Wednesday, 31 July 2013

Phil Fish Is An Arsehole & Bioshock Infinite DLC Announced!

Fez II has been cancelled. Yep. Go home everyone. Nothing to see here. It's dead. Dead as a motherfucking dodo.


Alright, alright! Calm it! Don't look at me! Look at Phil Fish. Yeah, that guy whose last name is that of a water based animal. 

Luckily, though, you don't need to ask massive arsehole Phil Fish why one of the most anticipated arcade slash indie game sequels isn't being developed anymore as he's already made his reasons perfectly clear.

Apparently Mr. Fish is sick of the abuse he gets and wants to get 'out of games'.
The exact tweets regarding the cancellation of the game went like this:

Fish: "im done. FEZ II is cancelled. goodbye."

Then Polytron, the development company behind FEZ and fronted by Fish,  came out with this:
"It's with a heavy heart that we announce that FEZ II has been cancelled and is no longer in development. We apologize for the disappointment"

Then Fish later tweeted:
"To be clear, im not cancelling FEZ II because some boorish f**k said something stupid, im doing it to get out of games."

He then continued:
"and im getting out of games because i choose not to put up with this abuse anymore."

So first of all I'd like to say: grow some balls man, for God's sake. Not doing something because of abuse and because some people are hating on you is the weakest excuse for not doing anything ever. I've had haters myself. On twitter and on here. On IGN and on Gamesbeat. Wherever I've been someone or some people have hated on me. But do I care? No. I don't give a flying fuck. No one does. We're past the stage where haters surprise or shock us. Haters nowadays are normal and we get on with our lives while ignoring them.

The second thing I want to say is that Fish is an arsehole. He complains about the abuse he gets but he told someone to kill themselves before on twitter and constantly gets in arguments on there so, really, why the fuck is he complaining? He seems like a stubborn, obnoxious, 'don't take my toys but I'll take yours' kinda guy if you ask me. He needs to grow up. Seriously.

Anyway, enough of that crap. Let's talk about a rather awesome thing called BIOSHOCK INFINITE DLC BABY!!!!

Yep, Infinite's DLC has been revealed! In fact, the first chunk of DLC is already available, called 'Clash In The Clouds'. However this DLC isn't story based and is a simple 'arena' challenge mode. No biggie there.

However the other two upcoming pieces of downloadable content are called 'Burial At Sea' and are set in Rapture. Yes, we're returning to Rapture.

In the first Burial At Sea 'episode', as it were, you play as Booker who, it appears from the trailer, wants to get out of Rapture and is using Elizabeth to help him with this. Both characters are different from how they were in Infinite so don't expect them to act the same or anything.

The second 'episode' allows you to play as Elizabeth, however details of how this will work and play out are minimal. All Irrational said regarding her episode is it will play out 'almost like a survival horror'. Interesting.

Ken Levine did an interview with IGN where he revealed more details about the game, so check that out for more info on the DLC.

Anyway, I'm totally psyched for the Burial At Sea content and can't wait to see how the story of that links up with the story in Infinite itself. What do you think of the DLC? Are you going to buy it? And what do you think about FEZ II being cancelled? Leave yo comments below! PEACE!

Monday, 29 July 2013

How To Prevent Android From Deleting Your Downloaded Movies, Videos & Pictures

So I have a problem. Android keeps deleting the videos and pictures I download from the inter-web. But it's not me and it's certainly not my tablet. It's the OS itself. If you're having issues with your Android phone or tablet deleting your downloaded files, this will likely solve them. So keep reading!

When does it happen & why does it happen?

The first question is: when does your content get deleted and what kind of content does get deleted. The second question is: why does Android delete your content anyway?

You don't have to worry about apps or games or anything downloaded from the PlayStore or the internet but installed onto your device as an app or APK or a movie or video that has been added to the proper Google Movies Library app getting deleted. This is why music you download from the internet onto your phone or tablet will never go missing, because once it's downloaded it is stored in the official Google Music app. Pictures don't currently have a proper home though, so they are always at risk of getting removed unless you use something like Picsart for custom art in which case those pictures are safe.

To wrap up: videos and movies and pictures are at risk of being deleted at random UNLESS they are added to an official app like Google Movies.

So why does it happen?

Well my educated guess is it's because Android is NOT a computer OS, and if you treat it like one you'll see the difference. Google may be all 'open' and 'free' with Android but they still want you to download stuff through their own PlayStore, otherwise they lose money on music and movies. The Android OS is built around the PlayStore, not the internet. If you download movies from the web instead of the PlayStore, then those movies are likely added to your gallery or a third party movie app you downloaded. But because the original path the download took was from the web to your device, that path is crooked and full of potholes, so ultimately your content is at risk of getting corrupted or ruined or, in this case, deleted.

