Geek Rant Topic 16: Revisiting the Geek Definiton

When All Else Fails, you call Mousa the 14, that one ranting geek.

Remember this old thing?

I've been doing a bit of net gallivanting and have found that I'm a bit conflicted in my definitions.

What? What is it? What's with the giggles?

Oh Right. Get your jollies out of the way first.

Done making fun of me and the laughing? Good, now on to the real discussion.

A I was saying, I have found that my definitions and the manner in which I have come upon the have been a little off.

But first, before I elaborate on the geek definition, I wan to shove the Nerd one out of the way

NERD: A socially inadequate person who is noted not only for their poor social skills or lack of caring of mainstream interests and styles, but for their intelligence, display of said intelligence, and deep knowledge of a wide variety of fields or a specified field. The big difference between a geek and a nerd is that a Nerd's brilliance is usually within academic pursuits. They are Science geeks, math geeks, computer geeks. If it is an academic field with real life applications or at least has a real field of study and you are intellectually vested in it, you are a nerd.

Was my old definition and little has changed. The social inadequacy isn't quite necessary but basically a nerd is someone who is just plain smart. He's the guy who fixes your computer and does your homework for you. Those guys that TV shows put in glasses and button down shirts and suspenders and make them spout facts, just facts, ad nothing but the facts because they're that smart.

Basically 95% of the lyrics to this song:

Are about them.

Now for the other 10% about Dungeons and Dragons and choosing between Kirk or Picard and X-Men comics and Renaissance Faires? Geek, or at least geek as how I defined it previously

The geek has always been a different monster.

GEEK: A subset of hobbyist, people who have an deep interest in traditionally non-mainstream subjects that are often considered childish in nature. Similar to the Nerd, they are usually socially inadequate and brilliant. Unlike the nerd, their brilliance tends to be dedicated to their specific hobby. Usual interests of Geeks fall under Science-Fiction and Fantasy Genres spanning all mediums.

Problem is, I was defining geek by what we like rather than how we like it which appears to be the common theme I found in my journeys.

The definition I've stumbled across, which I agree with, is the second half of my previous definition:

Another aspect of Geeks as defined by The Game Overthinker in his video on continuity found here. the short and paraphrased version is this: "Geeks glean fun from turning something that is already fun into work" such as playing video games competitively, Stop Having Fun Guys, or collecting the entirety of the Marvel universe's comics to "keep the continuity straight".

I, for some reason, always viewed it as a content thing, like we like specific things rather than liking things a certain way. The Game Overthinker basically had it as "Likes things to a degree deeper than common knowledge". He even goes further into the subject here on The Big Picture though to be fair, him using the word nerd bugged me to high heaven. Though Bobbo does bring up excellent points about how the general public enjoys content considered "Geeky", its simply the manner in which it is enjoyed. Geeks like things on a deeper level and while I think Bob's description of "Turning something in a math problem" is going too far, it's basically in that direction of turning something fun into work but still deriving fun from it.

Which means it's not just sci-fi and fantasy fans, anybody can be a geek if they're obsessive enough about their respective hobby. Sports, history, Lego, whatever, I mean this is how experts are born.

That still leaves one little problem. The content-based description. There is still a specified group of somewhat socially awkward individuals that are part of some internet-based conglomerate of anime fans, Japan officianados, Magic: The Gathering players, video gamers, Trekkies, Star Wars fans, nostalgia nuts, cartoon lovers, media junkies, comedian reviewers, overthinkers, sci-fi lovers, fantasy lovers, Webcomic readers and makers, and comic book lovers. I mean these interests are filled with geeks and the fandoms overlap greatly (Which is why I called myself the Omni-Geek, since I loved all and specialized in none.) and they are still considered primarily non-mainstream and seen as childish or unwilling to let go of things that are aimed at kids and young teens.

In short, there's a working definition, but what do you call it?

I mean, it sounds like I'm obsessing but I like seeing things properly labeled in their proper space.

....

Now my membership at TvTropes suddenly makes sense....

-Good Bye, Good Luck, and Imagination Is Your Greatest Power.

Mousa The 14

Geek Rant Previews: What I'm Not Posting Yet

Namco's "No Export For You"

I am sad now.

Namco is a Japanese video game company that used to be known for creating Pac-Man. It is now known this video game series known as the Tales series or as some call it, the Tales Of series. A series of games that have nothing to do with each other except the main protagonist is a teenage male who uses a sword among other things. Basically the games have similar themes and elements but are not sequels or reboots or anything. The story of all the games is usually long detailed and in some cases, complicated but known for being very good.

In addition to the complex and interesting stories, the Tales series was known for it's lovable, unique, and well developed characters, good and bad. It also has a unique battle system that many JRPGs could benefit from. You see, in most normal JPRGs, when you walk around in a dungeon or the overworld (the area you walk in between towns and cities), you get randomly assaulted by a monster for you to fight. The most obvious and well known example of this system is Pokemon. Now many people in the west dislike the random encounter system. It's preferred to be bale to see your enemy, strategize, strike as appropriate, or at least be able to get to town safely if you're too weak.

Namco's Tales series remedied this in their more recent games with a system where in the overworld, there are icons that represent enemies. If you touch them, then the fight starts. sometimes they chase you, but basically you can see them and decrease your chances of having to fight and you can fight only when you want to.

Another great part of the Tales series actual battle system was that it was active. You could actually move and maneuver your characters and attack in real time and strategize in real time. This in contrast to more static and traditional Japanese role playing games that have a turn based combat system where you open a menus choose and action and watch the constant back and forth. Fun for some but not for all.

Now, with an active battle system and engaging storyline, the Tales series is very much loved on both sides of the ocean. However, there has been a cold chill in the air and I fear the economic downturn, as well as the general reception or JRPGS, are to blame.

---------------------------------------

The Green Lantern

When All Else Fails, you call Mousa the 14, that one ranting geek.

