Uncategorized

Dear Sony

Dear Sony,

FUCK YOU.

Is it really this fucking hard for you to keep your shit together? I just want to sign into my PSN account for trophies, but fuck me for doing that! Instead, you’re forcing me to change my password on a system that says my pets aren’t named literally what they are fucking named and won’t let me send anymore reset attempts after just one try.

I can see why people hack into your service, it’s to get into their accounts that you’ve put under lockdown for no good fucking reason.

THIS SHIT NEEDS TO STOP. TO ALL ASPIRING CORPORATIONS OUT THERE, STOP FORCING YOUR USERS TO RESET THEIR PASSWORDS ON YOUR BROKEN ASS PASSWORD RESET SYSTEM. FOR FUCKS SAKE.

Advertisements
Reviews

Review: Minecraft (Nintendo 3DS)

I have to be honest here: I’m not a fan of Minecraft. The most I ever remember playing it was back in its Alpha stage because there was something unique about it. It was like a show of fireworks for the deaf – intriguing, but not massive. Nowadays you can’t escape Minecraft. Name any console and it has a Minecraft port, and if it doesn’t then they’re currently working on it. I wouldn’t be surprised if they make a version of Minecraft that uses its controls to teach you how to play the piano. Hell, I have to give kudos to Microsoft for making me dread the name Minecraft itself.

With all of that, it’s no surprise to me that they said “screw it” and ported Minecraft to the 3DS – albeit, the New 3DS only. This is the third time (to my knowledge) that a portable version of Minecraft has been made. The first one was on Smartphones, next on the (sadly fading) PlayStation Vita, and now on Nintendo’s popular, and slowly dying 3D handheld. So, how does it hold up to the other portable versions and console ports?

The answer is a sad and heavy ‘mehhhhh’. Playing Minecraft on the 3DS is like playing Doom 2 with a set of electric drums. It’s a very interesting way of playing Minecraft, but that doesn’t mean I recommend it. Before I can tell you why, however, I do have some positive things to say. The controls aren’t very awkward, although the C-Stick clearly wasn’t made to be used with First Person games. It also somewhat utilizes the touchscreen, but I’ll get into that later. Finally, it’s good to have for LAN play (multiplayer but with your friends/people around you and not 100 random strangers) because it’s on the 3DS. The negatives, however, outweigh all the goodwill of this port.

Minecraft on the 3DS faults in some glaring and alarming areas. First of all, it has an inconsistent framerate. Everything will be fine, but once you start digging it has a VERY noticeable dip. This is especially bad as mining is as essential to Minecraft as water is to humans. It’s also kind of ugly-looking. I know saying that about Minecraft is kind of redundant (it’s not a very pretty game), but the hardware limitations imposed by the 3DS somehow make it look like one of the first versions of the game – which, mind you, was online for free for quite a few years. Speaking of technical limitations, this game hits quite a few of them. To name the most apparent one, the pop-in on this port is the most intense I’ve seen for Minecraft since trying to run it on my mother’s 2007 notebook years ago. For those who don’t have any idea about what pop-in is, it basically means that objects and scenery pop into view seemingly out of nowhere. Yes, Minecraft has always had this as a “feature”, but, again, it’s especially bad on the 3DS.

This basically sums up my thoughts on the 3DS version of Minecraft. It ran like I expected it to, like a 35-year-old car with a dying engine and a set of newer, although not as popular as they used to be, wheels. Everything wrong with this port has to do with the fact that it’s Minecraft running on the freakin’ 3DS. I would act shocked that the much-loathed Vita port is 10 times better, but that would be stretching it too far. It’s ONLY worth a buy if you have friends or family members that will play with you on long car trips. Otherwise, it’s an expectedly unwieldy port that can be played much better elsewhere.

4/10


Things done right: 

  • The Full Minecraft experience on the go!
  • Local Area Network (LAN) is much more accessible on the 3DS and should work well with Minecraft
  • Some clever utilization of the touchscreen

Things done wrong:

  • Even on the New 3DS, technical limitations are very apparent and can make the game not as fun to play
    • This includes pretty insane amounts of pop-in
  • Low framerate, especially when mining
  • One of the ugliest versions of Minecraft

Meh:

  • New 3DS exclusive

 

In general: Buy it only to play with friends. Otherwise, stick with any other version available.

Uncategorized

I can’t make up my mind, sorry

I’m going to come out and be honest: I deleted my previous 2 posts because I cannot make up my mind. As someone who does reviews as a hobby, they did not live up to the standards I set as a hobbyist and refuse to keep either post on my site. Whether you liked them or thought they were meh, I personally hated them with a passion. I might re-visit the subject when I’ve played enough Breath of the Wild and Nier: Automata to make a clear, concise conclusion. For now, I have no plans to discuss either game any further than I have tried to.

