@WhythefuckareyounotfollowingJax
Twitter feeds y'all should be following: this one, because it's mine and relevant to everything.
In particular, I'm apparently on the ~cutting edge~ of fandom shiz lately thanks to procrastinating like mad on Facebook being awesome, so while I'm still hyped up on espresso/procrastinating like mad, allow me to present to you two choice bits of info, courtesy of Le Feed.
So some of you might have caught wind of PETA's idea of a good time, Pokémon Black and Blue. For those of you who haven't, let me summarize it thusly:
Pikachu: "Forcing Pokémon to serve humans is wrong! Let me preach to you how it's wrong and then proceed to encourage others to fight against you in a Pokémon revolution!"
Humans: "But Pikachu, we're humans! We've always done things this way!"
Pikachu: "Pokémon exist for their own purposes! EAT THUNDERSHOCK, SHITFACE."
And so, you proceed through the game, gathering teammates and viciously attacking all those who oppose you. In other words, you indoctrinate Pokémon.
So, okay, let's go over why this is a stupid idea. First off, there's the controversy concerning canon. Everyone and their mothers noticed that. While it's apparent that they tried to stick to canon by referencing the games (One noticeable example had Ghetsis lean against the fourth wall by referring to the twist climax of Pokémon Black and White), it's also extremely obvious that the game missed the entire point of the franchise. I don't think it needs to be said that the one message we have beaten into our heads throughout all forms of Pokémon media is the coexistence - as in, as equals - between Pokémon and humans. Pokémon choose to stay by humans' sides, not because their free will is broken but instead because they see their human trainers as friends and partners. They could leave if they wanted to - and have in some cases (especially those backed up by the fact that they wield supernatural beat-the-shot-out-of-you abilities) - but just don't in most cases.
Meanwhile, humans are treated as equals or subservient to Pokémon. Think about it: the legends of the Pokémon world are not human. Humans worship Pokémon. They base their entire society on Pokémon. If you're a trainer, you are reliant on your Pokémon for success. Yes, you give your Pokémon commands and train them, but everything you do is for your Pokémon. Every battle you fight is to make your Pokémon stronger. You are basically devoted to your team of monsters 24/7, and that dedication and promise of becoming stronger is why Pokémon don't just char-broil your ass and saunter back to their native habitats. But more importantly, you are a friend to your Pokémon, and you acknowledge that every step of the way. It's not your win; it's your Pokémon's.
But we get that. We're fans, so yeah, we know exactly what Pokémon is talking about. We know that overstated message of "let's all be friends with each other" and whatnot. Why else is this a moronic move on PETA's part?
Let's start off with a very simple question: who is this targeted at? No, seriously. Who the fuck is PETA targeting? Think about it. The game pisses off Pokémon fans because it basically sends the message that anyone who likes Pokémon is supporting an act of animal cruelty. It contains images such as a Tepig with its ears cut off, a Snivy with a syringe embedded in its head, and Ash Ketchum wielding a blade he actually uses on Pokémon, so it sure as hell isn't aimed at Pokémon's original target audience (i.e., children). If you're aiming for the younger Pokémon fans who aren't disturbed by violent imagery, then they'd be more pissed off than the older fans. It can't be aimed at older audiences because the gamers are just as pissed off as the Pokémon fans, whereas the cartoonish imagery and references fail to present a serious argument that everyone else in the "older potential supporters" bracket might want. Is it aimed at the people who are fed up with Pokémon? Why? It's unlikely that anyone who hates gaming or a gaming franchise would want to play, y'know, a game. So, who is this targeting?
That's really the main issue I have with all of PETA's parody games. They fail at targeting anyone in particular, so as a result, they become punchlines. Fans of the games either love to make fun of the parodies or feel incensed that they're basically being attacked. People who don't care about the original games won't care about the parodies. You can't target children this way because either the children don't care or would be disturbed by what you're presenting them. So in the end, it becomes a mess. It's a mess that beats people over the head with a lead pipe made of whatever PETA feels like preaching that day (the evils of domestication, why you're a murderer if you're not vegan, the effects of raccoon-induced rabies on fictional plumbers, etc., etc.), but in the process of attempting to appeal to everyone by being cutesy and pop culturally aware, PETA turns into that annoying kid who won't stop spamming memes at you because he thinks he's funny. No, PETA. We don't care about Homestuck. Screw off.