Many geeks know who or what a Green Lantern is. And if you're one of my non geek readers then know this, its not actually and 100% literally a lantern that happens to be the color green and its some sort of meme. If one were to say someone ad powers like a Green lantern they should be ci8ing a certain versatility or external power source. If one were to note one had a stupid weakness like Green Lantern they would be citing a now outdated but stupid weakness to a common object. These things are given, but if you, my reader, are not your average geek, you most likely have absolutely no idea who or what I'm talking about. But this is the internet so that's unlikely, but because I try to keep the barriers open here as usual, I will address you my reader as though you are both one or the other.

When I first learned that Green Lantern might not actually be well known, I thought it odd. You see, GL is put on a similar iconic level as Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman. Someone who rounds out that power set along with The Flash, Aquaman, and Palastic Man. But I'm willing to bet if you asked your average shmuck on the street, you'd find they are more familiar with The Flash or Aquaman than they are of Green lantern.

Now before I go into the reasons why Green lantern should be known better an dwhy the Green lantern is not known better, I deem it best for me to do a little informal and informative exposition. Why? Because it'll be easier on you than reading Wikipedia and easier to come by than the general info sites.

Now, to begin, when people refer to Green Lantern, they usually are referring to the Green Lantern Corp, an intergalactic police force in the DC comics universe. the first ever green Lantern from the comic book Golden Age was a man named Alan Scott whose origins and powers were magic in nature and while the bear similarities to the powers of the modern Green Lantern, they differ in limitations and and power source. the GL Corp as we know them today were introduced during some Silver-age of comics character reboot that gave us versions of superheroes closer to what we're familiar with today such as the change from the original Flash Jay Garrick and Green Lantern Alan Scott...

------------------------------------------------------

The Old, The New, And The Left Behind

When All Else Fails, you call Mousa the 14, that one ranting geek.

I've come to the conclusion that geekdom is a freaky amalgam of pop culture and nostalgia. On the one hand there is a lot of worship for old things a la Thindercats, the Mario Games, and Star Trek and yet at the exact same time the needs to keep up with new things relevent to our general itnerests in vital. While this can be the same for many things, This is about "geek culture" not everything else so nya.

Allow me to elaborate

The Old

Nostalgia plays an enormous part in the geek identity it's amazing really. I mean a huge part of it is all about never letting go of our childhood after we've grown up, whether it's our old favorite cartoons to games. And then we try to put some sort of adult-like or grown up spin on it, looking deeper than necessary, analyzing and elaborating and expanding. Obsessively re-watching or replaying things in order to mark down each individual detail to sometimes try to construct the universe we've been given.Or perhaps an attachment for characters whose arcs have long since concluded, whether or not their arcs were resolved.
---------------------------------------------

TV Tropes

Seriously, what's wrong with that place?

I honestly haven't a clue because I love it.

But in all seriousness, this place is loved and hated for many a reason and as a person whose style was inspired by the website, I figured I would explore this entity known as TV Tropes.

Now, for those who aren't in the know, TvTropes is a website dedicated to identifying and giving a name to the various tools and conventions we see and expect in media. It's not really inventing, the website basically finds things that are already there, give them a name and a humorous description followed by a list of examples. The website also has many works pages which list examples of tropes they demonstrate and...

Oh, right, forgot to write the definition of "Trope" since it's not exactly a common word these days. A "Trope" is a figure of speech or or something recurring across a genre or type of creative work. So I guess the site invents figures of speeches for things that recur across genres or creative works. Ha ha, two for two!

Anyhow, so yeah, it's a simple, fun, and casual website that's all about media. obviously the people interested in this are geeks who really love their media. The website started with just television tropes due to their origins with Buffy The Vampire Slayer fans but obviously things have expanded. We never bothered to changed the name of the place because by the time the members of the site even considered the name Media Tropes it was a little too late.

Geek Rant Topic 14: The Gamer Chick

When All Else Fails, you call Mousa the 14, that one ranting geek.

When people are misinterpreting feminism they misinterpret hard. Just a quick thing I wanted go over. Especially in webcomics, there is the idea that your typically sausage-fest cast you need to have a female character. Besides the usual cliches, you have the hyper component woman who is better than the guys at their particular interest and tend to be some sort of "Strong Female Character". Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.




Thank you K-Bo.

Now where was ..... Ah yes:

Hey, webcomic makers,-no, ya know what? Writers in general: YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG!

The name of the game is Equality!

I get what you're trying to do, the whole "Don't make women look bad" by making them look good so you don't look like misogynist chauvinist pigs. You're doin' it wrong.

Positive discrimination is still discrimination, creating a whole other "Us" versus "Them" thing we don't need. You can make your girl who can "Ass-pwn some newbs in Gears of Duty" or whatever but do it in reasonable amounts. Not the flat bitch that can kick butts up down and sideways from New Amsterdam to Constantinople, but perhaps, I dunno, a person, a character, maybe with a personality trait or two doesn't involve being a wish fulfillment love interest, the Minesotta Fats, the wish fulfillment sex object, or the heartless witch that portrays what you think feminism is actually like (misandry or lesbianism optional of course).

Here's a formula: Guys and gals all win and lose just exactly the same, no one is better or worse based on any gender divide, but based on the character's history or skill from their backstory. You know, make them people.

You're not good writers? Then why do your dudes seem to have one half of a dimension more than your gals? Here, use this and this and this, or this, or you know what? Just all of this. I can wait, go on, take a read, find stuff on women, girls, webcomics, learn what you're doing wrong and get back to me and give me your excuse.

Are Men and Women different? Yessiree! Does this mean you have to skimp out on their character because you don't know their perspective? Hell no! You practically invent your own perspective in your story, you can make women just as varied and unique as your dudes are without making them overly competent or under competent. Average never hurt anybody. Sure there will be the idiots in the outer fringes of Feminism for you DARING to give a woman flaws, but you know what? Screw dat! Make characters. I would say it's not that hard, but it actually is. It's not hard for me but for most people who aren't insane and eccentric and out of their minds obsessive like me; try, learn, read a book perhaps, because you most certainly don't get your female characters that are both strong and flawed from video games. Except maybe Chrono Trigger. Or Tales of Symphonia...

Ya know what? Just go pick up a non-Square Enix Japanese RPG and get back to me. I think the country that has more issues with feminism than we do might be on to something.

Try! Try, I say! TRY WITH ALL YOUR MIGHT! I KNOW YOU CAN!