Just tell me how to keep my stuff safe already!!!

OK, OK. Jesus.

So, how do you ensure the movies and pics you get from the internet are not deleted? Well, there's not a 100% full-proof way. But there are some workarounds. Well, 2 to be exact.


Making copies of your content is an obvious way to avoid losing your stuff. To do this you'll need to download a file explorer as the most recent installments of Android no longer allow you to explore files and the system to the same depths as before unless you have a root.
I recommend ES File Explorer. It doesn't need a root and has the best UI of any file organiser I've used. It's far better than AndroZip too.

So here's what you do:

1: Go into ES File Explorer or whatever other file exploring app you have.

2: Go onto 'Downloads'.

3: Find the files you want to ensure don't get deleted.

4: Select the files and copy them.

5: Create a 'New Folder'.

6: Go into the folder and paste the copied files.

7: Should be done!

So, what did that achieve? Well now you have copies of the files you want to keep, the chances of both the original file and the new copy one being deleted is unlikely. In fact, the chances of your copy file being deleted at all is slim. I've made copies of multiple videos and the copies have not ever been removed. The only issue with this system though is it takes up more memory as you've got multiple versions of one file. So if you download a 1GB film and make a copy, that's 2Gig taken up right there. If you're confident that the copy file won't get removed though, you can delete the original file yourself if you want. This will save memory.

There is another option though.


This isn't as full-proof as the above method but it can work.

To save pictures and videos from getting removed you can try downloading third-party movie/video and pictures galleries from the PlayStore. This can work, but given the fact that the path the content took when it was downloaded is still the same, content may still go missing.

So there you have it. Hopefully Google will sort this out but until then prepare to have your downloaded videos and pictures always at risk of getting deleted. If you have any other workarounds for this issue please comment them! PEACE!

Who Am I?

Who are you?

Who am I?

I don't know.

I'm a very complicated person. I have issues, like everyone. I have pros and cons. I am me. But I've always been this hard to deal with, stubborn as hell person who can't understand themselves for shit. I'm complicated. That's the most I know about me.

I can know myself, yes, and you can know me, but in the end, the question 'Who am I?' is never answered.

People frequently think of me as this shy person who doesn't know what to say or how to act but that is a massive misconception. Frankly, I do not care what I say or how I act because I don't care if someone will point at me and laugh because, in the end, if I make a bad joke and you act like it's an awkward thing, that's your problem. I'm just me. I'm cool. You've got the issue. I'm still a happy bunny.

The reason this misconception happens in the first place though is because I have fairly high anxiety. This makes me consistently worry about anything and everything. My blog. My life. Me. The way I speak. The words I say. The things I do. Money. What I buy. What I eat. What I drink. The people in my life. The safety of myself and others. The world. Anything you see me do and any choice I make or am faced with you can bet I'm worrying about. Most of all though, I worry about who I am and my morale status.

Am I a good person?

That's something my anxiety forces me to ask myself every minute. Am I a good person? Do I say and do nice things? Is there a line I cross? Is that bad? Is doing this OK? Or morally wrong? 

Every situation I find myself in, I am thinking, observing and trying to sort my jumbled mind into some sort of organised locker. I try to get things straight and analyse what is going on and how it affects me. When that's done I can work out if I am being good, bad, a dick, a nice person or whatever else and I can decide what to say and do next. 

When people propose something unusual or risky to me, I instantly wonder if I should go ahead with it. I'm terrified of being morally wrong and a bad person.
However this, what I just said, makes me hypocritical. Why? Because I've done things that were blatantly wrong many times in the past. I don't want to be in the wrong, morally, but I already have been a massive amount of times.

Who am I?

Let's revisit that first question.

I ask myself this all the time: "What would I do? What would I say? How would I act?". I think to myself,  how would Michael react to this? How would Michael deal with this? What would Michael say? Why? Why do I address my like this, in third person? I don't know.

I never go out of my way to be a certain way. I'm just, well, me, really. I'm never one extreme or the other. I'm just normal ol' Michael.

It's funny because I've been called boring, which I am, but I've also been called extremely mental, which I also am. My personality and who I am as a person is never here nor there. It's never there nor here. 

You'll perceive me in your own way, of course. Everyone does that to everyone. They categorise them and label them. 

"You're a dick."

"You're funny."

"You're a flirt."

"You're boring."

"You're dopey."

But in the end, you are who you are. And in my case, while I don't know who I am because I am such a complicated person, I am me. Just me.

