This Post Sucks!

"Most of the younger people I knew didn't seem to have a handle on things; they hadn't found their place, they didn't understand how the world works, they didn't understand how to treat other people, and they didn't know how to stop thinking about themselves."
~Kristin Hersh

It sucks.

What, you ask? Nearly every entertainment product that is released nowadays. Mind you, this is far from my own opinion- rather, this attitude seems to seep throughout our entire culture in today's world. And this attitude is growing stronger by the day.

I can't truly recall the last entertainment product- movie, TV show, computer game, video game or any other imaginable creative production- where I've heard a vast majority shower the new release with overwhelming praise. Even "Dark Knight" started an online war of words. Obviously, you're always going to have to ignore the 0.01 % that deliberately take the opposite side of every issue as some form of attention whoring. But setting that aside, ultimately there should be something out there that everyone agrees is great, right?

Does this just come down to personal preference? Is it that what is great to one person is terrible to another, and therefore a consensus within society is not feasible? Will there always be a large group of people standing outside the theatre after a movie saying, "That was boring. That director doesn't know what he's doing. They should have taken out the car chase scene and put in more of the monkey. I easily could have done it better."

I think that is the case. People will always differ on entertainment, as it is art, and art is subjective. However, I submit that there is a growing trend, particularly in the younger generations- the under 30 crowd, with exceptions (there are always exceptions)- who are adopting an attitude only best described as jaded.

As I roam the internet, I find source after source of people making highly vicious attacks on creators of our entertainment. And yet, at the core of these arguments is nothing whatsoever but personal opinions! There are no facts provided to back up the reasoning of the attacks or why the entertainment products being attacked "suck" so much.

And guess what? There's a simple reason there are no facts.

Pretend you've landed in an airport and are disembarking from a plane. Have you ever heard anyone on the way out ripping into the pilot for how he flew the plane? Not complaining about a bumpy ride, or bad flight attendant service, but that he should have gone up to 30,000 feet for the first hour, then changed direction to catch the jet stream? Or, consider this: you're in the hospital, and you pass by a group of patients standing around yelling at a brain surgeon. How could he have made that incision the way he did? Why didn't he use a different approach to his tumor removal method? Or perhaps complaining about his choice of stitching when closing up his last surgery?

It sounds ridiculous, no? Of course it does! Yet- have you ever heard someone tell you exactly how the local professional basketball team's coach should have handled the substitutions for the game last night? What trades must be made for the team to make the playoffs? How the team's all-star player isn't trying anymore, and should just drive to the hoop each time down the court, which will guarantee victory every game? Of course you've seen this- repeatedly, and in regards to countless topics.

Here's the most common thing I'm sure you've seen, if you're an online gamer- legions of message board posters telling game developers (in extremely petty and vicious language) how uncaring they are for not playing their product, and for deliberately trying to ruin the game for the players. Or complaining for all to hear that the company that makes the game is only out for money, and they simply do not care about the players' experiences. And my personal favorite- have you ever seen a post on a game's forum telling the developers how that person could, in a matter of weeks, reprogram the game into perfect balance and make everything "fun" again?

The difference in these situations is obvious, but almost never considered. The reason no one gives a brain surgeon or airline pilot grief on their jobs is simple- the average person has no experience in performing these actions. You don't casually fly a plane around as a kid, or slice open someone's skull just to see what you can do. (I'm really hoping you don't, at least.) Yet almost every single person has picked up a basketball in their lives. Many have seen basketball on television, and learned the rules (somewhat) by which the players play. There are countless young adults who are fluent in multiple computer programs and languages- they know how to create programs or scripts, sometimes quite impressively.

This is the crux of the matter. When people have personal experiences to draw from, it is easier to judge the performance of another based on your perception of how things should be done. However, there's a fundamental flaw in this that most don't take into account.

Let's take computer game development, in particular, World of Warcraft. Massively Multiplayer Game Services (MMGSs) are highly complex, detailed programs of massive scope and scale. There are countless aspects in development of the product that you would require a short novel describing all of the individual tasks required to create and provide the service. Yet, if you grab any one of the majority of the players who've played the game, they will give you a list of faults with the product and how they would fix them. Most will complain about how nothing is ever done to fix the flaws within the product, and anger is expressed when something is altered that makes the experience more difficult for their character to succeed than before. Almost every thread on the forum concerning the game will have countless complaints on how poor the service is run, and how to fix these errors. Many of these threads even have information where the poster claims to have multiple years of experience in developing computer games, or other similar products, and therefore how qualified they are to point out how to fix the problems.