-Good Bye, Good Luck, and Imagination Is Your Greatest Power

Mousa the 14

Geek Rant Topic 11: The Fairer Geek

When All Else Fails, you call Mousa the 14, that one ranting geek.

Ever notice the geeky activity (i.e. video games, card games, role playing, anime, cartoons, etc) you're most likely to see a high number of women in is anime and manga? Not an objective fact necessarily (though it might be and I just don't know), just an observation. In fact I may see more girls into anime and manga than I go guys. I've been to quite a few anime conventions and the stereotype of fat sweaty guys in sailor moon cosplay (costume play to those not in the loop) is like 1 to 200. Most of the slack is picked up by hordes and hordes of women. They're the male characters, the female characters, the animal characters, The furries(I've only ever seen male fursuiters so far.) everything! The artist's alley tables is filled largely with women, The anime club I ran in high school was primarily female/potentially primarily female (Even though there were more male regulars in the club, there were more girls in the school in general that were anime fans. It was a small school so I could gauge this easily.), and the anime club at the college I'm attending now is primarily female, and my the demographic of my anime-related videos on youtube is primarily female (Assuming they're telling the truth of their sex.).

Anecdotal evidence: it's right and wrong.

Anyhow, I thought this was fascinating because you always hear about how there are less girls in gaming (at least we used to) and there are all these articles on sexism in game, why the games that try to draw in girls are stupid, etc, etc. My dorm is filled to the brim with Magic: The Gathering geeks but not a single one is a girl. This is the same with the anime clubs I've been in. And When I'm in bookstores I see more ladies (though people in general) perusing the manga rather than the section where the Bone and Tintin compilations are. Tabletop RPGs are a different monster, there are definitely ladies in that area. In fact I think the ladies are drawn more towards JRPGs, not sure why, just a thought.

Anyhow, let's assume my observations have a modicum of truth, why are things the way they are? I can think of a few good reasons:

1) Marketing demographics
2) Most geeky activities have always had a "boy's club" exclusionary feel to them. 3) Handsome Men
4) Variety

1) Marketing demographics.
What's the difference between American comic books (Yes, Europe, I see The Beano, Tintin, and Asterix and I love those, but I need to go with what I know here.) and Japanese comic books? Well besides the fact when I say American comics you immediately think Superhero comics, you're more likely to find comic books in Japan that appeal to everyone and every interest. American comics used to do this until the comic code fiasco occurred and effectively purging the comic book scene of almost everything but surreal superhero comics. Nowadays you have tons of superhero comics that overshadow your occasional very good independently made comic. But in Japan, while the shounen (term for young boys) demographic is large, it doesn't necessarily overshadow everything else. I mean, I own a manga that teaches you statistics! There isn't exactly a limit to what is made there (due mostly to cheap production values).

This means there is a larger percentage of stuff, manga and their anime counterparts, geared primarily towards the ladies. In video games their attempts towards getting more girls involved have been a little... sexist. Not all of them are bad shovelware, but most of them are pretty bad stereotypical pink shovelware. That is not how you do it, game industry. You make things more gender neutral or gender inclusive in your games, that's how you draw the ladies in. I mean come on, who in the world is kidding themselves, The Spartans in Halo or the protagonist in any and all first person shooter is a dude. Or games like God of War where, what's this? A male protagonist? Why couldn't the god of war be a chick? Chicks too flimsy? What's that I hear? There's sex scenes and naked ladies in your game? What's wrong with doing a complete reversal? I'm not asking for people to just switch the sex around for all the popular game, I'm saying try to get into what a girl may like in a game without always going stereotype or... doing a cop-out like in pokemon where you just choose "Are you a boy protagonist or a girl protagonist" and the game be exactly identical, men and women experience things differently.

Card games I'm not involved in enough to figure out why it's a sausage fest. But superhero comics. Oh superhero comics... Obviously they're big fat teeanged boy power fantasies, look no further than nerdy loser Peter Parker becoming awesome yet nerdy when he becomes Spider-man and gets all the ladies. You get your muscular manly men and women that look like supermodels with more tracts of land. Gee, such respectful depictions of our fair ladies, I wonder why girls aren't interested. True, some are dressed more modestly and well characterized but really they're more likely to be the male power fantasy's object of desire than a female power fantasy.

2) Most geeky activities have always had a "boy's club" exclusionary feel to them.
Most geeky activities are fairly 'boys only" clubs. For some reason most of the stuff is advertised towards boys while the girls get dolls, fashion, pink, baby care, etc. Totally equal. So obviously for years, women have not been growing up with geeky things geared towards them due to sexist standards that never end.

Most of this is covered in section 1 but additionally, not only have these things been geared towards boys for years, they're hard to get into for people with casual interest, i.e. girls who mostly haven't been given a reason to be interested in thee things to begin with. Video games aren't hard to get into that's more of covered in section one. Everything else has years of continuity and rules. Superhero comic books have years of annoying continuity I'll explain next essay, tabletop RPGs have editions and edition wars, Magic the Gathering have different editions and rules and card types and card colors and for some insane reason people are able to memorize a bazillion of these, and different entry levels for different interests. Like my sister finds even the most basic and self contained fantasy or sci-fi to be "too complex" and I can see each different one as their own thing, but I think she sees it all as a single conglomerate she has to get attempt to understand all of. I mean Elves, orcs, vulcans, dwarves, wookies; to the casual viewer it's all the same to them and if it's not their cup of tea it makes even less sense.

But manga and anime are just single stories, every thing is right there for you like a book and since they're done by a single person (with their assistants) you have consistency unless the author says so. As as stories they have a beginning and an end, simple as that but with all the complexity you need in a story. No easy exclusion.

3) Handsome Men
This was partly a joke, but seriously, our space marines and superheroes are usually rugged male power fantasies, they're not there to look good for the ladies, guys don't know what attract ladies, that's why we suck so much and try so hard. But since it appears some manga writers/artists are women so they know exactly what they're doing and doing it right.

There's just something about the anime and manga art style, specifically of pretty boy that seem to draw girls in. I'd like to see say God of War's Kratos right next to Kyo Kara Maoh's Gwendal in an attractiveness poll and I'm almost willing to bet real money that Gwendal would win by a landslide.

