Betsy Hart, for the uninitiated, is a Puritan woman who mistook a time machine for an outhouse and was dropped off in modern times to become a regressive, anti-feminist, woman hater, with an adoration for the nostalgia when women said little and stayed safe in the confines of a kitchen. The irony is that she has a column with which to spout her nonsense that she wouldn’t have had she been in charge of women’s suffrage. I’m reticent to put her in the Shithead Hall of Fame, although she has had an illustrious career of regressive buffoonery, and I do admire Ms. Hart’s consistency in rhetoric, unlike Hall of Fame-er Kathleen Parker. Her article “Divorcee has a few things to say about Marriage” is another of those fantasy laden tales where an imaginary girlfriend of Ms. Hart prompts a question about how to prevent marital breakup. Ms. Hart, in classic right wing fashion, doubles down and assures the reader that yes, she was proffered advice on this matter, that she was married for 17 years, and then “blindsided by divorce”. Oh, and she’s been single for “half a decade”, which leads me to wonder if she types most of articles with raccoon-eyes, drenched from the acres of mascara on her face, fighting back further tears as she talks to this imaginary girlfriend, who fears that her son will not be able to hold up a marriage. Hey, she’s up for the challenge, let her use a micro fiber towel to wipe away those smudges and compile a veiled list for the modern couple to use…before they are blindsided by reality.
She starts off with: “…at the top of the list for your husband is, likely sex.”. Understatement of the year Ms. Hart; she goes on to rectify this statement by saying that that IS the list. Classic! Of course all men are horn dogs for sex, amiright ladies? Ms. Harper then goes all Inception on us by recalling another fantasy fable of a young mother telling advising wives to find out how much sex your husband wants, then give him more. Ms. Hart agrees fully. It’s regressive in it’s approach at being progressive (or proactive) by saying “yes, fuck the shit out him” because it’s a cornerstone of Ms. Hart’s belief in that sex is only for procreation. Ahh, now you get it. She masks this caveat in that sex is crucially important to men for both their ego…and well…their ego.
Now that you’re fucking the daylights out of your man, you know, for his pleasure, Ms. Hart suggests “…resisting the urge to whine, and instead thanking him on a regular basis…Anything that will build him up.” Wives stop whining and fall to his feet in gratefulness in all his awesome manliness! It’s less a list of help and more of a way for a woman to trick her husband into not being a man, making him eager to care for and please her. Heaven forbid he actually try to take care of the family he reared, or having a meaningful employment, you know he can’t build himself up. It’s a nice slight of hand to get the man to do the bidding of the wife, but think that he’s doing all the heavy lifting. Clever girl, Ms. Hart.
All that “best friend” bullshit, cut it out, Ms. Harper warns. Men are totally incapable of forging bonds of trust and friendship with a woman, he’s not built to comfort you when your stylist doesn’t get your hair to look like Jennifer Lopez’s, he can’t relate to the mocking your scale puts you through daily. So don’t even try, instead get a gal pal. Cherish the thought that you somehow have not yet in life managed to collect a gaggle of ladies to become your support, and incessantly pick your side in any domestic argument. Here’s where the puritanical thought reveals itself. Ms. Hart fails to believe or understand that the modern woman has many “friends” and most of them aren’t other women! What!? A lot of these girls are self-reliant, they were raised by other strong women who believe in the progression of the whole women are equal to their male counterparts. She can’t even be bothered to think that a woman may not want to be shackled with a family, or take care of a delusional husband that needs to be fucked constantly to function as a grown man.
Husband: (Walks in to scene, shoulders slumped, frowny visage) “Oh honey, since you didn’t fuck me enough, I just didn’t have enough balls to be made partner at the firm!”
Wife: (Busoms Heaving) “Oh dear, I’m so sorry…maybe if you would’ve put the JCPenney catalog out and told me to buy that new stove I wanted I could’ve!”
Husband: (Pulls at hair)(Screaming) “Oh no we are ruined!”
…and Scene.
Ms. Hart’s articles always have this twisty, absurd logic to them. Wherein they start out innocently enough, at first blush, but if you start scratching at it long enough, it unveils the cynicism towards the progressive women’s movement.