That is the flaw that people don't understand, and why none of these suggestions are factually based. You see, unless you have worked on the exact entertainment product being discussed, any criticism on your part is simply your opinion on the matter. Only the people who have been part of the development of a product have most of, or all, of the information necessary to make factual commentary on the matter. You could be the world's best brain surgeon, but you would never criticize another brain surgeon off-the-cuff because they killed a patient. Instead, you would have to familiarize yourself with all aspects of the case- everything to which a person uninvolved is fully unaware.

You see, you can't truly tell Blizzard how to factually "fix" World of Warcraft... because you don't know how World of Warcraft works. You might think you do, but you don't. You haven't been in the meetings. You haven't manipulated the engine. You don't know Blizzard's policy of handling art changes and the procedures involved in adjusting the timeframe of the project. That is, unless you work for Blizzard, and work on World of Warcraft. You see, without having all of the information, you don't have enough information. And without enough information, you're simply guessing.

That's why all criticism beyond the creators of entertainment products is pure opinion only. However, since people are familiar with aspects of the entertainment product, they feel like "experts". They are using their personal knowledge of programming, as if they are now on even ground with the developers. They are using their understanding of how to make a movie, to judge the latest sequel to hit the movie theaters.

So where does this new jaded attitude come from? This belief where "that sucks" is so often repeated? It's coming from familiarity. As the world continues to get more technologically advanced, the younger generations are growing up with personal video cameras, and learning computer programming languages. The younger gens are tech-savy, and are using this experience to judge the world around them. They've seen it all before, and the more they see the same thing, the more jaded they become. Unfortunately, no one has ever stopped to tell them that casual knowledge and experience are not replacements for professional knowledge and experience on the actual development of a product.

Experience is not interchangeable. It is unique.

There is every right for the gamers and movie watchers of the world to speak up and voice their opinions on why they dislike their entertainment sources. However, there is no reason to hide behind the bravado of internet anonymity, insulting and attacking the people creating these artworks.

So when you're on your favorite game's message board, and the uber-programmer with all the answers is telling everyone including the developers how to fix the product in three easy steps of programming, call them on it. They don't know, they aren't the developer. If you're chit-chatting with your local team's sports fans and someone's calling out the coach for how poorly he substituted during the game, call them on it. They don't know, they aren't the coach.

Remind these people that they're only providing their own opinions, and their own personal experience has no factual relevance in regards to judging the entertainment. Ideally, if we can all start reminding each other that other people are giving their all in the production of these sources of enjoyment for us, we can begin to agree more readily that most things don't "suck". In fact, we might all begin to calm down and see that everything around us is really pretty great.

Or, do I just suck for writing this?

Get These Five Women Leading Roles, Already!

There are obviously a large number of actresses in the world all vying for a limited number of roles... but it is a real shame when great talent is being bypassed while others are landing coveted leading roles.

Here's Effect 37's top five list (in no particular order)... you may know just a few or all of 'em! Give some love to your top five in the comments!

1.) Emilie de Ravin- We see her on the already-legendary television show "Lost", and some became fans during her stint on "Roswell"... I personally fell for her goddess-like looks (and those eyes!) when she was a young demon on "Beastmaster" (hey... at least one or two other people watched that!)

While I'm thrilled she's part of the Lost legacy (and an important part, at that)... once she's done it's far past time for her to be the lead- I think she'd be an amazing new (less "crazyish") Sharon Stone in film, taking on some adults-only roles- she could easily hold her own sexual chemistry against any leading man on screen.



2.) Brit Morgan- This absolutely mouth-watering blonde has a large secondary role on the new ABC Family show "Middleman"- and while the leading lady of that show Natalie Morales would have been on this list if she didn't already have her own show, Brit seems to steal almost every scene she's in! With her looks and talent, she would fit into any role offered- and such an offer should be made a.s.a.p.!



3.) Lake Bell- You've seen Lake, possibly on Boston Legal or on the short-lived sci-fi series "Surface" (which shouldn't have been canceled, but I digress...) Her performance on Surface proved she is fully capable of leading a show- and just because that particular show failed, she shouldn't be ignored for other possibilities. With her striking looks, she fits into sexy roles easily enough- but this is one woman smoothly capable of playing smart just as easily. Get this woman a doctor, scientist or lawyer show, stat! (Preferably one where her character enjoys modelling lingerie in her spare time, though- we don't want to hide that body! =P)



4.) Claudia Black- One of the current queens of sci-fi, there's no reason whatsoever to buck this trend. Claudia became famous here in the U.S. for her role on the beloved and classic Farscape series, and has since delved even further into the hearts of sci-fi geeks everywhere with her addition to the end seasons (and new movies) of Stargate: SG-1. She's proven she's fluent in the genre, she's got killer comedic chops and is beautiful to boot- get her into the lead in another sci-fi show, before I shoot you with my Ion gun. (My Death Star's in the shop.)



