is an author at The Ops Centre. He is up to date on The Legend of Korra, and his futile attempts to firebend are amusing to watch.

Editor's Note: Unfortunately, due to the difficult nature of Survivor mode, Bernt Toast was killed in action. As a result, he will no longer be reporting from the field.

Dragon Age Once More

I'll be forward. I didn't like Dragon Age II.

While I'm sure there are people out there who thoroughly enjoyed their experience with it, before you raise your pitchforks and torches, let me explain. Dragon Age II isn't a bad game. However, after my infatuation with Dragon Age: Origins -- its predecessor -- jumping into Dragon Age II felt like a letdown.

Dragon Age: Origins on the PC was one of my favorite games of 2009. It was tactical and diverse. It was a love letter to the old-school PC RPGs I grew up on. The continent of Thedas was vast, and while the game was only set in the kingdom of Ferelden, the game let us travel to amazing and varied landscapes. The character and dialogue was written and acted out incredibly well, with companions commenting on relationships, past-quests and current circumstances.

Some changes came with Dragon Age II. Following the development process (albeit from the media) and reading post-development blogs (see Matt Rhodes' great blog post, if you have the time), I understand that all choices were made with genuine passion. While Dragon Age II hoped to show us the evolution of the city of Kirkwall and its surroundings, the environment became repetitive and I thought these spaces were generally bland and flat. I enjoyed the new action-oriented approach, but it became a letdown when its originally more strategic elements were sacrificed because of it. Playing on the PC didn't feel as engaging. I felt disjointed from my companions, having to make less choices in their development as characters. It was a shame too, as I was eagerly anticipating it from the day it was announced on GameInformer.com. Dragon Age II isn't a bad game, I was just slightly letdown.

After Dragon Age II, I waited for a sequel. A sequel that would challenge its flaws and improve upon what made it fun. Jumping back into Thedas would be easy and I'd gladly go back in for another round.

That all changed in E3 2013 when Dragon Age: Inquisition was officially announced.

While the footage was running in-engine without gameplay, it looked amazing. Bioware talked about listening to the community, and the exciting new prospects resulting from it. I became instantly attached. I wanted to know more. I mean did you see that monster of a Qunari? Who the [redacted] is he? Heh, I even bought GameInformer's latest issue on the day they announced they'd be covering Dragon Age: Inquisition.

It was then that I realised: I wanted to get back into Dragon Age. Relearn the lore. Make my mark. Quell the Blight once more. Set the foundation for when I inevitably come back for round 3.

I searched stores for Dragon Age: Origin's Ultimate Edition only to be told that it was no longer being produced. Fortunately EA's Origin service had it ready for me to download.

It's like déjà vu all over again.



Bernard Sam is an author at The Ops Centre. He has finished the first season of Bravest Warriors on YouTube and wants more.

Indie Video Game Highlight: Trash TV

When Mario games first hit the video game market in the last few decades, everyone went batshit crazy about 2D platforming. In hindsight it is not hard to see why, with tight controls, challenging game-play and catchy chiptunes, it makes total sense for the formula to be replicated time and time again. Just look at the plethora of 2D slide-scrolling video games that have impinge our world : Megaman, Contra, Castlevania, and the more recent Super Meat Boy . Right now there is a new kid in town vying for the crown of top dog and its name is Trash TV.

Funnily enough the game started out as a clone of another 2D side-scroller the indie hit Super Crate Box. While it was no the creator's intention to make a exact copy of the game or even release it, the game was conceived when Lawrie was attending university. He tried simply to mess around with the gameplay aspects of Super Crate Box by adding to it and remixing its components to see whether another game emerged that he could call his own creation. What came out of this curious experiment, was a quasi-original game that is somewhat intriguing story-wise and gameplay-wise.

You play as a television set which you view from a 2D perspective. The game seems to mislead the player with the wielding of a gun ( instead of shooting enemies you mainly shoot explosives ) as you soon discover that the game is puzzle game ( kinda like a mix of Portal ad Super Meat Boy ). Don't be fooled though, it isn't a slow game of checkers; it’s a fast paced game as your fingers have to be as rapid as as your reflexes. Admittedly, the game fluctuates its pace with the introduction of some puzzles that require some degree of deep thought. With the combination of speed and wit, expect a whole lot of deaths and rage quitting ( perfect for those rage gamers out there).

The game is also sleek and stylish, with the design and art getting a huge thumbs up from me. The game is dark and moody, just the way I like my games to be ( It seems to have become a recurring thing with me). There is just something about the manic-depressive vibe that just jives with me. The art also serves to enhance the illusion and mystery of the game's narrative. It serves to leave a sense of intrigue and wonder as you question why a lone TV set is venturing through this prosaic world.

So what s the story about? Well, even I am not clear on that front. In fact, lets just get the creator ( Lawrie Russel ) to adumbrate the story details of his brainchild. 