She’s not done! Husbands, you know what REALLY turns a woman on? Cleaning up around the house, being a father to your kids, it “may be the ultimate aphrodisiac for your wife.”. Key word in the quotes is MAY, and it is such bullshit. You mean husbands have to take responsibility for their actions? No more hot-dogging at the sports bar, secret golf trips, corporate retreats at Vegas, hitting on the cashier at the grocery store (when he’s buying diapers, food, and the box of tampons for his wife)? Ms. Hart also suggest a little seduction in the guise of harping on your significant other.
Another imaginary friend enters the picture with a small anecdote of the time she tricked her husband with a steak placed under a box, held up by a stick. Once the husband grabbed at the steak and released the trap, his wife explained to him: “…I really don’t want to get dressed up to go to a party. I have be talked in to it, sometimes cajoled…” What?! Is it any surprise that Ms. Harper and her imaginary friends are divorced? Imagine every social function you have to TRICK your significant other in to going? “Honey, there’s a bag of diamonds in the trunk of the car, you should come see them. I think they’re blood diamonds!” She comes over to inspect, then you shove her ass in there, grab some shoes and a dress from her closet and then drive like a bat out of hell to the party. How many times can you do that before she either divorces you, or has a restraining order issued? It’s foolishness! I don’t know many woman who would rather forgo a social function and sit at the house alone on a Friday night. Again, I’m not married or old enough to have to go to very many social functions. Hell, I hate social functions, yet I will dress up and go because, at the end of the day, it is worth it in some form, especially if it’s free booze and a cash bar! Ms. Harper agrees with her devious imaginary friend, “So Guys, instead of being impatient or demanding, how about working a little harder to encourage your wife to want to get dressed for the party? You see?” See what exactly, Ms. Harper, the lack of distinction between demanding and impatient with trickery and begging/pleading that she must get dressed up and go to a fucking party? That’s a fine line that I’m sure can easily be crossed when you’re trying to get someone who needs to be “cajoled” to do something for you.
I also wonder how many of Ms. Harper’s articles are less advice columns and more hit pieces on her failed marriage and ex-husband. There’s few throwaway lines of honoring vows and loving their partners even with they don’t do the “right things”. That’s the great thing about people though, Ms. Harper is conflict and compromise, some of the cornerstones of a marriage! She treats marriages like it’s a battle of attrition, where one partner has to have to upper hand to get anything accomplished, or that somehow a relationship with God will smooth rough patches over, again caving in to something with an upper hand. How about you stop trying to list “the right things”? More often than not a partner’s idea of a right thing isn’t going to mesh with the other’s idea. What you care about, and may be a deal breaker, doesn’t even register. That’s typical of life, as well as in a group of people with a common goal.
Let us not forget as the sepia fantasy scene dims, and the curtains close that Ms. Harper has an agenda. A supposed widely held belief that strong marriages with lots of children with somehow pull us away from the perceived moral bankruptcy that threatens to destroy our country.
You know a few things this divorcee should’ve said? How about why her marriage failed, where she came up short, and what her imaginary friends son could do to see warning signs of problems. What if, instead of planting tongue firmly in cheek as a guise to talk down to young women getting married and pushing her puritanical agenda, she offered actual good life advice from someone who was married for 17 years. Surely, she gleaned some information in between patronizing her husband and eating ice cream alone after he goes to a party.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
My Guide to a Diet Article
There are few things that make me wish for springtime to end than the infinite amount of New Year’s resolution articles that begat Spring Fitness articles that begat all that bullshit space filler that writers foment before the “here’s a forwarded e-mail list that I converted into an article” vacation editorials that start in May. I also recognize that that may be the longest intro sentence in history. Regardless, as previously noted, I have a sincere disdain in my heart for the crappy writing that has crawled away from the Internets and infected the newspapers and magazines I frequently read. I’m picking on one writer in particular this article as is my wont, but he’s not the only one, just merely the one who will take all the lashings.
Nate Jones, writer of the “Keeping up with Jones” articles, is trying a diet. Before we even begin, is there a class you take as a journalism students that imbues you with the uncanny ability to take your name or some other associative characteristic and spin in to a working title for your bullshit? The title of this piece in particular is “Guide to Cheating (on diets)”, and in the ensuing dear Penthouse levels of food fellatio there seems to be nothing approaching a guide. Am I mistaken that a guide, at it’s very core, is at least a few bullet points in order to teach something or a list of progressions? Not so in this article. Mr. Jones has been writing about losing weight since the beginning of the year. He joins a pantheon of his editorial compatriots with lives so bland that this is the consolation of that life. Common filler, no substance, no real insight. So you can forgive me if he finds this and gets his feelings hurt. The impersonality aside, there’s no reason to root for him because, like everyone before him, he will fail. And wouldn’t you know if we won’t HEAR about that too!