And you know what else is abundant with beautiful men? The Video game equivalent of an Anime: BOOM! Japanese Role Playing Games. Final Fantasy, The Tales series, Even Kingdom Hearts.

So Is this silly? Yes. But does it have merit? Potentially. I suggest a study should be done; handsome men bringing in the ladies into geek oriented things. It's a stupid idea but I'm just spit balling like I always do.

4) Variety
So most card games are rooted in fantasy or sci-fi, same with video games because video games can be outlandish (they have things like dating sims, racing games, some first person shooter, etc, of course, it's the principle of the matter.), superhero comics, the books geeks tend to read and the movies they tend to watch.

Anime and Manga are like every other sort of book only with picture which tells you a lot about it's variety, like the aforementioned one that teaches you statistics. Which means whatever you could be interested in is potentially in that format. Cooking, action, adventure, mystery, romance, magical realism, historic fantasy, it's going to be there, trust me. There are some limitations due to Japan being sort of isolated but it's still a lot of stuff.

So in conclusion, yeah, just something to think about, check around your organizations involving geeky activities, and measure out the guy to girl ratio and get back to me, I'm rather curious about this and this is something you can take a look into too. Obviously things have diversified over the years, that's just the way things go, but these things go slowly so my observations might still be sound.

-Good Bye, Good Luck, and Imagination is Your Greatest Power
Mousa the 14

Geek Rant Topic 10: Geeky Men Are Not Men

When All Else Fails, you call Mousa the 14, that one ranting geek.

What happened to me? College happened! Yeay higher education! This also means I've postponed my "Namco's Embargo" and "Geek Entitlement and General Jerkassery" topics, mostly due to writer's block on the topics. Now, back to the show:

Geeky men are sexless homos. Kind of. Some of us are not, some of us are. Men are allowed to be geeky and still be fully functional members of society simultaneously, even though these qualities tend to almost contradict each other. But any of us who may be insecure, or might have poor social skills, or that unusually high number of us on the net with Aspergers, ADD, OCD, and ADHD (Not me, I'm not trying to be speshul on the net.), not so much. There's just something about this confidence thing that some people can't get enough of. It makes them look like leaders, look reliable and in charge. That's probably why some of them can get away with being jerks: If you're damn confident and charismatic enough, nobody is going to care what a jerk you really are or they'll at least tolerate it.

And of course they get it out of being sure of themselves, these confident men. A belief that they can feel good about themselves and gosh darned it, everyone else should feel good that this person exists. Color me shocked, turned out vinegar attracts more flies than honey becuase those who are insecure enough to be doormats aren't going to get squat. Turns out the movies lie, what a concept. Excuse me while I make a few false dichotomies for your entertainment value:

• Don't hold doors, that's for pansies and losers that let the world walk all over them. Let the people open their own doors.
• Nobody's gonna take you seriously if you say yes. Helping people's for pansies and losers that let the world walk all over them. Say no all the time, be a b******, they can help themselves, no I don't care how heavy that couch is.
• What's this? You're showing some semblance of feelings? What crap is this? Chuck Norris doesn't cry! The only thing you should feel is joy, lust, and RAEG! Having feelings and talking about them at any time is for pansies and losers that let the world walk all over them. MEN are emotionally deficient, got it?

Now class, what have we learned from this? That's right, to our shock and awe some people think like this. Broad strokes are easier than having to evaluate people individually so if you're into sports or some sort of athlete or at least a charismatic business student, the likelihood of having confidence and charm is so high it's not even a question. You will have it becuase it makes you a MAN. After all, MEN are designed to be hunters and gatherers, to compete, to kill, to go for blood. Be a "MAN" physically and mentally, you are ideal. Tradition and genetics and familiarity build today's standards.

Which mean those who are less then fit either by too much or too little weight have lost a portion of the battle but that's not a deal breaker. The insecurity is still there, becuase let's face it, some of us can be proud and pretty danged confident about our interests or whatever it is the heck we do, but really, those of us in the geeky and nerdy spectrum haven't exactly been praised for our encyclopedic knowledge of the Magic: The Gathering expanded universe. We're not allowed to like what we do without the general public looking upon us with with either ignoring us or general disdain. I mean, we have homebody interests: computers, documenting, organizing, math(a.k.a. Modifying Counter Strike, making wikis about Hunter X Hunter, collecting the entire DC Universe, and Dungeons & Dragons respectively, just to name some examples.)? These aren't MAN'S skills! Go outside and kill yourself ten buffalo and feast upon their testes while you make a sport out of their inflated stomach that involves beating each other up, you pansies!

So nothing to be proud of, skills traditionally unmasculine, extreme doormat tendencies if you're good and an entitlement obsessed overbearing jerkass if you're bad. And of course my entire post was self-deprecation which is also frowned upon becuase it implies insecurities and nobody likes insecurities. Good. Flipping. Grief.

Why can't the world just screw their standards of masculinity? Who cares about these flimsy standards? Yes I know men are providers, have their heads together and in the right place, I'm not talking about disregarding that, I'm talking about disregarding the standards of being a MAN in the social sense, not the familial or interpersonal relationship sense, but just the being yourself sense. Apparently anyone who deviates the norm doesn't deserve companions other than themselves or some other human low on the gender hierarchy than geeks, which is probably the homosexuals, because you can't get any more unmanly than digging dudes, amirite?

But of course this is just whining about a problem that I'm unwilling to change for myself. Most of your confident men friends may tell you changing is easy, just go out there and get our of your comfort zone. If that's their advice, obviously their minds are wired too differently for them to understand the roadblocks or history that built you up to your current mindset, or they don't want to/care to understand, or they are so far ingrained in their confidence mindset of doing anything easily that anything less is too unusual for them to comprehend. Either way, it's helpful unhelpful advice. It's basically helpful for confident people in hiding or in a rut and anybody who is even less than that are boned. You can try, but why put on a mask of being all "MANly" it accomplishes so much, but you may as well live a lie. Not everyone is raised to the proper standards of MANliness and some can act, but it's not who they are. Perhaps some of us are averse to violence, aggression, competition, athletics, or enjoy coding, showtunes, platformers, Dungeons and Dragons, or some combination of the above and more, why should it matter? Why should those all fall into other dark recesses of society with all who have those qualities as part of their make up?