Who am I? That's a good question. A damn good question. One I don't think I can ever answer.

Friday, 26 July 2013

How David Cameron's Stand Against Online Porn Goes Too Far

A few days ago Prime Minister David Cameron released new information on the steps he and the government are taking to protect today's kids from online pornography. However while some things he is doing are no doubt good, I have a real issue with how far he is taking it.

First of all, I'm all for trying to 'protect' kids from online porn. Porn has gotten to the stage where it is invasive of people's lives even if they don't want it there. Go online and even the most harmless of sites will often have dodgy ads, and mistype something into Google and you'll get some pretty promiscuous pictures pop up. Hell, I even searched for actress Grey Delisle and Google recommended I search for 'Grey Delisle cleavage'. It's clear you can't escape porn and sex when on the internet.

One consistently suggested thing that the government force internet providers to do is offer people optional 'filters' that allow them to choose whether they want explicit content to be available to them online. And the government has finally cooperated. And that's fine. I respect that. Next month we'll all get a call asking if we want these filters installed or not and if you are switching providers or just starting out you'll have the option from the get-go. It's not an issue for anyone because those who still want porn can get it and those who don't now don't have to have it invading their lives. Everyone is happy.

Well, everyone would be happy if Mr. Cameron had stopped there. But he didn't. Instead he decided to take it even further for reasons so blatant I don't even know whether or not to mention them. Well, I will, in a bit.

So what did he do wrong? Well, instead of just adding in filters he decided to turn porn into a massive issue, which it isn't. Only the media want to turn porn into a big problem and link it to every rape and murder that happens because, obviously, making people paranoid and angry is how they make their money. But of course David Cameron had to get in on the action too.

My first point isn't really about an individual thing he said or is doing, but it's something I took away from his speech that makes me uncomfortable. And this is that what you do on the internet is no longer private. While he didn't directly say everything you search for will be monitored, he did make it perfectly clear that the government knows what you search for. They know if you've searched for child porn. They know if you searched for porn relating to an unusual fetish you have. Whatever you've used the internet for, they know about.

One of the new things that's going to happen is if you search for things like 'child' and 'sex' instead of being shown instant search results, as you should be, you will now be given options on what to search for as your search terms were obviously controversial. Search for 'child' and 'sex' and you'll be asked if you meant 'child sex education' or 'child gender'. How utterly dumb.

I know what you're thinking: 'why would you want to search for child and sex or child-sex related things anyway?' But that's not really the point, although I can easily answer it.

You might want to find the Wikipedia page for child-pornography. You know, for research. Or maybe, like one of my sister's friends had to do, you need to research child porn for University.

However that's all irrelevant. Why? Because the point of Google and the internet is it allows you to find things instantly. It allows you to find every single thing you need that relates to what you specifically searched for in a split second. Monitoring and controlling how people search for things when they type in controversial and dodgy things like 'child sex' isn't 'safety' or 'preventing' people from watching illegal porn, it's stopping people from using Goddamn Google and the internet how it was made to be used.

If you DO type in 'child' and 'sex' no-one can know HOW you meant it and what INTENT there was behind you searching for it UNTIL you've completed the search and clicked on a few websites. If you tell a criminal: "There's a security camera there", that will stop them from stealing and you won't lose stock, but at the same time, you won't be able to catch them stealing either so they will still be at large.

It's similar to knife laws in this country too. You can't buy knives if you're under 18 years of age. That's predicting a potential knife crime before it happens and ultimately preventing it. But what if some 15 year old kid needs them because his mother wants them?

What I'm saying is, is this is control in the extreme. It's saying 'you can't use certain search terms because you MIGHT be a paedophile'. But that's ridiculous. This is why we have freedom of speech and the freedom do be judged by our actions as they happen. Searching for 'child' and 'sex' is harmless. Clicking on websites with information about child porn after searching for 'child' and 'sex' is also harmless. But if you search 'child' and 'sex' and THEN click on illegal websites, then you're guilty as charged.

It's clear David Cameron wants there to be more regulation online and it's clear as day that your privacy is of no concern to him in the least. What you search for; the sites you visit; none of it is private anymore.

What's more, controlling searches more is also pointless because steps to block and label with warnings illegal porn sites are being taken too, so why regulate how people search if they can't find illegal porn anyway? It's just another excuse to keep an eye on what you're doing at all times, because, let's face it, a large portion of our lives is spent online, and with the online being so open and 'free' and hardly regulated at all, the government wants to make sure they retain control.