Actually, wait. No, we do care about Homestuck. Please make a Homestuck parody. That would be fucking hilarious.
Beyond that, there's the other good point this article mentions:
Last November, PETA attacked video game icon Mario for wearing “fur” -the Tanooki Suit, a frequent power-up in Mario games that grants the ability to fly.
PETA did not disclose in its statement how many actual, living, breathing animals died waiting for rescue while the organization spent its time and money campaigning against fiction.
And for added fun, PETA, if we're going to talk about your campaign against fictional characters in lieu of making a valuable, non-horrendous impact on the real world, can we ask you again how many animals you euthanized in your shelters? Because given that your subject of the day is animal domesticity, it'd just be good to know. Actually, wait, let me do it for you: at least 50% of all the animals you take in. Great job, guys.
On the flipside, have a company that's actually doing the unthinkable: targeting the right audiences and actually making a statement while doing so.
Recently, a niche group of internet users across the globe were polled on, of all things, their opinions on American politics. While, given that it's the internet, I can't really say for certain whether or not opinions on both sides of the issue were well-founded, tens of thousands of voters responded, and with a whopping 11,867 votes (over 60% of the total number of votes cast), it was agreed by this niche group across the globe that Obama made the strongest arguments in the last presidential election.
So why is this a big deal for the internet? That poll was created by Nexon, a gaming company, for the users of its most popular game, MapleStory. Forbes.com provided an interview this week with Nexon America CEO Min Kim concerning the ties between MapleStory and the real world.
While MapleStory is rather fond of its in-game themes (usually centered on holidays), it's recently created more and more quest chains and events centered around real-world issues. One of its latest events, according to the article, has players collect water droplets that translate into actual, real-world dollar donations made by Nexon to clean-water projects in Rwanda. Then, if that doesn't make you feel fuzzy on the inside, there's this poll, which raises awareness of the upcoming presidential elections. Considering the success of both events, it's very likely we'll see even more ties between MapleStory and real-world issues.
And Nexon brings up a very interesting point. Games, especially MMORPGs, are actually an excellent vehicle to transmit ideas if you know how to do it. If you're a gaming company with a strong fan-following (as most MMOs do), you know exactly who your target audience is. You've developed a world for them, and you can see them interact with both it and other players over a length of time. You can see how they respond to your ideas, and you can get a sense of who your players are by what ideas they share while in the gaming world. These are people who are very capable of forming their own opinions (when they aren't KSing each other and trolololololing back to Henesys, anyway). Yet, they're also people who might not be following every issue across the globe.
So that's where Nexon's idea comes in. By marrying real world issues with quest chains and in-game events, gamers become at least vaguely conscious of issues like clean water projects in Rwanda or the American presidential elections. They might not form extremely detailed and in-depth opinions, but by providing a positive means of learning about the issue at hand (via rewarding quest chains, not preachy video game parodies with lengthy videos as a "reward"), you ensure that at least part of your message gets across and is taken somewhat seriously.
Think of it this way: if you're presented with a quest like collecting enough water droplets to turn in for a nice in-game item, you're going to want to do it, right? And if, in the course of the quest, you either do something good for the world or learn a little bit about why you're collecting water droplets, then the game - the organization as a whole - is doing a lot more for you than simply preaching the issue at you. It's like those games you might have played as a kid to learn how to read or to learn your multiplication tables. Sure, you might not have cared if a teacher just told you what was what, but if you got free ice cream for learning your tables, hell yeah you're going to do it. Unless you're a kid who doesn't like ice cream, but the chances of you being one of those kids was probably slim.
In other words, Nexon, you're doing it right. One way or another, anyway. Either gamers are inadvertently doing awesome things, or they're learning about issues without even meaning to because you chose an awesome way to present them.
Of course, sure, Nexon's not the first gaming company to do that, and MapleStory's most likely not the first game to tie real-world issues to a gaming environment. But they at least get points for not being preachy about it.
For this and other shiny things, feel free to keep up with Le Twitter. I promise I'll get back to a lot of you (and go back to the revision spree) when I'm not trying to kill myself with schoolwork and day job, but unfortunately, I haven't the faintest when that will be. Sorry!
But in the meantime, other things that are cool and that you should be paying attention to: Pokémon meets DnD, courtesy of The BBS. That is all.