Being the best version of yourself should be all that it takes to be a man. If confidence is difficult, then it is, and it may take a while to get it out there, but if people are going to look down on you for it, then to heck with them. An insecurity or two isn't going to kill anybody, though making an effort to break out of them would be preferred but we're only human, guide-dangit.

Look, I'm going around in circles and it appears I'm having trouble figuring out which parts I'm endorsing and condemning so I'm going to add this last bit of polish and head to sleep. The point is :The Standards are exclusionary, pointless, and demeaning and only breed insecurities, bitterness, and anger and not of the MANly kind either, but something cold and dark that breeds jerkasses and doormats.

-Good Bye, Good Luck, and Imagination Is Your Greatest Power

Mousa the 14

Geek Rant Topic 06: JRPGs

When All Else Fails, you call Mousa the 14, that one ranting geek.

So uh, yeah, Guess I didn't get the memo. When did JRPGs (Japanese Role Playing Games, for the non-geek visitors.) become a laughingstock in North America? Too busy playing manly army games and 90's comic throwbacks to care about something that uses primary colors with characters that have personalities؟

That was the Irony mark by the way. And was I being mean? Indeed. I'm still seething from my overview of Faux Hardcore gamers.

Now, the list of Faux hardcore gamer requirements are basically why JRPGs are considered a joke, but once upon a time these were the types of video games were loved. In a time before I was born of course, but that's not the point. If I were to bring up a game like Earthbound, Chrono Trigger, Secret of Mana, and the Pre-Final Fantasy 7 Final Fantasy games, I would've thought they were talking about a completely different genre of games because a good majority of gamers seem to love those games for their compelling story lines, interesting characters, fun world to explore, gameplay, and whatnot.

Bring up anything post Final Fantasy 7 you're likely to get bombarded with a vitriol matched only by the Tea Party. But why is that? I seriously doubt JRPGs killed their dogs, and if they did we have bigger things to worry about, like finding out where the Allspark is or how to stop Skynet from killing us.

Well first of wall what do we have t compare them to? If there's a "J" in front of the RPG then J is obviously a qualifier to point out this is similar to but not likea set standard. Here's a poorly researched history lesson for you:

Video Game RPGs are mostly based around the Dungeons and Dragons. The DnD style of game was a complex story telling adventure that featured you and yoru friends exploring a new world as a different person as they fought monsters, explored towns, saved princesses all while upgrading their skills and weapons and maintaining an inventory as well as your health. Video Game RPGs are simplified versions of these because Video Games by definition are limited and therefore cannot provide much the depth, creativity, or numerous elements involved in your standard Dungeons and Dragons game or it's numerous counterparts.

Sacrifices had to be made and one can easily see what sort of Video Game RPG you're playing based on which sacrifices were made.

JRPGs are heavy on story and characters and because of that the decisions you make have little impact on how the story plays out except for a few changes in character development or a different ending when you beat the game. This meant a lot of gameplay was marginalized. You are basically watching an anime and a movie and your job is to move characters from A to B, make sure they don't die in non-plot related things, occasionally do some side quests that involve talking to certain people or delivering things, and fight on a usually non-necessary basis. A majority of JRPGs would make solid TV series or Movies rather than actual games where interactivity and decision making is key. In terms of actual figthing JRPGs basically are numbers game where you have to equio your characters with high ranking weapons and have them use high powered attacks, and maintain their health bar over 75%. All this in turn-based combat.

The numbers from the origin RPGs are there but the fun of actually being a person in the story is not. It's more like you're following some guy and his friends.

In Breif, and I quote someone else: "An angsty teenager with god awful hair struggling with groundless and poorly defined emotional problems through chapters of text boxes. "

Contrast with the common Western RPGs which take a more free-range open sandbox sort of style and has more emphasis on free range combat stuff a la Legend of Zelda or Assassin's Creed. but you tend to get a simpler story and you have a bigger opportunity to do far more sidequests. You can actually choose what class of character you want to be and what skills you can upgrade. Games with karma meters or dialogue selections allow for there to be slightly more effects on what you do, though usually not as much as people would like. The kicker is that usually the main story is nothing to look at and you find yourself eventually getting bored once the exploration becomes repetitive and you realize what you do doesn't have as much of an impact as you like.

In breif, and I quote someone else: "three hours of beating wolves to death in the rain in order to grab a handful of low-grade magical crap that you'll only sell a few minutes later. "

The false dichotomy here is basically choosing between more story and more choice. And more obviously the non-anime fan western audience want more choice.

However that's far deeper than what people actually complain about in terms of JRPG flaws.

Ignoring all the failings that involve appeal ling to the Faux Hardcore gamer, allow me to enumerate a lot of the commonly mentioned "problems" with JRPGs.

1) The Main protagonist is usually same broody emotional and emo or stereotypical energetic and excitable male anime protagonist.
1a) That is usually portrayed in an overly handsome/cutesy anime style
1b) And he wields a sword 99.99% of the time
1c) and has an annoying voice
2) The combat is turn based which is boring and lacks innovation.
3) Nothing you do actually matters
4) The art is 99.99% of the time going to be done in the typical Japanese animation style or as many call it, an anime style.
5) They lack replay value
6) The plots are usually cliche
7) No customization for anything.
9) Numbers are imperative in order to beat enemies rather than skills.
9a) Level grinding is imperative so you Can be stronger than the next boss
9b) No skill needed, just buy the next strongest weapons and armour
10) And It's not really roleplaying if you're going through someone else's story, limited to their personal skills with no variation, and it's their personality that drives the plot and not yours.

If there's more I remember, I'll add them but that's the basic outline ad they are frankly valid arguments. But it's hard to see why JRPGs were liked once upon a time.

Chrono Trigger still had the skill limitations and numbers crunching and you were playing as a set of established characters. But then The protagonist had a blank slate personality, what decisions you made in the game affected a great deal of the story, and the combat style was more of a faux-turn based one.

Earthbound has many of the similar failings Chrono Trigger had but it was open world, the writing was clever and the story was well done, and you had a lot of freedom in what you could do.