Another reason his speech sucked is because David Cameron pointed out the obvious. "Kids are growing up too fast." No shit Sherlock. And what, you're putting that down to porn? Do you know nothing about society? Look at schooling. Look at todays culture and racism. Look at discrimination in general. Hell, I even got a comment on my KSI Is An Arsehole article from a guy claiming his friend now acts like a douche-bag because he watches KSI, so look at YouTube too. Today's society is all about how fast you grow up. It's not porn, it's just how we've let the world become.

Yet another issue I have with Mr. Cameron and his totally moronic take on pornography is his decision to outlaw certain forms of 'extreme' pornography, particular depictions of simulated (fake) rape. Now this is always going to be a touchy subject and no doubt I'll have a billion feminist psychopaths on my back for what I'm about to say, but trust me, I have basis for my argument.

Obviously real rape porn is already illegal just like things like beastiality are too. And there's no question of whether it should stay that way. In my opinion, anything sexual that is illegal to do in the bedroom or to another human being should be illegal in porn. It's a no-brainer. Like, a massive no-brainer.

But I am also of the opinion that if something is legal to do in the bedroom or to/with another person, that should be acceptable in porn too.

What David Cameron was talking about when he referred to outlawing 'simulated' rape is basically making it illegal to watch and possess role-play rape porn. And role-play is basically what it is.

'Simulated' rape is fake. It's role-play between porn actors. It's a porn director saying 'Let's make a fake rape porno', getting male and female actors, paying them and then getting the guy to 'pretend' to sexually assault the actress while filming it.

That doesn't sound very scary to me. It might be disturbing to watch for people who aren't used to that sort of porn or don't like violence, but these people no doubt get scared by violent movies too.

And that's exactly what 'simulated' rape porn is. Just like all other legal porn. It's a fucking movie. It's not real and it's legal to make and everyone is consenting and getting paid, so why is it now illegal to watch or possess this form of pornography? If something is legal to make or to do yourself in the bedroom then why the fuck is it illegal to watch online?

Cameron backed up his reason for banning it by saying it was for 'the kids'. But you've already got the Goddamn filters you moron. If parents have the filters, then why are you banning particular legal porn that they can't view anyway BECAUSE of the filters?

Another argument that will no doubt be made is: "because if people, even adults, watch fake rape porn, then they might go out and rape someone!".

Actually, I think the opposite.

If someone has a rape fantasy or fetish, what better way to relieve themselves of the sexual tension that builds up inside them revolving around that particular fantasy or fetish than by watching porn relating to it? it's legal, and no one gets hurt. Win win? Right? Right? No. Of course not. Because someone will always disagree and make another argument regarding how bad rape is and even how 'fake and simulated rape that is perfectly legal to make and no one get's hurt in is terrible'.

OK, you know what, rape IS terrible. It's a disgusting crime. A fucking horrible thing. And people that commit real rape crimes should be punished in the strongest possible way. So outlaw it. Outlaw this role-play porn. Go ahead an outlaw it. But if you're going to outlaw THAT because THAT contains fake rape images, then you better fucking outlaw films depicting rape too.

Yeah, it's true, this perfectly legal to make and film role-play porn is being banned but films like The Human Centipede part 1 & 2 (and soon 3) that revolve around a sadistic scientist torturing and raping innocent victims can be shown on the big screen in cinemas with a simple 18 age certificate. That, my friends, is hypocrisy. And the Human Centipede is far from the only series of films depicting rape and sado violence like this. Almost all these films are shown to the public in cinemas and can be bought on DVD in a SUPERMARKET. No, not in a sex shop, a SUPERMARKET where FAMILIES and KIDS shop.
And yet pornography depicting fake rape that is safe to make, legal and that no-one gets hurt through is being made completely illegal? I'm sorry, but this is ludicrous.

You know what makes all of this worse? The reasons behind David Cameron deciding to go this far with his stand against online porn. He is only going this far with it because he wants to suck up to all of the charities and families and organisations that are paranoid and have called for a block on porn for the past year or so because, quite simply, the election is coming up and he wants the majority on his side.

David Cameron: you are a fool, hypocritical and plain shameful.

Friday, 19 July 2013

A Question Of Sexual Fetishes & Fantasies (Acceptable Vs Unacceptable & Judgmental Vs Who Gives A Sh*t?)

So, what are your sexual fantasises? 

No doubt that's a question you have been asked before, likely by a friend in a joking manner or maybe by a sexual partner. Did you answer honestly? Nah. Of course you didn't. While S&M and foot fetishes are perfectly acceptable in todays society, there are many, many other ones that are not. Or generally aren't even recognised by most people as being an actual fantasy.

You couldn't turn around to the person who asked you what sexual fantasies you have and say something like: "Raptophilia!", because they'd probably think you need locking up.