He writes of visiting friends and that it’s just impossible to maintain a diet plan because I guess they all become feral hogs when united. His belief that backyard football would somehow be the common denominator in allowing his dietary laziness is to be believed charming. Since it rains, the hogs…I mean he and his buddies decide to, in his words “feast”. Before we delve into the next few paragraphs of the food romantic novel with the Fabio carved out of sharp cheddar cheese on the cover, an aside. Like many of his fellow New Year’s Resolutionists, he uses the terms old me/new me when describing his tendencies. His “new me” is the one who is the dieter/exerciser and the “old me” is the fat slob that can’t stop cramming stuff in to his face hole. The key difference is that the old me shouldn’t exist in the present tense, yet this “old me” must be an unstoppable eating frenzy machine, because he somehow keeps showing up and forcing “new me” to eat unhealthy bullshit, and/or making excuse as to not keep the “new me” diet thing going. The sentences “But it rained, and rained, and rained, and it was dismal outside. So we decided to feast.” surely doesn’t sound like “new me” wrote it, and I’m pretty sure it was “old me” that made Mr. Jones think that titling a sexy feast romp with a breakfast pizza as a “guide” was a good idea too!
These pock-faced, jiggly, sweaty zombies shamble in to a store looking to eat whatever gets in their way first. From what I gather no babies or small children happened to be sprinkled with Cheese Whiz and consumed in his area, so I gather he actually bought food. He describes how they all come upon the idea to make a Mexican Breakfast Pizza. Now, in an ironic turn, this is where “new me” could’ve chimed in, but I guess Mr. Jones feared he would be eaten for even suggesting that they could add vegetables (a la’ Mexican) like peppers, onions, beans, other healthy alternative and the like. Instead the only Mexican thing about the pizza is enchilada sauce, and a ‘generous layer‘ of “Mexican Blend” cheese. The rest is more cheese, ham, eggs, and bacon. Again, totally Mexican, right?
Mr. Jones laments that it’s too many calories, but so much fun to make! He adds that this is just one way to cheat on a diet. This must me “old me” writing again, because he must be inferring cheating in the romantic sense. Because Mr. Jones, you’re not cheating on your diet, you’re just plain failing at it. It’s not like your diet is blind to your shenanigans, or that you’ll somehow fix this impropriety with an extra mile to your walks or another rep on the ol’ bench press. You just say you’ll try better in the coming months. You even write in your editorial that the Mexican Breakfast Pizza is something that you wouldn’t eat “very often”! That’s defeatist “old me” ostensibly saying that you’ll do this again.
To finish his article Mr. Jones says that it’s time to get even more serious about this adventure. And while I applaud him for the efforts thus far, if you’re at the beginning of April and still trying to get serious about weight loss at this point, you’ve already fallen to the “old me” mentality. “New me” wouldn’t have time to be typing out excuses or justifications for lack of willpower. This is not his first rodeo in dietary failure, I’ve been actively following his foolishness since January and this is like his 13th time fucking up. So no, he won’t find any support here.
I get that writing his journey down might make him stick to it better, as it is a trick as old as time. I’m doing my best to lose weight this year too, but I’m not being flagrant about it. There is no slipping up and fucking up a diet, when one doesn’t exist. There’s something to be said of the “Watch what you eat, exercise, and get plenty of rest” idea and it’s lasting legacy. That’s all it takes Mr. Jones. Perhaps your time would be better served educating your readers on world events or things that REALLY matter. There’s enough of this diet editorial bullshit to go around. At the very least, you can always try again next New Year’s!