So JRPGs aren't necessarily a problem, it's that as games become bigger and more expensive to make it becomes more difficult to combine the best of both wolds to create something fun and interesting.

There is another factor I didn't mention that could be a cause of all this: Following the Leader. You see, Final Fantasy 7 introduced something new for it's time with a complex and fascinating protagonist with a deep and interesting plot even though it was wrought with all the things on the list many claim to hate about JRPGs. Well guess what, after the super success of FF7, many tired to follow in suit and thus nigh every JRPG we see these days is what one might call a rehash of Final Fantasy 7. Everything was starting too like trite and cliche after the original and now what we have left is a big ball of rage.

What can be done? Not sure, it seems like it's hard to break trends when you have budgets. We can only hope something new and creative comes our way like Okami, The World Ends With You, or the Tales of Symphonia/Phantasia battle system used for more RPGs.

Wait...

-Good Bye, Good Luck, and Imagination Is Your Greatest Power.
Mousa the 14

Geek Rant Topic 05: Nerd or Geek

When all else fails, you call Mousa the 14, that one ranting geek.

call me a semantics freak, but I coulda swore that these terms had specific definitions, but that could just be me. More a long time people have used the words interchangeably to simply mean "Socially inept guys we mainstream people don't like because they have non-mainstream interests, dress casually, act weird, and aren't particularly attractive."

Then why have two words? Words that are different yet supposedly mean the same or similar thing? and I'm sure people have their own personal mental dictionaries that give each of these words a specific term. even my mainstay, TvTropes.org, has separate definitions for each.

Geek

Nerd

The distinction is subtle, too subtle for anybody to really care so they ignore it. However I believe that from all I've heard and read I can glean some sort of distinction.

I realize this may be futile. I mean, XKCD is laughing at me right now for it. But the alt text proves to me that even the XKCD guy has a version of it and in fact mine is quite similar. So without further ado I present the definitions.

NERD: A socially inadequate person who is noted not only for their poor social skills or lack of caring of mainstream interests and styles, but for their intelligence, display of said intelligence, and deep knowledge of a wide variety of fields or a specified field. The big difference between a geek and a nerd is that a Nerd's brilliance is usually within academic pursuits. They are Science geeks, math geeks, computer geeks. If it is an academic field with real life applications or at least has a real field of study and you are intellectually vested in it, you are a nerd.

GEEK: A subset of hobbyist, people who have an deep interest in traditionally non-mainstream subjects that are often considered childish in nature. Similar to the Nerd, they are usually socially inadequate and brilliant. Unlike the nerd, their brilliance tends to be dedicated to their specific hobby. Usual interests of Geeks fall under Science-Fiction and Fantasy Genres spanning all mediums. Another aspect of Geeks as defined by The Game Overthinker in his video on continuity found here. the short and paraphrased version is this: "Geeks glean fun from turning something that is already fun into work" such as playing video games competitively, Stop Having Fun Guys, or collecting the entirety of the Marvel universe's comics to "keep the continuity straight".

Geeks follow this mantra "(Insert Hobby here), My Anti-Drug: Because Crack is Cheaper"

Agree with me, don't agree with me. I think I'm right, but I'm just that one ranting geek among millions. I doubt I'm wrong but I dare thou to challenge me.

Though it does seem strange that some, including myself, are arguing over the semantics of an insult pointed in our general direction.

Oh well.

-Good Bye, Good Luck, and Imagination Is Your Greatest Power.
Mousa The 14

Geek Rant Topic 03: Hardcore Gamers or "No True Gamer"

When all else fails, you call Mousa the 14, that one ranting geek.

I have a passing interest of gamers. And by that I mean I watch these guys on a regular basis. Danny Floyd and The Overthinker have helped refined my view of gamers, Same with this guy. He is awesome.

With my influences out of the way, time to talk about the core gamers. You see, Hardcore Gamer is a term that has lost it's meaning nowadays. I remember once upon a time, in a more innocent time, I had friends who considered themselves to be hardcore gamers and I was labeled casual. This was appropriate, I didn't play as much as them. They played a lot. They got 100% completions, they knew how to "wave dash", they knew how to combo, all that stuff. They were real hardcore gamers. They kept up with releases, knew the rumors, knew what was fake, cared about graphics and all that stuff. They cared about all that stuff. Me? I could barely keep up.

However that golden age of true hardcore gamer has gone and the name has been passed on to a different sort of gamers,a vocal minority who make it into the news, who get all the coverage. The ones Sony and Microsoft are pandering to. These new "Hardcore" gamers were of a different breed. They took hardcore for something completely different. They were immature, some young, some middle aged, but they were all insecure and masculinity obsessed guys. They took hardcore to be "Masculine", "Virile", "EPIC", all that jazz. They wanted these things and these things only:

1) First Person Shooters or anything similar. Sometimes Third person actions will do so long as it's dark and edgy.
2) Military Games
3) Games to be Darker and Edgier and Grim and Gritty.
4) The Women needed to be Hotter and Sexier
5) Their protagonist needed to be a personality deficient musclebound white guy with a perma-stubble and an attitude.
5a) Or the Protagonist was the first guy's personality deficient armored and faceless cousin who presumably looks like the first guy.
6) Everything needs to be Brown and Gray, no Primary colors because that's gay!
7) The setting? Only Battle torn or post-apocalyptic will do.
8) REALISM! REALISM! REALISM! Stylization is GAY!

I described more games than I care to count and while games that fit this mold aren't necessarily bad, I mean, Prototype is pretty good, I have no real qualms with the Call of Duty games besides the fact they're not my thing, and apparently Everyone Loves Metal Gear Solid. My problem is that the industry seems to be bending over backwards for this immature crowd's standard because... I don't know. They're the most vocal? They're older and therefore have more disposable income maybe? The point is that Sony and Microsoft seem to be bending over backwards against innovation, original characters, and using the entire color spectrum in order to make similar stuff that, on occasion, isn't all that interesting or catering to a group too small. These guys aren't the real Hardcore gamers, they think they are but they aren't.