In case you didn't know, raptophilia is the sexual fantasy of committing rape. What kind of rape are we talking about here? Real life rape? Rape where the person goes out and actually assaults someone for real? That kind of rape? 

Well, it's not really easy or possible to categorise any fantasy in a literal sense. It's far easier to take the subject of the fantasy and look at it is for what it is. In this case, people who have this raptophilia fetish are turned on by, simply, rape. No gender specific here and, most importantly, no circumstances either. And that's really it, isn't it? That's what determines if this is a bad fantasy or an OK one. The circumstances.

Being turned on by rape because you have this raptophilia fetish does mean you're going to go out and rape someone. Far from it. Often the raptophilia fetish is acted out in the form of roleplay and is setup. 

Just because you have a fantasy that revolves around a negative or 'bad' action or subject, doesn't mean you're going to act on it. People are responsible for their own actions and just like if you play violent games and then go and shoot someone, that is still YOUR fault and choice and not the game's. 

So raptophilia or most other fetishes of a similar nature aren't a valid excuse to commit crimes like rape. If you do rape someone, that's YOUR choice whether you have this fantasy or not.

But what about paedophilia - or 'pedophilia' as it is frequently spelt? That isn't something you can 'not' act on is it? That's labelled as a fetish, yet it is something incurable and impossible to prevent. It's not just the fantasy of having sex with minors, it's ACTING on that fantasy too. 

Unlike raptophilia, which doesn't actually 'make' the person go out and commit rape, paedophilia does make adults assault children. Right? So where is 'wrong' and 'right' or 'bad' and 'acceptable' where fantasies are concerned? Is there a line? SHOULD there be a line? 

And what's more, it's all inside your mind right? Just like I said in the article I posted a couple of days ago about opinions, fantasies are in your mind, so how are they punishable or bad? If you don't act on them in a bad way (like raping someone or assaulting a minor), is it bad to have them? And is it even illegal to have them? This is where a person's 'mind' and the 'law' clash, and where what is right and what is wrong become blurred. Is it wrong to think something bad? Is that sinful? If God does exist and there is a Heaven and Hell, does thinking bad things mean you will go to Hell? Even if you don't act upon them? Does sin or crime ever extend past what is not physical or literal? Is there such a thing as sinning or committing a crime without actually, technically, doing anything?

Yes, there is. If you are not directly responsible for something but rather set in motion a domino effect that ends up with someone being murdered or a crime being committed due to you setting up a sequence of events that you yourself did not have a hand in but ultimately masterminded, then that is morally wrong. But is there anything wrong with thought? Is thought punishable and is thinking of some bad things morally wrong? 

Getting back to the paedophile issue, and I just want to mention something that infuriates me to do with the media and how they label almost every single 'adult had sex with an underage minor' case as a paedophile case. Newsflash, dumbasses, paedophilia is a mental condition that makes the sufferer attracted, sexually, to pre-pubescent minors, most commonly aged 11 or under. So that guy, that teacher of whatever he was, that had a sexual relationship with that 15 year old was not a Goddamn paedo. So stop saying he is.

Being sexually attracted to people ages between the ages of 15 and 19 is actually classed as ephebophilia, no paedophilia, and is not anywhere near as dangerous a condition as the latter. 

Anyway, I digress. What I really wanted to talk about was sexual fetishes and how socially acceptable and unacceptable they are and whether or not it's a good thing that there is such a taboo on fetishes outside of the common S&M ground.

Typically, EVERYONE has a sexual fantasy. Whether you like it or not, you have one. Now chances are this may never be acted out. Why? Because it's likely that your possibly hidden fantasy is unusual to the point where you wouldn't even chance telling your partner about it.

Raptophilia, for instance, is the type of fetish that you wouldn't consider telling anyone, because there is such a taboo surrounding rape and the moment you mention it in what is supposed to be an 'erotic' and 'sexy' and 'arousing' way you become a piece of shit. Basically. 

But actually reptophilia can be traced to S&M as well. In fact, while the two fantasies don't go hand in hand, they actually have many similarities and chances are if you are a 'fan' of one, you're likely at least a bit of a 'fan' of the other. 

But did you also know that 'Sado-Masochism' are two different fantasies? Seems obvious when you think about it but people always pair the 'sadism' fantasy and the 'masochism' one together because people who have the sadism fantasy go well with people who have the masochism fantasy. That said, the fetishes themselves don't go hand in hand. 

It's actually a fairly common misconception that people that have 'sadist' fantasies also have ones where they aren't the ones holding the whip. And vice versa. But that's not really the case. Sadism and masochism are two very different fantasies and just because someone is a 'sadist' doesn't mean they're also a 'masochist'.