Nate Jones, writer of the “Keeping up with Jones” articles, is trying a diet. Before we even begin, is there a class you take as a journalism students that imbues you with the uncanny ability to take your name or some other associative characteristic and spin in to a working title for your bullshit? The title of this piece in particular is “Guide to Cheating (on diets)”, and in the ensuing dear Penthouse levels of food fellatio there seems to be nothing approaching a guide. Am I mistaken that a guide, at it’s very core, is at least a few bullet points in order to teach something or a list of progressions? Not so in this article. Mr. Jones has been writing about losing weight since the beginning of the year. He joins a pantheon of his editorial compatriots with lives so bland that this is the consolation of that life. Common filler, no substance, no real insight. So you can forgive me if he finds this and gets his feelings hurt. The impersonality aside, there’s no reason to root for him because, like everyone before him, he will fail. And wouldn’t you know if we won’t HEAR about that too!
He writes of visiting friends and that it’s just impossible to maintain a diet plan because I guess they all become feral hogs when united. His belief that backyard football would somehow be the common denominator in allowing his dietary laziness is to be believed charming. Since it rains, the hogs…I mean he and his buddies decide to, in his words “feast”. Before we delve into the next few paragraphs of the food romantic novel with the Fabio carved out of sharp cheddar cheese on the cover, an aside. Like many of his fellow New Year’s Resolutionists, he uses the terms old me/new me when describing his tendencies. His “new me” is the one who is the dieter/exerciser and the “old me” is the fat slob that can’t stop cramming stuff in to his face hole. The key difference is that the old me shouldn’t exist in the present tense, yet this “old me” must be an unstoppable eating frenzy machine, because he somehow keeps showing up and forcing “new me” to eat unhealthy bullshit, and/or making excuse as to not keep the “new me” diet thing going. The sentences “But it rained, and rained, and rained, and it was dismal outside. So we decided to feast.” surely doesn’t sound like “new me” wrote it, and I’m pretty sure it was “old me” that made Mr. Jones think that titling a sexy feast romp with a breakfast pizza as a “guide” was a good idea too!
These pock-faced, jiggly, sweaty zombies shamble in to a store looking to eat whatever gets in their way first. From what I gather no babies or small children happened to be sprinkled with Cheese Whiz and consumed in his area, so I gather he actually bought food. He describes how they all come upon the idea to make a Mexican Breakfast Pizza. Now, in an ironic turn, this is where “new me” could’ve chimed in, but I guess Mr. Jones feared he would be eaten for even suggesting that they could add vegetables (a la’ Mexican) like peppers, onions, beans, other healthy alternative and the like. Instead the only Mexican thing about the pizza is enchilada sauce, and a ‘generous layer‘ of “Mexican Blend” cheese. The rest is more cheese, ham, eggs, and bacon. Again, totally Mexican, right?
Mr. Jones laments that it’s too many calories, but so much fun to make! He adds that this is just one way to cheat on a diet. This must me “old me” writing again, because he must be inferring cheating in the romantic sense. Because Mr. Jones, you’re not cheating on your diet, you’re just plain failing at it. It’s not like your diet is blind to your shenanigans, or that you’ll somehow fix this impropriety with an extra mile to your walks or another rep on the ol’ bench press. You just say you’ll try better in the coming months. You even write in your editorial that the Mexican Breakfast Pizza is something that you wouldn’t eat “very often”! That’s defeatist “old me” ostensibly saying that you’ll do this again.
To finish his article Mr. Jones says that it’s time to get even more serious about this adventure. And while I applaud him for the efforts thus far, if you’re at the beginning of April and still trying to get serious about weight loss at this point, you’ve already fallen to the “old me” mentality. “New me” wouldn’t have time to be typing out excuses or justifications for lack of willpower. This is not his first rodeo in dietary failure, I’ve been actively following his foolishness since January and this is like his 13th time fucking up. So no, he won’t find any support here.
I get that writing his journey down might make him stick to it better, as it is a trick as old as time. I’m doing my best to lose weight this year too, but I’m not being flagrant about it. There is no slipping up and fucking up a diet, when one doesn’t exist. There’s something to be said of the “Watch what you eat, exercise, and get plenty of rest” idea and it’s lasting legacy. That’s all it takes Mr. Jones. Perhaps your time would be better served educating your readers on world events or things that REALLY matter. There’s enough of this diet editorial bullshit to go around. At the very least, you can always try again next New Year’s!