5.) Jill Wagner- While currently laughing her ass off on the sidelines of (the quite admittedly funny) summer popcorn show "Wipeout", this is a criminal underuse of her talent. Lately she's done some guest stints, particularly on Stargate: Atlantis as a tough and sexy challenge for the leading male. (Bring her back, and more often, Atlantis!)

Jill did have her own leading shot before on Spike TV's "Blade" effort, and was a true delight- this show should never have been canceled... it was just the right amount of sexy and had interesting characters. Still, it's all proof positive she needs her own leading spot... give me an interesting action show with her able to use her body to maximum effect and I'm there.

After all, there's a reason just about every single guy in the country has at one time or another asked "Who's the Mercury girl?" (Yep- that's her making you subconciously a Mercury fan!)

An Accurate New Name for "MMORPGs".

If you're a gamer, you've heard and used this phrase countless times. Even when it first became widespread in its usage, jokes flew with its lack of brevity. You know the name... "MMORPG": "Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game".

That name has to be changed.

Why? Certainly some will agree it's a pain to say, but you can just call it an "MMO" instead, right? Unfortunately, that doesn't reach the crux of the matter... it's inaccurate. My first question to you is: Name one massively multiplayer game that is not online.

I'll wait while you rack your brain. Football isn't massively multiplayer. Golf isn't. Baseball? No. A marathon isn't a game. There is no game which exists offline that has thousands upon thousands of simultaneous players!

We've just started, and we've already found that part of the title isn't necessary!

• First change to the genre name: The O's gotta go.

So, we've whittled "MMO" down to "MM". What about the "MM" portion of the title? What defines "Massively Multiplayer"? Thousands upon thousands of players all within the same game universe able to freely interact in game at the same time.

Some games that are often considered massively multiplayer fall short due to design and gameplay considerations. Let's examine Guild Wars. Great game! Fun times. A solid title to own for most gamers. Guild. Wars. Is. Not. Massively. Multiplayer.

What? Everyone says it's an MMO! That is nothing more than a case of people being stubborn when presented with overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The actual developers of Guild Wars have themselves proclaimed it not to be an "MMORPG", but instead call it a "CORPG": "Competitive Online Role Playing Game". I refer to it as an "OCG"- "Online Computer Game", like Diablo 2, for instance.

Still, when you are discussing a game with the proper design to allow simultaneous mass-gaming, "Massively Multiplayer", or "MM" works well enough to describe the genre.

What of the final part of the title: "RPG", for "Role Playing Game"?

Role playing can be defined in gaming purposes in two different ways- the act of role playing one's character, or in the design of the game mechanics.

If you log into World of Warcraft (or any other "RPG") on a "Role Playing" designated server you will find only a small portion of players are actually role playing their characters. The majority of players are simply playing the game, ignoring the basic ideas of role playing.

Considering the design standpoint, many of the latest genre offerings are moving away from role playing concepts- the market is saturated already. When every offering available is not of a role playing design, it's inaccruate to declare the entire genre to be "RPG".

• Second change to the genre name: The RPG's gotta go.

So we've reduced the name to "MM", which is obviously missing something.

One of the most common discussions on all massively multiplayer message boards regards the cost, which ususally consists of the retail price and a monthly fee. If you're offering a massively multiplayer game for profit, you must have a monthly fee or other means of income (perhaps ads), or the project will lose money.

Why do products like Guild Wars work with no monthly fee? The design, functionality, infrastructure and operational expenses change all of the cost variables. This simplified system does not require the resources a true massively multiplayer game requires, and therefore can be sustained on expansion packs or advertising alone. Full massively multiplayer games are far more complex and require a full service.

Ah-ha! We've come to the final element we're seeking. These products are Gaming Services.

We now have a shorter, less awkward title than the original mouthful that is "MMORPG", but more importantly- something accurate.

• An accurate title that should be used instead of "MMORPG" is "MMGS": "Massively Multiplayer Gaming Services".

I've done the hard part here- it's now up to the gamers out there to take the next step and be part of the cutting edge in using the new name to support our favorite MMGSs. After all, why continue to use a name that isn't accurate?

What is Happiness in an Afterlife?

"Happiness is just an illusion caused by the temporary absence of reality."

~Unknown

For the sake of ease, let's assume that it is a given that there is an afterlife (regardless of your normal beliefs on the matter).