And what's more, when you think about it, just like with raptophilia, 'sadism' is a pretty scary thing. It doesn't sound very nice, does it? Sadism itself is where one gets a kick out of making others suffer. If someone asks what your fetishes are and you say: "Sadism!", how bad does that make you look? How much of a psychopath will you seem after that?
But if respond by saying: "S&M.", that is far more acceptable. 

If raptophilia was actually a part of the 'Sadism' fantasy, and not a standalone fetish, no-one would have a problem with it. My point? People are weird. Very, very weird. And the way we perceive good and bad things is not very, well, good. We judge books by their covers ALL the time. People miss the little details that REALLY matter ALL the time. Like ALL the time.

And that's why judgemental ignorant people piss me the fuck off. And unfortunately, I'm related to a couple of people like this. 

The entire fetish thing itself is misunderstood by tons of people. Most of the time, people seem to think sexual fantasies are acted out constantly in the bedroom (and even if they are, why should anyone else care?) or that taboo fetishes like urolagnia (a fetish that revolves around urination) are all consuming things that people who have them focus their lives on. But they're not. Half the time they remain right at the back of everyone's minds. The only time these fantasies every really become even remotely a 'reality' is where pornography is concerned. Or if you are in a very sexually open relationship. 

Regardless of your morale opinions regarding porn and the industry, the bottom line is that it's a good way for people to see and imagine their fantasies being performed without ever going as far as doing it themselves. Obviously I'm talking about legal pornography. Illegal porn is a plague that needs to be gotten rid of. 

As for the open relationship thing though, if you are with someone that you can be totally open with and share your sexual fetishes and fantasies with, then I applaud you. In my opinion people should be just as sexually compatible as they are emotionally and personally. 

So here we are. It's confession time. What are your fantasies? Your fetishes? You most likely have more than one and you almost certainly have one that would be deemed as 'weird' and 'creepy'. Even if you're not aware you have it yourself. But the great thing about fetishes is that no matter how much someone can, and often will say: "That's disgusting!" or "That's vile and weird!" about what goes on inside your mind, just know that they have just as creepy and often shocking things going on inside THEIR mind too. Is any deeper proof needed that almost every person is a raging hypocrite? And a raging judgmental lunatic? Nah, we already knew that anyway.

Wednesday, 17 July 2013

Is It OK To Have A Racist, Sexist Or Homophobic Opinion?

I don't like Gay people.

I don't like black people.

I don't like Asian people or anyone who isn't of the same ethnicity as me.

I believe women should stay in the kitchen and not have the same, equal rights as men.

Those are all opinions. Albeit they are all opinions I, and likely you, disagree with. I don't hold any of those opinions myself. But some people do. And that's bad. Right?

Is it?

Is it bad to hold an unpopular or negative or offensive opinion? Everyone holds negative, offensive and unpopular opinions. So why if you hold one of the opinions listed above are you crucified by not only society but also, in many cases, the law as well?

Opinions are personal to you. You can't 'prove' someone has a particular opinion except if they do or say something that backs up what you think they think. Or they admit it.

What's more, something is never controversial until you make it controversial. The topic of Religion, rape and Politics are not controversial. South Park is not controversial. Nothing is controversial. Not until someone says 'that's controversial'.

Politics, Religion and rape and, hell, let's throw abortion in there too, are all sensitive issues. Sensitive from the point of view that someone is likely to get offended if you talk about them. And it's because of these people that get offended that things are classed as 'controversial'. Nothing ever begins as controversy. It only becomes it when people say so.

It's OK to hold the opinion that a woman shouldn't be able to have an abortion and vice versa. It's OK to hate Religion and be an atheist. It's even socially acceptable to not associate with Religious people. Just like it's acceptable not to associate with people with different political views to you.

However pushing someone out of a conversation and ignoring them because they themselves support a different political party to you or believe in God and the Bible is still discrimination. But that's OK.

If you push a black person out of a conversation and ignore them, that too is discrimination. But that's not OK. In fact, you might get arrested over it.

It's OK to hate people and oppose people's beliefs and views to the point of hating them. But that's also not OK.

You can't 'hate' Jewish people because they're Jewish. You can't hate black, Asian or any people that are different from your ethnicity. You can't hate homosexuals. You can't not believe in women having equal rights. You can believe and have these opinions inside your mind, but socially and lawfully they are unacceptable. You'll get in legal trouble for having these opinions most of the time, so it's not just the social side you have to worry about. That's only if you make them public of course.

So why can't you hold these offensive, unpopular and what many would class as 'bad' opinions? Especially if you can already hold opinions of equivalent negativity about other things?