“I want to say it’s top secret, but really I can’t say because I know it’ll change several times over before it’s finished. It’s all based around the mono myth, though. The hero starts an ordinary life, thrown into another world, has a bunch of challenges to over come (all the puzzles), finds an artifact that can be used to save himself/the world, one last big trial and then transcendence back to the start. Most computer games have Act 1 as a skippable cut scene at the beginning of the game. Act 2 comprises all the game bits. Act 3 doesn't really happen because no one can even remember the beginning or it’s left open for a sequel. The real challenge is trying to get Act 1 and 3 to not be a short cut scene.” (via indiestatik)

Gotta love the philosophy that features in games sometimes. It makes you question your existence and then leaves you with that ephemeral warm fuzzy feeling in your chest that you know will be gone by the morning.

Well that has been your latest installment of IGH. Once again, a huge thank you to Mr Jesse Cox (OMFGCata) for allowing us permission to utilize his brilliant video material. Please show him as well as us loads of love. Until then, here's Alex Plum reminding you to have a nice day and to use your P's and Q's. Trust me, it makes the world a merrier place.

Obscure Video Game Highlight: Incredible Crisis

When it comes to crazy games, there would be little doubt that Japan is at the forefront of the said field. With games like I'm Sorry and Seaman, you would be forgiven for thinking that the Japanese have a weird sense of humor or a skewed culture. Love it or hate it, these games have garnered a cult following and makes for a good laugh ( or perhaps invoke thoughts of killing yourself from all of the absurdities ). The following is a game I played with my friends when I was but a wee child, introducing the one and only Incredible Crisis.



 



Exclusively for the Playstation system, you play as Taneo and the various members that make up his family as we uncover what having a really bad day in Japan is all about. Taneo is a salary man working in modern day Japan waiting to get home for his mother's birthday when shit hits the fan. He is chased by boulders, thrown out of vehicles, falls off skyscrapers and has to prevent an army attack on a mothership. His family members aren't spared from the misfortune as in the other half of the story line you get to play as Etsuko (Taneo's wife), Ririka ( Tanoe and Etsuko's daughter) and Tsuyoshi (Taneo and Etsuko's son). Each of their story arc fits in seamlessly in the overall plot as it chronicles each family member's journey to find their way home for Haruko's (the grandmother) birthday.

The game is made up entirely of 24 mini games that function to progress the story ( although it is sad to see that some of them are reused ). Classified under the party genre, it is a great game for entertaining hoards of friends while leaving them crippled with laughter. The gameplay is very simple, comprising of simplistic quick hit mini games and button mashing sections, utilizing the directional pad and action buttons. Some of the mini gams are more puzzle oriented, focussing on completing a task within a certain time limit rather than action oriented gameplay such as  Etsuko's task to replace an item's exact weight with a combination of her own items. A big plus is that all mini games can be selected and played individually after the story mode of the game is completed.

Story wise, it will be crazy and it will be incredible (as the title suggests). I really love how the story features normal characters experiencing an extraordinary twist of fate. I do love it when game developers approach a game with a tongue in cheek manner, letting us gamers have game that is light hearted and humorous, a stark contrast to all the serious games which dominate the mainstream market. Incredible Crisis was remarkably innovative for its time, showing that a fully fledged game can be made comprising of mini games when done right. It is a shame that a sequel wasn't made for the PS2.

Incredible Crisis was developed by Polygon Magic. The design and script was done by Kenichi Nishi and the game's art director was Naozumi Yamaguchi. For more information and spoilers on the game, please click here.

Why the Human Race is Doomed/Awesome #2 - Tattoos

Tattoos. Yes, todays WTHRDA is about the ink-based body art. Let's get started with the history of the tattoo shall we. Below is some information about tattoos from Wikipedia:

1. The word "tattoo" was brought to Europe by the explorer James Cook, when he returned in 1771 from his first voyage to Tahiti and New Zealand.
2. A tattoo is a form of body modification, made by inserting indelible ink into the dermis layer of the skin to change the pigment
3.  There are five types of tattoos: traumatic tattoos, also called "natural tattoos", that result from injuries, especially asphalt from road injuries or pencil lead; amateur tattoos; professional tattoos, both via traditional methods and modern tattoo machines; cosmetic tattoos, also known as "permanent makeup"; and medical tattoos.

In this specific article we are going to mainly elaborate on the professional tattoos which are the most common variant we see in modern society. If you are interested in the other types of tattoos do check out the hyperlink right here.

The Awesome
Tattoos used to be something excruciatingly painful to do. Before the conception of the modern tattoo machine, things used to be done the old school way; with pigment and a needle (some types of tattoos are made by cutting the skin). Polynesian tribes often used tattoos as a symbol of maturity and as a right of passage of child to adulthood. Japanese yakuza tattoo their whole backs as a sign of loyalty to their organization (they also chop their pinky off). This types of tattoos take a long time to do perhaps more than 30 hours to more than a hundred hours. These tattoos are undoubtedly a symbol of strength and fortitude of these people. It shows who they are and it speaks volumes of their character.