These faux Hardcore gamers are an insecure bunch, most of who grew up with gaming and now they refuse to believe their favorite media isn't growing up with them. They refuse to believe that their game systems are toys and when they game they play with toys! It's not an insult, it's a fact, but they take it as an insult to their maturity, their age, and their intellect. And ironically, they regress by going over the top with high school varsity football homophobic macho testosterone fueled machismo in a rage and immaturity so great they make Chuck Norris look like a little girl. It's sad really that these are the guys we stick the modern day "hardcore" label to.

My annoyance grows more only because you can just tell these are the hardcore gamers Sony and Microsoft are pandering to. Have you seen a Playstation3/Portable ad lately? Those things are an insult to our intelligence as geeks and as true hardcore gamers. You haven't yet? Go look one up, YouTube is readily available and all, go on, I dare you. Adding "Sassy black boy" in the search descriptor might help too.

You back? Seen them? Now you see where I'm getting at here. Th tough guy attitude, the "hip" lingo, it's like they're not even trying. They think gamers are the Faux Hardcores and ergo treating us like we're idiots.

If I sound like I'm ragging a lot on Sony and Microsoft, it's because I'm really not seeing this issue with Nintendo. Sure they have their problems, what with all the shovelware, the excess in mindless kiddie games, all that stuff but it still dishes out a lot of good games with a palette that is wider than what Sony and Microsoft tend to make themselves out to be. Yeah they have their kiddie stuff, their moderate stuff, their stuff that uses the entire color spectrum, But you cannot deny what their claim to fame is and that's trying to pander to the Faux Hardcore gamers.

Why is it those faux hardcores and portions of the gaming industry don't realize that being a "hardcore" or "casual" gamer, (or, shall I say "Skill Players" and "tourists" to be more accurate) has nothing to do with the type of games you play but how you play them. The guy who does the gamer taxonomy I linked above already talks about that. It's about either you play games because you want to develop a useless skill because you derive fun form being an expert or because you just want to have fun

Anyhow, that's my thoughts on the Faux Hardcore gamers, how they have destroyed the definition of a true Hardcore gamer, and why they matter. Now if you will excuse me, I must rustle up some cash, I need to find me a backwards compatible PS3.

-Good Bye, Good Luck, and Imagination Is Your Greatest Power.
Mousa The 14

Geek Rant Topic 02: Furry Hate

When all else fails, you call Mousa the 14, That One Ranting Geek.

Everybody hates Furries! Geeks hate them, normal people hate them, the media hates them, apparently CSI hates them but I'd rather kill myself than watch that utterly uninteresting show.

Why exactly? I mean seriously, why?

I want to say you all have no reason to, but honestly you have many reasons to.

1) They are easy to get a rise out of
2) They act like a repressed minority when they are at a minimum hobbyist, and at the most a subculture, but not a real one, but like how "gamers" and "Otakus" are subcultures.
3) Otherkin. 'Nuff said
4) You had a bad first experience with one and are projecting on them all because you are a deaf bigot.
5) There was furry porn and you assumed all of them were sexual deviants.
6) The furry porn thing part 2: They like animal-people, ergo, They are into bestiality, the sick perverts.

Obviously the last 3 are not legitimate reasons but they're real reasons nevertheless. I can understand why normal people would alienate them.

However I do not understand why we, the Geeks and Nerds, do. Why would we, the guys who love X-men (an allegory for tolerance), hate on a group of people based on their interests? Need I remind why why we're called Geeks and Nerds? Because we are ostracized by mainstream and popular people for having non-mainstream interests. Oh, and because a vocal minority of you refuse to maintain decent hygiene but that's a rant for another day.

But as I was saying, we enjoy fantasy, science-fiction, video games, superheroes, comic books, card games, anything that comes from Japan, and so muc hmore, and we're ridiculed for it or rather, we're ignored to the point of making use exiles. In fact, this is it, isn't it? That's the reason.

Geeks have a persecution complex!

We have always been considered pretty low on the frikkin' "food chain". And That sucks. We supposedly learned to deal with it. But then we find something even we consider too strange and we come down on it like a ton of bricks.

Need I remind you of the Geek Heirarchy?



Here's the Unabridged version. Either way, Furries get a raw deal. And for what reason? They're easy to troll? Well that's mean-spirited and non-nonsensical, but then, not everybody can be rational, tolerant, and not living proof of GIFT. Oy vey...

So anyhow, where was I? Ah yes, we were bullied so we bully someone even lower than we are. Now that's mature. I'm so proud that a group supposedly filled with intellectuals or at least reasonably smart people can be such idiots. I mean what are we, Republicans?

I mean seriously, why should we direct our fury at them when they did nothing to us? If anything we should be raging against the mainstream, the cool kids, the popular people, the sportsmen, all those guys, not our fellow shut-ins. But then, maybe we just don't like each other.

I mean us geeks are a divisive group. Besides a common interest in Science Fiction and Fantasy, our interests beyond that get pretty diverse and divided. we get further away from the common genre and become more interested in our particular niches. I mean how do you enjoy expressing your interests in genre fiction? Video Games? Reading? writing? Magic The Gathering? Anime? See? Our methods are so divided we have no reason to like each other. I've seen it all before. Everybody's got to hate on something from the "Weeaboos" to the "Casual/Hardcore/Retro Gamers", it gets pretty silly. We shouldn't be doing this. We enjoy stuff that practically bleeds, breaths, and sweats tolerance. Why aren't we learning?

So I guess all I'm saying is, we've been out-casted for our interests, so why all the hate?

-Good Bye, Good Luck, and Imagination Is Your Greatest Power.
Mousa The 14

Geek Rant Topic 01: Shadow The Hedgehog

Rather than go out of my way with introductions, I figured I'd go straight to the writing. When all else fails, you hear the call of That One Ranting Geek, me. They call me Mousa the 14. Not the 14th, the 14. Occupation: Jack of All Trades Geek and Geek Culture Commentator and I'm here to talk to you about Shadow the friggin' Hedgehog. Or rather, I'm going to type, and you're going to reply either intelligently or in a troll-like manner. Naturally I'd prefer the former.

Oh, and just so you can light your flames and ready your pitchforks early, I hate Shadow the Hedgehog and I hated his spin-off game.