Obviously abuse is a good factor to consider. Verbal or physical abuse is not really ever tolerated by society. Shouting abuse at black people, gay people and women is something you will be punished for. Physically hurting another person due to their sexual orientation, skin colour or gender is also something regarded with high disgust. And understandably too.

But that's too much of an obvious reason why these offensive opinions don't stand in todays world. What about if you ultimately keep them to yourself and only let your true opinions be known when they become relevant? What if you don't shout abuse or hurt black or gay people but you simply don't like them and don't talk to them and avoid them at all costs? Why does society and the law still deem you a piece of dirt if you conduct yourself in this manor?

In todays society you can hate someone for anything, except their sexuality, gender, ethnicity and, in some cases (like Judaism) their Religious beliefs. You can hate someone for having a big nose. Or having an odd face. Or having weird hair. Or the fact they can be a bit 'random' and 'wacky'. So if common hate for things as shallow as someone's appearance is OK, why isn't hating someone for their sexuality or skin colour OK too? In the end, it's all opinion, right?

If you're at a party and a black person comes up to you and starts talking to you and you awkwardly end the conversation and say: "sorry, I just don't really like black people..." that's a bad thing. You haven't abused him, or even 'hurt his feelings', you've just said, straight, what your opinion is because it was relevant to your current situation.
Not really relevant but a great picture.

If the guy talking to you had a big nose and you said: "sorry I don't like people with big noses" that is OK. The guy may get upset over your discrimination against him due to his nose size, and he may complain to the host of the party, but what does he care? Get over it, dude, no one cares. Why do you even care about that one guy's opinion of your nose?

If you're not making a big deal out of your offensive opinion and you're not abusing anyone, then why does society and the law punish you? Why is it bad to say: "I don't like black people and I refuse to talk to them", but OK to say: "I hate people with different faces or noses or features because I'm super judgemental"? In other words, why are some opinions punished, but others not? And should all negative opinions be punished or should all opinions be allowed to stand, because, let's face it, an opinion doesn't even exist and in a way shouldn't - and isn't - a punishable offence even though, currently, it is.

I said at the beginning that you can't prove an opinion. Because they don't exist. They're in your mind. There's no evidence to suggest you think something, unless you have a mind reading machine. Even if you go around shouting from your car "Gays should die. I hate black people", when the police come to your door asking questions you can deny your opinion by simply saying: "I love Gay people and black people!". Ultimately you'll still be punished for your actions. Not your opinion. You'll be punished for shouting abusive, racist and homophobic things.

That said, even if you DO deny hating blacks or Gays, the fact you went around shouting that you DO hate them is enough for everyone to assume that you are racist and homophobic.

However, as I said earlier, it's not just your actions that are punished. What if you don't shout abuse? What if you walk into a shop and say "I hate blacks", when asked about what you think of Will Smith? The police would still have a word with you and despite not hurting or abusing anyone, you'd be in deep trouble.

There's many issues to do with how racism and homophobia and other, similar, forms of discrimination are dealt with in todays world. Toddlers are being classed as racist for saying to other black toddlers "you're chocolate coloured". This is ludicrous. Partly due to the fact that toddlers can't possibly understand the concept of proper racism at that age and also because they're getting punished for stating the obvious. I'm white and my skin is ice-cream coloured. You're black and your skin is chocolate coloured. A colour is a colour. It is neutral. It is not something exclusive to people's skin. It is everywhere. Colour is in everything. So why is drawing comparisons between colour suddenly bad? Why is saying "you're black and your skin is the same colour as my table at home" now deemed racist? Comparisons can be drawn between ANY colours and, in fact, ANTHING.

And anyway, it's all about intent, right? If you mean something in a nasty way, then you mean it in a nasty way and should be punished accordingly. If you mean something in a funny or friendly way and mean no harm, then you're not really being offensive or horrible.

But enough of that digression. The original questions stand.

Why is it OK to think some offensive and bad opinions but not OK to think others? And should people be punished for holding certain offensive opinions anyway?

Arguably Ricky Gervais' famous quote is relevant here:

"My right to offend. Your right to be offended."

It's important to note that I do not hold ANY of the offensive opinions stated in this article. I don't want there to be any confusion here. I did not write this because I am actually racist or homophobic (I am bisexual myself). I wrote this because I was just thinking of opinions and how people are punished for thinking and believing certain things, even if they don't hurt or abuse anyone. I hope you enjoyed it and I'd love to hear your opinion in the comments section!