Miscellaneous · Movies

Wiener-Dog’s Amazon Page: A case study on how NOT to be a critic

 

Todd Solondz, you might have heard of him. He directed a movie a couple of decades ago called ‘Happiness’, which garnered an NC-17 rating due to its subject matter until it was given a home video release (all of this knowledge is easily accessible through not-so-hard-to-do research). He also directed a few other movies that might not be as messed up as Happiness. I’m not here to rag on him or the people who have more than one good reason for disliking any one or more of his films. What I am here to do, however, is rag on people that only have ONLY one good reason for not liking a specific film of his. Can you guess what that reason is?

DOGS ARE INNOCENT, ANY DARK HUMOR INVOLVING THEM IS AWFUL!!!!

Of course, this isn’t the only thing people have a problem with when it comes to this movie… but those who have been vocal about this one point and almost nothing more are so vocal that any other point is buried under the pile of people who hate this film for this reason alone. I get it, dark humor involving animals (and not humans) clearly isn’t for everyone, but it takes some real convincing to tell yourself that a movie has no redeemable qualities because you can’t handle its twisted sense of humor. What about the cinematography? What about the writing that DOESN’T involve the things you dislike so much? Performances? Music? Lighting? Anything else I’m missing here? Fuck it, dogs are awesome and any actual redeeming factors can go fuck themselves!

*sighs*

It makes sense to me that the Amazon page for this is flooded with one-star reviews, considering Amazon has never been the place for intelligent, quality reviews (the fact that Norm of the North and Nine Lives, two inexcusably bad kids films, have 4 stars – individually – on average – should tip you off to this immediately). The only really really good reviews on there are funny reviews that always get featured on the obligatory Best-of/Worst-of Amazon review(s) videos. To those who have more than one good reason for hating this film, congratulations! You have more dignity than most of the people who wrote 1-star reviews for this film on Amazon. Nevermind that the film has an R-Rating that CLEARLY serves as a warning of the type of content that’s going to be found in this film.

And all of this ties into the point I’m trying to make with this article: REAL criticism is not giving something a score and then vaguely describing why it deserves that score. Even if you have only one reason to hate something, your opinion comes off as agreeable if you take more than just a few short minutes to write a review and then claim your opinion is something that people will look at and say you did a good job of conveying. In short time, the IMDb page for Wiener-Dog gained people who could actually criticize the film without waggling their finger and stating a (sometimes hypocritical, like in this case where dark humor with humans is a-okay, but the same exact gags with animals instead is wrong and cruel) belief that’s meant to be taken as serious criticism. Thankfully, despite its flaws, IMDb doesn’t list this film as one of the worst there are – despite its 5/10 average. Too bad Amazon does, though.

 

Maybe I take this too seriously… scratch that, I wrote an article about internet comments that’s over 600 words long – I DO take this way too seriously. Regardless, I think Weiner-Dog’s Amazon Page (alone) is a great case study on how to not be a critic, even if the people who leave negative reviews on it for only one reason aren’t trying to be a serious critic.

And now I sound silly for writing an article about fucking internet comments…

fucking

INTERNET COMMENTS. Clearly, I’m going to need to be reevaluated after writing this.

For those wondering about the supposed 'hiatus':
I've changed my status to 'I write when I want to write'. The main reason
for the hiatus in the first place is that I'm doing a job for the summer
that makes it so I don't have all the time in the world to write...

but I still have time regardless and I was niave to think
otherwise.
Crynicisms · Miscellaneous

Cyrnicisms: Common Sense Media

Out of fear of retribution/revenge by
people who think that they're innocent 100%
of the time, this article has been slightly modifyed.
I'm sorry.
-Logan

_______________________

Crynicisms is a series in which I write short-lengthy and very cynical criticisms (cynical + criticism = Cyrnicims) about various things, from websites to books, to times of the day if I really wanted to. These are all written in one go (and sometimes edited), as per my style.

Let me get something out of the way here: I don’t HATE the idea of this website and I don’t want to disgrace the names behind it, but dear god is it just mediocre as all hell.

Part One: Reviews

What is the point in trying to do a review website if you suck at reviewing things? A good review is one that doesn’t make you skip to the bottom to find out the score or the pros/cons, but with CSM, the reviews are so short that they barely even hold your attention, to begin with. Length isn’t the issue here, however: the actual reviews are.

When reviewing something on a complex scale such as a 1-5 rating, you want to give your readers proper justification for your rating. A good writer doesn’t say that a movie is totally awesome only to shit on it like it wasn’t, just as they wouldn’t give a movie a 5/10 and then almost never bring up the positives or negatives. Unfortunately, those who write for this website often find themselves struggling to adhere to this. There are some gems somewhere, I wouldn’t really know it, but I can bet on it. Those gems, however, become increasingly hard to find when you have people who give movies like Drive 4/5 without ever really saying anything negative about the film. I get that criticizing something can be hard when you can’t poof words into existence that describe your feeling… in which case, find something else that you can criticize (love/hate).

As it stands, I don’t really trust CSM with reviews – but then again, I rarely ever trust one critic to hold my interest on a topic. I get that this sounds silly from someone who’s a critic, but trust me: always read more than one review, or even talk to others who have seen/read/played/etc. what you’re interested in. Not one person is ever right, and you might find yourself hating a widely loved thing or even disliking it slightly if you’re not a robot.