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Quick Cuts: Hard Corps: Uprising (XBLA)
Quick Cuts is pretty much my “mea culpa” of not abiding by my review rule of “finish the game”. I think the first in this series definitely allows for this as it is nigh impossible to beat Hard Corps: Uprising while trying to maintain any form of sanity. This game is one of many of a current crop of Xbox Live Arcade games that doesn’t care if you want to play it and punishes you accordingly for wanting to. Any enjoyment you my glean is forcefully taken from you and mocked to your face. For some odd reason, it delights in showing you a letter grade of your foolishness for finishing a level, then lets you bask in your failure as you wait through a painfully long 1999 era load screen. The load screens may be long because of the inordinate amount of real estate you have to progress. And you have to do it all at once. The check points are few and unintelligent in their placement. Typically when you die after a mid level boss, wouldn’t you like to start after you vanquished him, not in the moments before?
Hard Corps: Uprising, according to Konami developers, isn’t a Contra game proper. But they never really explain why most of the Contra tropes are there: Flying Weapon Power Up Pods, Huge Enemies, Brutal Difficulty swings, Run-N-Gun Action, Shooting on Speed Bikes…on and on. Hell, even the start screen plays the Contra start screen theme. What in the hell Konami? This may be because Arc System Works developed it, and not that Konami wants to push this turd as far away from the Contra series as possible. This doesn’t even account for the numerous failed Contra reboots that Konami has produced over the past decade. But I’m “disseminating” Hard Corps: Uprising, not Konami’s woeful Contra success rate.
Hard Corps: Uprising is more or less a prequel to my favorite Contra game: Contra: Hard Corps for the Sega Genesis. If you loved Contra III: The Alien Wars, Hard Corps was a great evolution of all that and more. Adding four distinct playable characters, branching paths through the ‘story’, multiple endings, all wrapped up in the glorious Contra goodness, it would literally be the last great Contra game.
Hard Corps: Uprising comes in a couple of flavors. There’s Arcade Mode, your standard Contra fair, gives you a few lives and sends you on your merry way. This would work in theory if not coupled with the other flavor. Uprising Mode is more of a grinding, leveling sort of experience where you earn points to spend on developing the most badass character. With these points you can add more lives, increase your life bar, unlock new abilities, make your character faster, you get the idea. Initially, the game in Uprising Mode is damn near unplayable. Thankfully, there is a life bar that at least allows you to struggle through the levels with your abysmal pea shooter of a gun. You can get power ups from the flying weapon pods, but to keep them is a practice of pure videogame playing fortitude.
The game insists on kicking you in the face at every turn. There is a fine line between challenge and utter frustration. There’s also a difference between player ability and shoddy, half-baked controls getting in the way of game progress. It is only after hours and hours of “grinding” these enormous chimp designed levels that you can finally at least get even with game, and then you can have a pleasurable experience.
Eventually, if you allow it, the game opens up and finally becomes a “Contra” game. It almost seems like heresy when I type this, but it’s true. Maybe the game broke me on some fundamental level, but about half way through the slog, I started really enjoying Hard Corps: Uprising.
Now, don’t get me twisted, my damaged enjoyment of the game still does not let suffer that the game is poorly designed. I feel like some of the earlier levels were accidentally designed by Sonic Team as they had no business being in a “Contra” style run-n-gun situation. I mean really who thinks that a bloated cavern would fit well with this game play? When has cramped confines of level design ever worked for this type of game?
The voice acting is atrocious. I can’t even understand half of what the player characters are saying, and boss monsters roars could easily be mistaken for yawns. I get the feeling that me and most of the mid-level bosses in this game were simpatico in our game duties.
Not to be too passive aggressive this, but I’d also to call out those supporters of Castlevania: Harmony of Despair for allowing Konami to think that nickel-and-diming the games fans is acceptable. Really Konami, $2 for the other two playable characters? That’s ridiculous and unacceptable when you’re already charging $15 for the game proper.
Hard Corps: Uprising feels like this equation: The game difficulty was set at “x “and then they start you at “a”. It is only after leveling your character to something approaching the “x” that you even appreciate what the game is all about. I don’t think many, if any at all, will actually play the game to that point. It’s a shame really, there’s a lot of good things about Hard Corps: Uprising that are great refinements of old Contra tropes.