                                  Pe'a is a traditional male tattoo in Samoa (courtesy of Cloudsurfer)

In fact, some religious sects also use tattoos to convey their religious beliefs. That is the key word in this segment : belief and loyalty. These people are not afraid to show dedication in what they truly accept as their truth/calling and I have to admire that. Say what you like about these people, but they have balls, and that is a quality that seems to be lacking these days.

                           Gotta respect the intricacy of the art                           

Special mention to the artistic tattoos that are aesthetically and technically advanced. It really makes the body look like an ornate canvas. I may be contradicting myself here but I do have a soft spot for good works of art.

                                                         3D tattoo (courtesy of Alex Filth)


The Doomed

Everyone is a hipster nowadays it seems. With love for the quirky, Generation Y seems to be preoccupied in being caught up with the next upcoming trend while still proclaiming to be unique. This is why I have issue with the fingerstache tattoo. It serves no purpose and it only is useful for cheap laughs and kodak moments. While I don't advocate religion, I do agree that the body should be treated as a temple and therefore should be treated with respect. The same applies for other pointless tattoos such as ones gotten due to lost bets. 

                                               Because glasses are too mainstream perhaps?


One more thing I should mention about modern tattoos is that allegedly removing them is actually more painful then getting one. Food for thought for the impulse driven people of this world before you go rushing to go under a needle to ink that novel phrase or image. Quirky tattoos also do not age well. I shudder to think of what the tattooed hipsters of today will look like in their golden age. Most young people nowadays are rash and do not really think of the consequences of their actions ( I do acknowledge that they are old people doing crazy shit too ), as part of the new generation myself I really hope that we will go down as a respected generation and not with the title the worst generation that has ever lived.



                             I'll let you be the judge of this


That does it for this segment of WTHRD/A, I hope you enjoyed today's topic. I also extend an apology to any hipsters or Gen Y's that I have offended (I'm lecturing you guys from the good of my heart) . Please leave a recommendation or comment to help us pick our next topic. Until then keep on trucking :).

On Comics: Japanese Vs American

Manga are comics with Japanese authors or in a Japanese style. A popular publisher which I will be mostly using as reference is Shonen Jump, with titles including Naruto, Bleach, Kuroko no Basket, etc. Manga has not always been popular outside Japan, however with the advent of the Internet, globalization has made culture (such as manga) more easily accessible. Manga, at least currently is well known for its distinctive art style. You know the clichéd large, shimmering eyes, small mouth and oddly styled/coloured hair with sometimes defies the laws of gravity. Yes, this is a huge generalisation, but in a nutshell it is true for the most part.

American comics, on the other hand I must admit are comics I’m not very well versed in.  Mind you, I am talking about the DC and Marvel publications. Here’s why:

            I.     The latest manga is available (for the most part) for free on the Internet. Good luck trying to find the latest Batman or Flash comic online. This makes it hard to get a preview of the series and whether or not it is a purchase you would want to make.

          II.     It just might be where I’m staying but American comics are expensive. A comic book with a little less than 100 pages would have an average cost of $25-35. A manga volume would generally cost $10-15 and have for the most part more pages.

        III.     The continuity is calamitous. I like a good complex story as much as the next guy but when you have more Superman versions than recall (which are mostly canon) it drains away the fun of reading as you most likely have to be a hardcore fan to fully understand the entirety of the story/ies.

The modern comics which I have seen from DC/Marvel usually have very nice art styles. Simply said I don’t think comics lose to manga if you are comparing artistic quality. Both occupy different niches but are definitely aesthetically brilliant in their own right.

As far as stories go I do like both manga and comics. One particular DC comic I was a fan of was the reimagining of Superman in a ‘what if’ scenario. In Superman: Red Son, we are treated to an account in which Kal-El's spaceship actually missed Kansas and landed in Soviet Ukraine instead. The story is non-canon but is nevertheless a good read with good art. The same can also be said about the V for Vendetta series that had an enthralling and engaging plot.

On the flipside, manga usually covers a lot more ground plot-wise. There are loads of genres, covering stuff like basketball (Slam Dunk, Kuroko No Basket, Dear Boys), cooking (Yakitate Japan, Addicted to Curry), Humor/Sketches (Lucky Star). In essence, manga do not generally follow the convention of hero and villain monodrama, which is a welcome change. The stories generally fluctuates  around a lot like an teenager's mood-swings, with the story line switching from comedic to serious  and vice versa in a heartbeat.

There are no winners in this comparison; I  simply compared Japan’s most prominent comic publishers to America’s. Deciding a on a definitive conclusion would be akin to trying to decide which food dish is the best in the world. It simply isn’t possible to make such a claim with people having different tastes and such. If you like a bit of variety in your graphic fiction, do give manga a chance and if you like a classic interpretation of good triumphing over evil, please do rush over to your superhero comic post haste.

The article represents the thoughts of the writer and only serves as a basic opinion on the matter. The usage of generalization is done to make an easier comparison and the author apologizes to anyone offended by this.