So, I've started trying to expand my horizons, if one could call it that, and found through the grape vine that the UK isn't too cool on freedom of speech, or something. I'm not sure I fully understand it, but it seems noteworthy, especially considering I like speaking freely because my mouth is big. With that in mind, it's also inherently possible journos overseas have free reign and that one media mogul is mad he isn't raking in the big cash monies. I don't know, and have no opinion; I'd rather keep my mouth shut, here, than shoot it off.
In other news, I'm going to try and get a larger chunk of writing done; I haven't been keeping a good quota lately, and every day is a small uphill battle. I've also been thinking over an article for Dispunctual that seems like a good idea, regarding the link between the SNES, nostalgia, and the recent upswing in Japanophiles and Otakudom.
Extra-tiny news: It's a well thought out article, but videogames has a long, long way to go before they even resemble mature.
Panic in Detroit!
So apparently my interests are shallow, indeed, because now I'm going to rail about more nerdery.
Videogames.
Sort of.
But more specifically, videogames and their censorship is what's gonna start us out, because something that I had predicted way back is finally dropping. For the link-impaired, the FCC wants some of that Fat Pie and is conducting some inquiries regarding the feasability of a medium-spanning ratings system, not unlike movie ratings, but for everything from videogames to mobile phone games.
Now, my opinions on the fact seem pretty obvious: Blah blah censorship, blah blah cumbersome, etc. They're aside from the point.
The blogosphere, of which I am however-reluctantly a part of now, are a knee-jerk community of babbling 20-somethings. This is not an indictment. Censorship is an important issue, and for a lot of people the medium is their pasttime. No one wants to see some people infringe on their ease of acquisition to their favourite title.
But that said, it seems pointless to suddenly sour their shorts just because the government is making an attempt to address issues certain groups raise regarding the wellfare and mental care of children. After all, a government's job is the wellbeing of its people. While opinions may be mixed regarding it, there's a lot of conversation even less than a day after this announcement to the effect of "Big Brother Is Watching" and other hyperbole nonsense. It seems prudent to at least hear any proposals out; the only thing announced is inquiry, not a sudden crackdown at retail shelves. We are not a stone's throw away from an armed guard at every checkout counter.
So, why do we, in the blogosphere and outside it, freak out to news; railing against or salivating wildly? I'm sure part of it is pack mentality, and this isn't something to be ashamed of, within reason. An analogy: You're on a streetcorner, when suddenly you hear a bunch of people running, and sure enough they're barrelling straight for you, screaming in terror. Obviously there's a reason they're running, so you follow suit. That's logical pack mentality, and helpful.
Unfortunately, it's so ingrained in us that it applies to opinion, which is where it becomes dangerous. Just because a bunch of people agree doesn't mean shit when it comes to opinion. Everyone is unique, different, and special, and no amount of cynicism is going to change my opinion of that. Our likes and dislikes will and should be as different, naturally. So to take others opinions, especially on the internet, as a good basis for a logical discourse thereafter is intellectual suicide.
The other part is twofold. One, this is the internet. As I mentioned before, everyone's got an opinion, much like another unsavory piece of anatomy we all posess. So with that freedom to suddenly sound off, not everyone's going to sit down with Descartes and consider the nature of perception just to make up their mind on the ES-Goddamn-A. Nor should they.
Two, videogame opinion and journalism are often interchangeable.
A simple experiment: Type into The Great Sage and Imminent Search Engine Google two things. Type them in seperately, seperate tabs if it's easier. First, try "videogame blogs." Next, try "video game news."
I don't want to get too deep into how TERRIBLE RARRRGH! game journos are, because a lot of them aren't (Randy Nelson comes to mind, now with Joystiq and formerly of long-running PSM, and Leigh Alexander of Sexy Videogameland both spring to mind as bastions of good journalism and dialogue) and because I want to visit the topic at a later date, in its own post. But blogs and real news publications should not, now or ever, be synonymous. If a news story has bias of any kind, and most assuredly a lot of N4G, Kotaku, and IGN articles reek of it, the people reading it will take some of that as a kernal to which they form an opinion. It's bad form from a journalistic-integrity point of view, and it gives the reader a slight level of misinformation thanks to seemingly-harmless weasel words.