This isn’t a testament to it’s “old school” style though. I am indeed too old for some of the games shenanigans. The boss battles in particular play more like battles of attrition that actual tests of player skill. There’s a Wheel Shaped boss towards the end of the game that takes WAY too long to destroy, breaching the point of enjoyment, pass the task of feeling like work. There’s no skill involved, just literal, time eating dismantling. To say nothing of the three part final boss encounter which devolves in to a battle of attrition in the skies where the main thrust of the endgame is trying not to lose all your lives before the boss crushes all the platforms you need to inflict damage upon him, and the side boss of crappy controls not particularly designed for this kind of game play.
I can say that besides Contra: Hard Corps, I haven’t beaten many Contra games. Yes, they are difficult, but they aren’t devoid of enjoyment like Hard Corps: Uprising seems to be. While I can tip my hat to Konami for trying something different and at the very least taking a stab at the download marketplace, they can do better. This especially true coupled with the release of Rush N Attack, they could take a few cues from Capcom and other developers that seem to be getting this grab for nostalgia right. You can scratch that itch with breaking the skin and fucking the fans that will flock to these games regardless of quality.
Hard Corps: Uprising, according to Konami developers, isn’t a Contra game proper. But they never really explain why most of the Contra tropes are there: Flying Weapon Power Up Pods, Huge Enemies, Brutal Difficulty swings, Run-N-Gun Action, Shooting on Speed Bikes…on and on. Hell, even the start screen plays the Contra start screen theme. What in the hell Konami? This may be because Arc System Works developed it, and not that Konami wants to push this turd as far away from the Contra series as possible. This doesn’t even account for the numerous failed Contra reboots that Konami has produced over the past decade. But I’m “disseminating” Hard Corps: Uprising, not Konami’s woeful Contra success rate.
Hard Corps: Uprising is more or less a prequel to my favorite Contra game: Contra: Hard Corps for the Sega Genesis. If you loved Contra III: The Alien Wars, Hard Corps was a great evolution of all that and more. Adding four distinct playable characters, branching paths through the ‘story’, multiple endings, all wrapped up in the glorious Contra goodness, it would literally be the last great Contra game.
Hard Corps: Uprising comes in a couple of flavors. There’s Arcade Mode, your standard Contra fair, gives you a few lives and sends you on your merry way. This would work in theory if not coupled with the other flavor. Uprising Mode is more of a grinding, leveling sort of experience where you earn points to spend on developing the most badass character. With these points you can add more lives, increase your life bar, unlock new abilities, make your character faster, you get the idea. Initially, the game in Uprising Mode is damn near unplayable. Thankfully, there is a life bar that at least allows you to struggle through the levels with your abysmal pea shooter of a gun. You can get power ups from the flying weapon pods, but to keep them is a practice of pure videogame playing fortitude.
The game insists on kicking you in the face at every turn. There is a fine line between challenge and utter frustration. There’s also a difference between player ability and shoddy, half-baked controls getting in the way of game progress. It is only after hours and hours of “grinding” these enormous chimp designed levels that you can finally at least get even with game, and then you can have a pleasurable experience.
Eventually, if you allow it, the game opens up and finally becomes a “Contra” game. It almost seems like heresy when I type this, but it’s true. Maybe the game broke me on some fundamental level, but about half way through the slog, I started really enjoying Hard Corps: Uprising.
Now, don’t get me twisted, my damaged enjoyment of the game still does not let suffer that the game is poorly designed. I feel like some of the earlier levels were accidentally designed by Sonic Team as they had no business being in a “Contra” style run-n-gun situation. I mean really who thinks that a bloated cavern would fit well with this game play? When has cramped confines of level design ever worked for this type of game?
The voice acting is atrocious. I can’t even understand half of what the player characters are saying, and boss monsters roars could easily be mistaken for yawns. I get the feeling that me and most of the mid-level bosses in this game were simpatico in our game duties.
Not to be too passive aggressive this, but I’d also to call out those supporters of Castlevania: Harmony of Despair for allowing Konami to think that nickel-and-diming the games fans is acceptable. Really Konami, $2 for the other two playable characters? That’s ridiculous and unacceptable when you’re already charging $15 for the game proper.
Hard Corps: Uprising feels like this equation: The game difficulty was set at “x “and then they start you at “a”. It is only after leveling your character to something approaching the “x” that you even appreciate what the game is all about. I don’t think many, if any at all, will actually play the game to that point. It’s a shame really, there’s a lot of good things about Hard Corps: Uprising that are great refinements of old Contra tropes.