Part Two: Content Ratings

If you’ve ever heard of Common Sense Media, it’s for this reason alone. I’m not here to say that they’re bad in this regard. Though these do often times have very rough edges that I’ll get into briefly here, they mostly nail down the type of content contained within the product that they’re overviewing. Now that I’m done kissing CSM’s ass, here’s my criticism of their content ratings.

In my opinion, Content Ratings should not be recommending the age group for a certain item. I get that it’s a fast solution to any overly concerned parent out there, but whether or not your son or daughter should be able to play/watch something should always come down to their maturity as a person, not as a digit. While this does come in handy with books (which often times, if at all, don’t contain content warnings), movies and video games come with content descriptions for a reason. If those are too vague for you, then this site can help you, but, as I’m about to tell you, they have some issues.

Without a doubt, my biggest issue with ALL Content Ratings is that they can be inaccurate or can even sugarcoat key details. If you don’t want your child to watch anything with Nudity, then it would suck to be suckered into something that clearly has explicit Nudity in it. If you think that my complaint of sugarcoating is unrealistic, it’s not. It is has happened before, and enough times for me to count it as an actual issue. These issues often times hit the biggest with User-Based Content Ratings (like IMDB’s Parent Guides), but bigger sites like CSM aren’t innocent, either.

A big example of this is in CSM’s Rating of the 2016 movie ‘The Hunt For the Wilderpeople’. In the movie, there’s a scene in which a kid describes things that sound VERY dirty, and one of the main characters is called a molester/pervert on multiple occasions both in this scene and in others. Though the rating does mention the part about the word ‘molester’ in its sex category, they SUPER Sugarcoat everything said before it making it seem like it’s not a big deal, and have rated it very low. There was also a mention of weed in the film, and, although brief, was not in the rating. The fact that they could miss such a key detail like this is astounding and actually upset many of the parents who thought the movie was perfectly safe for their younglings. If you don’t believe me, check out the page for yourself… or, I have a link to an archived version in case they ever fix these mistakes: https://web.archive.org/web/20170510070458/https://www.commonsensemedia.org/movie-reviews/hunt-for-the-wilderpeople

Another issue I have with these content rating as is that they often times spoil things without warning you at all. Although other variations of this concept may be a lot rougher around the edges (again, I have to bring up IMDB here), they actually make an effort to warn you about potential spoilers. CSM does not give a single damn in this regard. Should I also not forget to mention that almost every Video Game with Blood (even if slight) is described as if it’s a Hard R film? Again, as a parent, you should let yourself decide and not some website that you have little-to-no relation with.

Part Three: The Community

Yeah, this site has one. I’m not here to say that a bad community is unique, every online community is technically bad because of a few rotten or non-ripe apples that sit on it, but when your community is meant to fill in some blanks you’re afraid might exist, maybe you’re not exactly thinking of things rationally or ethically. It shouldn’t take long for anyone to figure out that with the power of anonymity comes danger. When no one’s watching, people will lie, will turn shady, and will do things that will make you question humanity for better or for worse.

When you give your community the power to do some work for you, should you not be surprised when the ‘Sex & Nudity’ section on the IMDB Parents Guide for Purple Rain only contains the three words ‘sex and titties’? The answer is a simple and aggressive ‘YES’. This applies to Common Sense Media just as much as it does IMDB, more-so in many regards. If you don’t believe me, then look at all the community reviews on CSM for any GTA game… especially V. The CSM rating clearly displays just how mature Grand Theft Auto V is, barely even missing a beat… then you have kids who write that it’s fine for 11-year-olds to play it. This wouldn’t be an issue if those types of reviews didn’t get the most praise, but you must remember that the internet is a place where Norm of the North can get 10/10s’ on various review sites because it mildly entertained the reviewer’s kid(s) – actual criticisms be damned.

If GTA V wasn’t a good enough example for you, I’m going to revisit Nicolas Winding Refn’s Drive. In my opinion, if you can handle quick and brutal violence with a small (key detail here being small) amount of nudity with meaningful visuals and dialog, Drive is your film. I mentioned Nudity there for a reason, too. There’s a scene in the film where the main character interrogates someone at a strip club. Not noticing that Strip Clubs are highly sexual and can contain nudity, one parent gave the film a bad score because of a scene with nudity in it. This review doesn’t just seem like it was written by a person who didn’t see the film and used their position to stand on their own soapbox, it reeks of that quality so much, that I see that as the only way this review can be real.

Conclusion

Common Sense Media isn’t a terrible site, but it’s also not good. Their content ratings are very helpful when they’re well done, despite the inevitable issues that ALL content rating sites have. That is the only real reason you should go to their website, and, again, it will always have issues of its own. I wouldn’t be surprised if their educational packets contained small and unintentional logical fallacies like False Dilemmas. Reading into their almost non-existent justifications for many review scores was a dilemma within itself for me…