The blogosphere is an excellent resource, and can be both entertaining and informative, but to react so strongly so consistently isn't conducive to being insightful or mature as readers or authors.
Also, blog and blogosphere are both words I am so sick of saying by now.
---
Notes:
MAVAV is a joke site.
I went to Wendy's, and got a frosty earlier, hey? Pretty awesome.
Oh, and my opinion on the above diatribe is that books have been getting fine without ratings for hundreds of years, so fuck it.
Videogames.
Sort of.
But more specifically, videogames and their censorship is what's gonna start us out, because something that I had predicted way back is finally dropping. For the link-impaired, the FCC wants some of that Fat Pie and is conducting some inquiries regarding the feasability of a medium-spanning ratings system, not unlike movie ratings, but for everything from videogames to mobile phone games.
Now, my opinions on the fact seem pretty obvious: Blah blah censorship, blah blah cumbersome, etc. They're aside from the point.
The blogosphere, of which I am however-reluctantly a part of now, are a knee-jerk community of babbling 20-somethings. This is not an indictment. Censorship is an important issue, and for a lot of people the medium is their pasttime. No one wants to see some people infringe on their ease of acquisition to their favourite title.
But that said, it seems pointless to suddenly sour their shorts just because the government is making an attempt to address issues certain groups raise regarding the wellfare and mental care of children. After all, a government's job is the wellbeing of its people. While opinions may be mixed regarding it, there's a lot of conversation even less than a day after this announcement to the effect of "Big Brother Is Watching" and other hyperbole nonsense. It seems prudent to at least hear any proposals out; the only thing announced is inquiry, not a sudden crackdown at retail shelves. We are not a stone's throw away from an armed guard at every checkout counter.
So, why do we, in the blogosphere and outside it, freak out to news; railing against or salivating wildly? I'm sure part of it is pack mentality, and this isn't something to be ashamed of, within reason. An analogy: You're on a streetcorner, when suddenly you hear a bunch of people running, and sure enough they're barrelling straight for you, screaming in terror. Obviously there's a reason they're running, so you follow suit. That's logical pack mentality, and helpful.
Unfortunately, it's so ingrained in us that it applies to opinion, which is where it becomes dangerous. Just because a bunch of people agree doesn't mean shit when it comes to opinion. Everyone is unique, different, and special, and no amount of cynicism is going to change my opinion of that. Our likes and dislikes will and should be as different, naturally. So to take others opinions, especially on the internet, as a good basis for a logical discourse thereafter is intellectual suicide.
The other part is twofold. One, this is the internet. As I mentioned before, everyone's got an opinion, much like another unsavory piece of anatomy we all posess. So with that freedom to suddenly sound off, not everyone's going to sit down with Descartes and consider the nature of perception just to make up their mind on the ES-Goddamn-A. Nor should they.
Two, videogame opinion and journalism are often interchangeable.
A simple experiment: Type into The Great Sage and Imminent Search Engine Google two things. Type them in seperately, seperate tabs if it's easier. First, try "videogame blogs." Next, try "video game news."
I don't want to get too deep into how TERRIBLE RARRRGH! game journos are, because a lot of them aren't (Randy Nelson comes to mind, now with Joystiq and formerly of long-running PSM, and Leigh Alexander of Sexy Videogameland both spring to mind as bastions of good journalism and dialogue) and because I want to visit the topic at a later date, in its own post. But blogs and real news publications should not, now or ever, be synonymous. If a news story has bias of any kind, and most assuredly a lot of N4G, Kotaku, and IGN articles reek of it, the people reading it will take some of that as a kernal to which they form an opinion. It's bad form from a journalistic-integrity point of view, and it gives the reader a slight level of misinformation thanks to seemingly-harmless weasel words.
The blogosphere is an excellent resource, and can be both entertaining and informative, but to react so strongly so consistently isn't conducive to being insightful or mature as readers or authors.
Also, blog and blogosphere are both words I am so sick of saying by now.
---
Notes:
MAVAV is a joke site.
I went to Wendy's, and got a frosty earlier, hey? Pretty awesome.
Oh, and my opinion on the above diatribe is that books have been getting fine without ratings for hundreds of years, so fuck it.