The traditional Christian view is well known: The "good" go to "Heaven" and the "evil" go to "Hell". In Heaven, everyone is basking in happiness simply by being in God's presence. You are greeted and surrounded with previously deceased family and... well, bask, apparently. In Hell, you are burned and tortured in flames and agony. Both locations are considered eternal.

Let's ignore the above concept of Hell and strictly focus on the above interpretation of Heaven- since we're aiming to discuss happiness, and I'm not thinking many people are going to find tons of joy doing their best imitation of a campfire marshmallow.

If the source of your entire happiness within Heaven is simply the presence of family and friends, combined with an Earthly-unknowable love from God, would everyone truly be the same person that they were in life? What of the joys each person holds within life- some of which make a person who they are?

For instance, those who know me are quite aware I am an enormous Prince fan. If you insert me into the Heaven we're describing, and yet I never again experience the joy of his music, but instead am entered into a state of bliss from hearing God's voice (for example), how would my soul truly be considered unaltered? I suggest that such a state is in essence a form of brainwashing, for lack of a better word.

Certainly some people's greatest joy on Earth is worshiping God, and so this existence would not be an alteration of what made them themselves in life. That is not the case for me, however- my spirituality is more subtle- and I'm not even Christian. If you take away my Earthly joys and force a feeling of bliss upon me, am I still me? I would say no- you've taken away critical aspects of what makes me- and therefore my soul- unique. Yes, my personality, beliefs and morals are a large part of what makes me "me"... but I would say a large part of my personality comes from the things I love in life- Prince, games, writing and all sorts of other creative outlets.

In essence, the traditional Christian view of the afterlife envisions your existence as a brainwashed member of a mass of identically individuality-suppressed souls. It doesn't matter what you were like in life, or what you were passionate about- all of your uniqueness is gone, and you become one of a great mass of energy-forms bathing in a bliss drug known as God.

Given the horrors of such a generic and bland afterlife when examined as above, it reinforces my belief that the afterlife is much more than we can imagine it to be- even beyond what seems logical. While we may not take our physical bodies with us when we pass- that is not to say that we will not have access to another form with physical attributes.

This would mean that a chef would not have to give up their passion of cooking- rather they would have access to all ingredients imaginable, as well as all other chefs and cooks of historical note to learn from, share knowledge with and cook whenever they wish! My love for Prince and his music will be accommodated with both large and intimate Prince performances- perhaps even the ability to be trained in music by Prince himself, so that in another life I will have inherent musical skills passed on by the legend himself! And yes, sex will be possible- how can we have an afterlife devoid of the singularly greatest form of happiness on Earth for most people?

In short, we are unlikely to be denied our passions- the things that make us who we are.

I believe that it is impossible for us to comprehend the afterlife here on Earth, but we can arrive at some reasonable beliefs of what does not await us. After all, any God capable of creating such a vast and complex state of being is not one that will force you into a false form of being upon your death. If you are not given the ability to retain the aspects of life that create the full you, there would be no reason you would be given a taste of being your own self while you live now.

So I don't know what your plans are in the afterlife, but I fully expect to to have access to all of the Earthly joys I experienced... because none of us should be denied our passions lest we be denied our individuality.




R.I.P. Grandmother... who, if I am correct in this post, is quite happy while playing some epic games of Bingo right about now.

X(-Files) Marks the Spot

I've always wanted to believe.

Believe that they never canceled the X-Files, and that each week a new one was waiting for me to enjoy. From its deep mythology that everyone can associate with, to the wonderfully deep and eerily detailed creepy characters fliterring about in the shadows up to who knows what nefarious deeds.

Thankfully us X-Files fans have the upcoming Fringe by the already-legendary J.J. Abrams (Alias, Lost) soon to arrive on our TVs in order to fill the gaping hole we've felt since Chris Carter's show left the airwaves (or, depending on whom you ask, once David Duchovny left the show- I personally enjoyed the show after his departure well enough.)

But before we move on to Fringe, we get another treat to the team that started it all with the release of "X-Files: I Want To Believe" in theaters this week. I'm sure if you're a fan, you want to believe it's good. Is it?

Certainly that question is always up to each individual- leaving the theater today I heard someone mumbling about how bad The Dark Knight was... and I can't comprehend the mind that can interpret the Dark Knight as "bad". But, everyone has their own tastes! What of the X-Files, though?