This entry was cross-posted from http://mercoledi.dreamwidth.org/106767.html.
In particular, I'm apparently on the ~cutting edge~ of fandom shiz lately thanks to procrastinating like mad on Facebook being awesome, so while I'm still hyped up on espresso/procrastinating like mad, allow me to present to you two choice bits of info, courtesy of Le Feed.
So some of you might have caught wind of PETA's idea of a good time, Pokémon Black and Blue. For those of you who haven't, let me summarize it thusly:
Pikachu: "Forcing Pokémon to serve humans is wrong! Let me preach to you how it's wrong and then proceed to encourage others to fight against you in a Pokémon revolution!"
Humans: "But Pikachu, we're humans! We've always done things this way!"
Pikachu: "Pokémon exist for their own purposes! EAT THUNDERSHOCK, SHITFACE."
And so, you proceed through the game, gathering teammates and viciously attacking all those who oppose you. In other words, you indoctrinate Pokémon.
So, okay, let's go over why this is a stupid idea. First off, there's the controversy concerning canon. Everyone and their mothers noticed that. While it's apparent that they tried to stick to canon by referencing the games (One noticeable example had Ghetsis lean against the fourth wall by referring to the twist climax of Pokémon Black and White), it's also extremely obvious that the game missed the entire point of the franchise. I don't think it needs to be said that the one message we have beaten into our heads throughout all forms of Pokémon media is the coexistence - as in, as equals - between Pokémon and humans. Pokémon choose to stay by humans' sides, not because their free will is broken but instead because they see their human trainers as friends and partners. They could leave if they wanted to - and have in some cases (especially those backed up by the fact that they wield supernatural beat-the-shot-out-of-you abilities) - but just don't in most cases.
Meanwhile, humans are treated as equals or subservient to Pokémon. Think about it: the legends of the Pokémon world are not human. Humans worship Pokémon. They base their entire society on Pokémon. If you're a trainer, you are reliant on your Pokémon for success. Yes, you give your Pokémon commands and train them, but everything you do is for your Pokémon. Every battle you fight is to make your Pokémon stronger. You are basically devoted to your team of monsters 24/7, and that dedication and promise of becoming stronger is why Pokémon don't just char-broil your ass and saunter back to their native habitats. But more importantly, you are a friend to your Pokémon, and you acknowledge that every step of the way. It's not your win; it's your Pokémon's.
But we get that. We're fans, so yeah, we know exactly what Pokémon is talking about. We know that overstated message of "let's all be friends with each other" and whatnot. Why else is this a moronic move on PETA's part?
Let's start off with a very simple question: who is this targeted at? No, seriously. Who the fuck is PETA targeting? Think about it. The game pisses off Pokémon fans because it basically sends the message that anyone who likes Pokémon is supporting an act of animal cruelty. It contains images such as a Tepig with its ears cut off, a Snivy with a syringe embedded in its head, and Ash Ketchum wielding a blade he actually uses on Pokémon, so it sure as hell isn't aimed at Pokémon's original target audience (i.e., children). If you're aiming for the younger Pokémon fans who aren't disturbed by violent imagery, then they'd be more pissed off than the older fans. It can't be aimed at older audiences because the gamers are just as pissed off as the Pokémon fans, whereas the cartoonish imagery and references fail to present a serious argument that everyone else in the "older potential supporters" bracket might want. Is it aimed at the people who are fed up with Pokémon? Why? It's unlikely that anyone who hates gaming or a gaming franchise would want to play, y'know, a game. So, who is this targeting?
That's really the main issue I have with all of PETA's parody games. They fail at targeting anyone in particular, so as a result, they become punchlines. Fans of the games either love to make fun of the parodies or feel incensed that they're basically being attacked. People who don't care about the original games won't care about the parodies. You can't target children this way because either the children don't care or would be disturbed by what you're presenting them. So in the end, it becomes a mess. It's a mess that beats people over the head with a lead pipe made of whatever PETA feels like preaching that day (the evils of domestication, why you're a murderer if you're not vegan, the effects of raccoon-induced rabies on fictional plumbers, etc., etc.), but in the process of attempting to appeal to everyone by being cutesy and pop culturally aware, PETA turns into that annoying kid who won't stop spamming memes at you because he thinks he's funny. No, PETA. We don't care about Homestuck. Screw off.