This isn’t a testament to it’s “old school” style though. I am indeed too old for some of the games shenanigans. The boss battles in particular play more like battles of attrition that actual tests of player skill. There’s a Wheel Shaped boss towards the end of the game that takes WAY too long to destroy, breaching the point of enjoyment, pass the task of feeling like work. There’s no skill involved, just literal, time eating dismantling. To say nothing of the three part final boss encounter which devolves in to a battle of attrition in the skies where the main thrust of the endgame is trying not to lose all your lives before the boss crushes all the platforms you need to inflict damage upon him, and the side boss of crappy controls not particularly designed for this kind of game play.
I can say that besides Contra: Hard Corps, I haven’t beaten many Contra games. Yes, they are difficult, but they aren’t devoid of enjoyment like Hard Corps: Uprising seems to be. While I can tip my hat to Konami for trying something different and at the very least taking a stab at the download marketplace, they can do better. This especially true coupled with the release of Rush N Attack, they could take a few cues from Capcom and other developers that seem to be getting this grab for nostalgia right. You can scratch that itch with breaking the skin and fucking the fans that will flock to these games regardless of quality.
Saturday, April 2, 2011
Women aren't Funny!?
John Wenzel of the Denver Post recently wrote an article about the age old question: Are Women Funny? Above the article is a large close up picture of Chelsea Handler. She is festooned in lip gloss, make up and has her arm posed across the top of her head, all sexy like. She’s looking off in the distance with that devil may care attitude. It underlines my entire argument with the article. For the record, I don’t think women are funny. I’ll get to that in a minute.
The main problem with the debate is that it’s mostly defined by taste. What is funny? There’s broad comedy, like your Jay Leno’s, that’s essentially mass produced, machine like. “Set up, set up, punch line, repeat”. There’s the alternative stuff, like Louis C.K., that delves more in the personal, world view, cerebral. There’s the insult, the character worker. They’re not all clearly defined genres, they can be mixed and matched as suit’s the performer, but there’s so much to be considered funny that whether or not something is funny is purely subjective.
The other issue is that female based comedy has come a long, long way since back in the day. Gone mostly are the hacky tampon/period routines. High fashion being the bane to a woman, high heels, bad relationships, child rearing, etc. The, for lack of a better term, skin deep, mostly plain observations that clogged the women’s comedy scene of yor.
There’s also handful of ladies that are merely aping their male counterparts. Sarah Silverman comes to mind. Much like her television show, has moments of pure genius, but ultimately devolves in to this “pee pee, poo poo” garbage that’s neither funny nor entertaining.
Hilarious versus Funny. I think women can be clever, that’s one of their many womanly wiles. She can also have a keen sense of humor and find it in any given situation. That does not make her funny. That’s something the article doesn’t even delve in to. Granted, Wenzel probably only has so much column space to fill up, but it’s something I think should’ve been touched upon. Lots of comics need to be buoyed by other funny people, and not all necessarily women. No one could honestly say they knew who the hell Chelsea Handler was until she became the host of Chelsea Lately, and since the bar at late night comedy hosting gigs is so low, it’s not really surprising she’s found success. She also is smart enough to have a panel of great comedians come on and pad out the show. Her stand up isn’t very good, it’s broad and panders to the general public, and in that makes her perfect for hosting duties. Lots of women are also successful writers on shows, and for other comics. This doesn’t mean that they are funny.
Tina Fey catapulted to success for her comedy writing. But as time has worn on, it’s become more apparent that’s she may have been a tad overrated. 30 Rock ceaselessly has to remind you that what it’s doing is funny. Pushing it to your face and saying “Laugh! You know you wanna! Look, there’s are little pause for your to laugh” it’s almost cynical in it’s broad sense of humor, almost like an algorithm is set up underneath every episode, plugging in supposed humor filled math things. I also blame her for the gross crimes against humanity recognized as her years as head writer of Saturday Night Live. She took all the momentum and genuine funny that reappeared on SNL in the 90’s and rode with it out of town to slowly smother in the bath tub that became 30 rock.