The thing I like best about the movie was that it is in essence a movie-length stand alone episode of the show. Roughly 7 years have passed since the first movie, and as such life has moved on. I'll leave it to the movie to fill you in on what's going on with Mulder and Scully (I'm anti-spoilers, always) but suffice to say if you have never seen the X-Files, you really wouldn't be in the dark whatsoever seeing this film. It is clear enough who these people are and the relationship they have through the story. This is a necessary move for many shows that make the leap to the big screen, as you can't assume someone is going to know every last detail. Plus, it's been years- who remembers other than the truly diehard fans? (I don't remember what I had for dinner yesterday!)

The story itself is what you'd expect on any week of the X-Files- nothing more, nothing less. This being the case, I anticipate the "casual" fans of the X-Files (those who love the show and have seen most or all of the episodes) will enjoy it just fine. It's not going to rock your world, or leave you thinking "that was the most amazing thing ever!" You'll should still feel like you got your money's worth- the acting alone is well done enough to cover that cost.

If, however, you've never seen the X-Files, while you will understand this movie (as I mentioned, it's quite clear for the newbies) you probably will think you've seen better "cop"/suspense movies. On the same hand, I feel like X-Files diehards- those who tape X's in their windows and/or have written Mulder and Scully slash fiction will likely be disappointed. It's a hard call, but with the level of jadedness in today's entertainment crowd, I am guessing the fanboys are going to feel the film is too "mundane".

In fact- the one thing you'd think would be involved in an X-Files plot would be aliens/ufos to some degree... nothing of the sort in this case. The plot is actually something not too far-fetched from what goes on in real life. In a way, this makes it all the better for me, as Mulder and Scully's relationship drama seems to hit home with more impact. By showing them in a less science-fictiony styled world, it makes their travails all the more potent and touching.

Should you see it? As always, your call- only you'll know for sure if this is going to appeal to you. And I can't tell you if you'll like it or not. For this X-Files fan, it was a happy trip back to a beloved story franchise that is missed dearly. Seeing Mulder and Scully up on screen just felt "right", again.

And I certainly hope there's more to believe in in the form of more X-files movies to come.

Batman Defeats All Records... And Starts an Online War.

Unless you live in a cave, you are fully aware that the newest entry in the current Christopher Nolan-directed Batman franchise swooped into theaters this past weekend, sweeping every record imaginable under its long, dark cloak with more likely to follow in the coming weeks.

Time article on Dark Knight's Record-Breaking Weekend

Yet, even when a movie of such critical and public acclaim comes along, it seems there in no pleasing some people. Certainly not everyone is going to like the same things, nor should it be demanded that they do. But there's a level of hatred in the critics that makes one stop to scratch their heads and wonder why these people are so far off the page from everyone else.

Case in point? Examine film critic David Edelstein's review of the movie.

Now certainly Mr. Edelstein is entitled to dislike any particular movie he desires. And, as his "job" (and I use that term loosely, as I find "Critic" to be just underneath "Supervisor of Watching Paint Dry" in terms of usefulness to society) he is entitled to put out a negative review, warning the ten people that will makes their film viewing choices based on his comments not to go see the film and instead revel in the glory that is "Space Chimps".

No, it's not about David Edelstein that I'm referring to when I say "critics". It's about the people in the comments. All of those people at the bottom of any discussion online concerning the new movie, hidden behind the anonymity of netnames, cyberspeak and devastatingly broken grammar. Take a moment and read some of the comments on his review and others across the internet. I'll wait here, promise.

There are a "large" amount of people online speaking up in support of Mr. Edelstein's view that the movie is too dark and societally bleak. Yet the converstaion goes farther than that- people are bringing concepts into their view of the movie as if it relates to real life. That's right, some are blasting the movie because it's too reflective of the times we live in, and that this desensitizes (younger) viewers from the horrors of killing people, regardless of whether you are wearing clown makeup or not.

Anyone coming to the defense of the movie, say, by pointing out it is in fact a movie and not, in fact, reality, are being grouped into the ever-popular "fanboy" grouping and dismissed as not worthy enough to discuss the film.

I certainly don't know what's in the water that's causing this level of hatred online, but is it not possible to hold opposing views without viciously attacking each other? While I cannot personally comprehend what someone would not like about "The Dark Knight", I am not about to label them an idiot or begrudge them their choice. Yet, I'd like to see some compromise from their side as well in not dismissing the opinions of those who loved the movie simply as frothing drones who serve at the whim of the Batman marketing department.

Want proof of this phenomenon? Check this blurb out on IMDB.

One thing is for certain- love it or hate it, Batman is the new Knight of the box office, and where his records are set, more of the same will follow in an attempt to recapture the largest opening in movie history.

Though it may have been dark, it was a very dark green for Hollywood.