Actually, wait. No, we do care about Homestuck. Please make a Homestuck parody. That would be fucking hilarious.
Beyond that, there's the other good point this article mentions:
Last November, PETA attacked video game icon Mario for wearing “fur” -the Tanooki Suit, a frequent power-up in Mario games that grants the ability to fly.
PETA did not disclose in its statement how many actual, living, breathing animals died waiting for rescue while the organization spent its time and money campaigning against fiction.
And for added fun, PETA, if we're going to talk about your campaign against fictional characters in lieu of making a valuable, non-horrendous impact on the real world, can we ask you again how many animals you euthanized in your shelters? Because given that your subject of the day is animal domesticity, it'd just be good to know. Actually, wait, let me do it for you: at least 50% of all the animals you take in. Great job, guys.
On the flipside, have a company that's actually doing the unthinkable: targeting the right audiences and actually making a statement while doing so.
Recently, a niche group of internet users across the globe were polled on, of all things, their opinions on American politics. While, given that it's the internet, I can't really say for certain whether or not opinions on both sides of the issue were well-founded, tens of thousands of voters responded, and with a whopping 11,867 votes (over 60% of the total number of votes cast), it was agreed by this niche group across the globe that Obama made the strongest arguments in the last presidential election.
So why is this a big deal for the internet? That poll was created by Nexon, a gaming company, for the users of its most popular game, MapleStory. Forbes.com provided an interview this week with Nexon America CEO Min Kim concerning the ties between MapleStory and the real world.
While MapleStory is rather fond of its in-game themes (usually centered on holidays), it's recently created more and more quest chains and events centered around real-world issues. One of its latest events, according to the article, has players collect water droplets that translate into actual, real-world dollar donations made by Nexon to clean-water projects in Rwanda. Then, if that doesn't make you feel fuzzy on the inside, there's this poll, which raises awareness of the upcoming presidential elections. Considering the success of both events, it's very likely we'll see even more ties between MapleStory and real-world issues.
And Nexon brings up a very interesting point. Games, especially MMORPGs, are actually an excellent vehicle to transmit ideas if you know how to do it. If you're a gaming company with a strong fan-following (as most MMOs do), you know exactly who your target audience is. You've developed a world for them, and you can see them interact with both it and other players over a length of time. You can see how they respond to your ideas, and you can get a sense of who your players are by what ideas they share while in the gaming world. These are people who are very capable of forming their own opinions (when they aren't KSing each other and trolololololing back to Henesys, anyway). Yet, they're also people who might not be following every issue across the globe.
So that's where Nexon's idea comes in. By marrying real world issues with quest chains and in-game events, gamers become at least vaguely conscious of issues like clean water projects in Rwanda or the American presidential elections. They might not form extremely detailed and in-depth opinions, but by providing a positive means of learning about the issue at hand (via rewarding quest chains, not preachy video game parodies with lengthy videos as a "reward"), you ensure that at least part of your message gets across and is taken somewhat seriously.
Think of it this way: if you're presented with a quest like collecting enough water droplets to turn in for a nice in-game item, you're going to want to do it, right? And if, in the course of the quest, you either do something good for the world or learn a little bit about why you're collecting water droplets, then the game - the organization as a whole - is doing a lot more for you than simply preaching the issue at you. It's like those games you might have played as a kid to learn how to read or to learn your multiplication tables. Sure, you might not have cared if a teacher just told you what was what, but if you got free ice cream for learning your tables, hell yeah you're going to do it. Unless you're a kid who doesn't like ice cream, but the chances of you being one of those kids was probably slim.
In other words, Nexon, you're doing it right. One way or another, anyway. Either gamers are inadvertently doing awesome things, or they're learning about issues without even meaning to because you chose an awesome way to present them.
Of course, sure, Nexon's not the first gaming company to do that, and MapleStory's most likely not the first game to tie real-world issues to a gaming environment. But they at least get points for not being preachy about it.
For this and other shiny things, feel free to keep up with Le Twitter. I promise I'll get back to a lot of you (and go back to the revision spree) when I'm not trying to kill myself with schoolwork and day job, but unfortunately, I haven't the faintest when that will be. Sorry!
But in the meantime, other things that are cool and that you should be paying attention to: Pokémon meets DnD, courtesy of The BBS. That is all.
This entry was cross-posted from http://mercoledi.dreamwidth.org/106767.html.