Comedy is a great magnifying lens on our society and culture. Ultimately, it’s not the female comics fault that she’s not as funny as her male counterparts. While I don’t think women in general are good comedians, this is a constantly evolving practice and I look forward to the ladies that are inspired by the Silverman’s and DeGeneres ’ who will have a unique voice of their own. There’s glimmer’s of hope now. Off the top of my head there’s Maria Bamford, Tig Natarro, Amy Schumer, working now who have unique takes on comedy and are genuinely funny.
The biggest stink that can be levied against most of the women comics is the lack of tenacity. Most of them are just failed actresses using stand up as a means to get work. Not that their male counterparts don’t. I’m not surprised at the amount of ladies who stop doing stand up once they get on a sitcom or start hosting a show. They never really had the chops to begin with, and ultimately they are the very ones that perpetuate the debate of whether women are good comedians or not. Taken as a whole no, women aren’t as funny as men, they could be, but no one is challenging that notion yet.
The main problem with the debate is that it’s mostly defined by taste. What is funny? There’s broad comedy, like your Jay Leno’s, that’s essentially mass produced, machine like. “Set up, set up, punch line, repeat”. There’s the alternative stuff, like Louis C.K., that delves more in the personal, world view, cerebral. There’s the insult, the character worker. They’re not all clearly defined genres, they can be mixed and matched as suit’s the performer, but there’s so much to be considered funny that whether or not something is funny is purely subjective.
The other issue is that female based comedy has come a long, long way since back in the day. Gone mostly are the hacky tampon/period routines. High fashion being the bane to a woman, high heels, bad relationships, child rearing, etc. The, for lack of a better term, skin deep, mostly plain observations that clogged the women’s comedy scene of yor.
There’s also handful of ladies that are merely aping their male counterparts. Sarah Silverman comes to mind. Much like her television show, has moments of pure genius, but ultimately devolves in to this “pee pee, poo poo” garbage that’s neither funny nor entertaining.
Hilarious versus Funny. I think women can be clever, that’s one of their many womanly wiles. She can also have a keen sense of humor and find it in any given situation. That does not make her funny. That’s something the article doesn’t even delve in to. Granted, Wenzel probably only has so much column space to fill up, but it’s something I think should’ve been touched upon. Lots of comics need to be buoyed by other funny people, and not all necessarily women. No one could honestly say they knew who the hell Chelsea Handler was until she became the host of Chelsea Lately, and since the bar at late night comedy hosting gigs is so low, it’s not really surprising she’s found success. She also is smart enough to have a panel of great comedians come on and pad out the show. Her stand up isn’t very good, it’s broad and panders to the general public, and in that makes her perfect for hosting duties. Lots of women are also successful writers on shows, and for other comics. This doesn’t mean that they are funny.
Tina Fey catapulted to success for her comedy writing. But as time has worn on, it’s become more apparent that’s she may have been a tad overrated. 30 Rock ceaselessly has to remind you that what it’s doing is funny. Pushing it to your face and saying “Laugh! You know you wanna! Look, there’s are little pause for your to laugh” it’s almost cynical in it’s broad sense of humor, almost like an algorithm is set up underneath every episode, plugging in supposed humor filled math things. I also blame her for the gross crimes against humanity recognized as her years as head writer of Saturday Night Live. She took all the momentum and genuine funny that reappeared on SNL in the 90’s and rode with it out of town to slowly smother in the bath tub that became 30 rock.
Comedy is a great magnifying lens on our society and culture. Ultimately, it’s not the female comics fault that she’s not as funny as her male counterparts. While I don’t think women in general are good comedians, this is a constantly evolving practice and I look forward to the ladies that are inspired by the Silverman’s and DeGeneres ’ who will have a unique voice of their own. There’s glimmer’s of hope now. Off the top of my head there’s Maria Bamford, Tig Natarro, Amy Schumer, working now who have unique takes on comedy and are genuinely funny.
The biggest stink that can be levied against most of the women comics is the lack of tenacity. Most of them are just failed actresses using stand up as a means to get work. Not that their male counterparts don’t. I’m not surprised at the amount of ladies who stop doing stand up once they get on a sitcom or start hosting a show. They never really had the chops to begin with, and ultimately they are the very ones that perpetuate the debate of whether women are good comedians or not. Taken as a whole no, women aren’t as funny as men, they could be, but no one is challenging that notion yet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)