Now that we have that out of the way, it's time for me to explain everything right and wrong with Shadow the effing Hedgehog.

IN THE BEGINNING

We had Sonic Adventure 2: Battle. Sounds awesome enough, a cool looking sequel to Sonic Adventure, only this time Sonic had to deal with a black furred impersonator. And in the end, Shadow makes a Heroic Sacrifice and the world is saved from his revenge plot. He was an awesome character to start out with. Tall, dark, and broody usually aren't my style, but I found his development and backstory to be fascinating and his character acted appropriately given the life he's had. And he went off with a bang, with a perfectly reasonable redemption equals death and they all lived happily ever after.

The ending of that game was powerful, it was basically the first time the main cast had lost a close ally, and possible friend. I can see why people initially liked Shadow at first. He was cool, not as arrogant as Sonic, but had an awesome story and did awesome things. He deserved to be remembered that way forever.

Cue Sonic Heroes and Shadow the Hedgehog and all that goes down the toilet. SEGA doesn't take care of it's children. It couldn't let sleeping dogs lie. You see, this is my problem with corporate executives, they milk the cash cow for all it's worth instead of just little the plot go according to plan. This is why Dragonball Z lasted past the Freiza Saga and why One Piece is on chapter five hundred and something (Not that that's a bad thing necessarily).

It's also your fault but I'll get back to that later.

Anyhow, Sonic Heroes revealed Shadow to be alive somehow but in some sort of stasis or whatever, thus cheapening his heroic sacrifice and the moment everyone shared at the end of Sonic Adventure 2: Battle. And he conveniently had amnesia. I'd have amnesia too if I fell to Earth from outer space. The head trauma would be unbearable.

Shadow the Hedgehog reveals that Shadow is the byproduct of his creator making a deal with the Space Devil (as stupid as it sounds, you know it's true), and like all devils, twists his deals so Gerald Robotnik (Shadow's maker) regrets his decision and needs to make amends. However after losing his daughter, Gerald decides to do the space devil's work for him (Strange, that.). And so Shadow has had to stop 2 mistakes that were a result of his creator. The idea itself isn't so bad it's horrible, just so okay it's adequate. I think the problem was execution.

Shadow the Hedgehog was marketed as a dark and Edgy game, obviously aimed at the hormonal, broody, emotional, and pumped up with too much testosterone teens Shadow was meant to appeal to. They had to do everything in their power to pander such a base by taking away everything that made Shadow part of the Sonic franchise and go with something completely different: A Third person shooter, which includes vehicles.

You may apply your face to your palm at any time now.

Is this truly necessary? Many lovers would say "This is all about the darkness that is Shadow. He needs to have grit to show off his dark and gritty self and his dark and gritty past. Sonic style games are kids stuff." Which means it was completely unnecessary. If there is another argument out there I'd be glad to hear it but this is what I'm going with right now.

I say it is entirely unnecessary, simply because of the mechanics of Shadow the Hedgehog himself. Without the Chaos emerald, he has super speed, strength, and many moves that makes Sonic a competent fighter. When you take into account his mild control of chaos, Shadow can teleport, project spears of energy, move at time-slowing speeds, and a few other abilities. This doesn't even take into account the major augmentation he gets when he has a Chaos emerald or two.

So was the guns and vehicles necessary? God almighty, no! Shadow was bad@$ enough without the nitty gritty extras!

But this sounds like a quip at the game itself rather than the character. Well I'm trying to cover all the bases that conspire against this Hedgehog. In short, while Shadow the Hedgehog was poor, it's not what killed Shadow the Hedgehog as a character or plot device.

It was Sonic Heroes that did it. That gimmicky, glitchy, slightly less than average game brought Shadow back too soon due to popular demand. Or rather, the game brought him back at all. Okay, this is getting complicated so let me start from Sonic Adventure 2: Battle so I can adequately get across what I'm saying here.

If Sonic Adventure 2: Battle had not "killed" Shadow, we could have skipped over Sonic Heroes and had an easy tie in to Shadow the Hedgehog, with Shadow simply trying to learn more about the circumstances of his creation and existence. That's a good flow right there. However, this didn't happen. Instead he "died". Frankly, that would've been an adequate end to his saga right there. Most add-on characters in the Sonic franchise never last one game anyway. Shadow dying the heroic sacrifice meant he could be immortalized as the awesome character the game made him out to be. Meaning we could've skipped over Sonic Heroes and Shadow the Hedgehog, and possibly Sonic Battle (except the only bad thing this game had going for it was Gerald Robotnik-related plot-holes).

Also, Shadow is rather useless as a device in the Sonic mythos. Sonic already has 2 rivals, one villainous and one not. I mean we have Knuckles the Rad Red, who is not as fast as Sonic but makes up for it by being his opposite and focusing on strength. And there's his enemy, Metal Sonic, Eggman's robotic Sonic clone, who is basically Sonic's speed competition. Shadow has no place here when you have Knuckles and Metal Sonic. I mean you have Complete opposite guy, and Evil soulless version of the guy. What's Shadow supposed to be? He's just Sonic with magical powers. That more than trumps Sonic in terms of abilities. He's not a rival, he's metaphor for Sony/Xbox trying to make a Dark and Edgy "HARDCORE" version of Sonic and failing.

And what's his purpose as a character? I mean, sure I guess he's supposed to be doing as Maria wanted him to do by saving the world or making people happy and some such, but isn't that job being taken care of by Sonic and his merry band? Can I hear a "REDUNDENT" from you guys?

So what am I saying? Shadow isn't bad, just poorly handled and would've been a better character if

1) Sonic Heroes didn't bring him back
1a) Shadow didn't die in Sonic Adventure 1, Sonic Heroes was skipped, and Shadow The Hedgehog was a better game.
2)Shadow The Hedgehog was a better game
3)People didn't demand for his return
4)The Executives didn't listen to the fans
5)He was given a greater purpose beyond "Sonic's evil rival"
6)I think I missed one.

And that's all I got, so, yeah.

Like or dislike, I personally think I was rambling nonsense. O h well.

- Good Bye, Good Luck, and Imagination Is Your Greatest Power
Mousa the 14