Another article regarding racism that you might like: Variety In Race (A Question Of Racism)

Saturday, 13 July 2013

New Glasses, A T-Shirt That Proves Bias, Dumb Shit I Say & The IGN Community Is Nuts

Given the lack of interesting news and my lack of wanting to write any 'deep' and 'meaningful' articles, I thought I'd write another collective article featuring some smaller things going on with me and the world.

So I recently got new glasses! And these ones aren't made completely of metal and look like something picked out of a dump! Yes, I finally decided to get stylish glasses.

Do excuse the hair. Chaz.
I'm still not sure if I chose the right frames though. They're a bit big. A but, uh, 'geeky' lookin'. Not that that's a bad thing. I basically am a geek. It's just looking like a 'geek' isn't usually my normal style. But I'm getting used to them and really starting to like them.

Anyway, there is another 'fashion' related thing I wanted to mention. This is slightly more controversial though, but also kinda funny too.

So I ordered a T-Shirt from American company RedBubble. It still hasn't arrived unfortunately, but should soon. Anyway, it's a T-Shirt of Bioshock Infinite. It's 'drawn' or 'painted' version of the fairly iconic scene of Booker diving to save Elizabeth while surrounded by the Crows. I happened to post a tweet that I later, stupidly, deleted. I say stupidly because I kind of have a motto, like many people, of not backing down from criticism or controversy but I couldn't be fucked and just deleted the tweet in order to, albeit cheaply, avoid further abusive tweets. It was a cheap way out. But I did it. And I regret it.

Anyway, I posted this tweet shortly after my controversial The Last Of Us review (I gave the game a 5.5 out of 10 and I got quite a bit of hate for it in case you were wondering why I called it 'controversial') and within minutes of posting the tweet some goon replied calling me out as 'biased' against TLOU and biased in favour of Bioshock Infinite. Apparently my love for a game and my want for a T-Shirt with an iconic scene from that game portrayed on it is clear proof I was somehow biased not only in favour Infinite, but also against The Last Of Us, which has no relation to it at all.

I'm not biased, OK. I'm a small time guy reviewing shit and blogging my heart away. I'm not even registered on Metacritic. So why in Gawds name would Irrational or 2K pay me to give their game a 10 and TLOU a 5.5? And even if they didn't, you think I purposefully 'pretended' to love Infinite despite actually not liking it that much? Or you think I purposefully 'pretended' to not like That Last Of Us that much? Give me a break. I'm not representing an official website like IGN and I can show my appreciation or support to whatever or whoever I want. No doubt if I decided to buy a Metro: Last Light T-Shirt no-one would have said a word.

Speaking of saying silly things, I realised the other day that I don't half say a lot of shit. This fact dawned on me when I was out with my friend Harry and in reference to a girl who I thought was arrogant, I said: "Do you think she's (the girl) a bit.... Ya know.... 'I'm awesome'?"

There was silence for a few seconds after I said this as Harry looked at me oddly while trying to fully work out what the fuck I'd just said. I then realised I'd just said an incredibly dumb thing and started to grin and he then proceeded to burst out laughing.

"A bit 'I'm awesome'?" Harry asked me, "You mean, 'is she up her arse?'"

Yep. That is what I meant. I had and have no idea why I decided to ask, instead of is she 'vain' or 'arrogant', "is she a bit 'I'm awesome'?".

I realised I do say a lot of dumb things. I really do. I say things that make no sense all the time. I come out with the dumbest shit that more often than not makes zero sense.

I'll tell you what also makes zero sense: the IGN community's logic.

I always knew my The Last Of Us review would receive a mostly negative response and IGN really didn't hold back. I published the review on my blog on the site and shortly afterwards people began commenting angrily about why my opinion sucked all that BS. That's fine though. I honestly don't care. But the people on there are nuts. I swear. People called ME a douchebag, misquoted me, claimed I insulted a guy and stated my opinion was, basically, stupid. While negative response is fine, I do have an issue with being misquoted and being called out as a douchebag and a nasty person for simply losing my patience with the real douchebags and responding impatiently to their dumb comments. I didn't even respond to them angrily. Or nastily. I just bluntly pointed out why their comments were face-palm worthy. Seriously, the IGN community is mental.

Anyway, the last thing I wanted to say is that I know I mentioned a lot of 'haters' or 'negative' things in this blog but I don't want to seem like I was bitching and complaining or actually bothered by these peeps, I just wanted to mention it as I thought it was quite interesting and/or funny. So yeah, I don't want to come across like I'm making a mountain out of a mole hill!

Anyways, how have you guys been?

Tuesday, 9 July 2013

What The Original Xbox COULD Have Been Called....

Yesterday an article was posted on IGN titled: Rejected Names for the Original Xbox Revealed, in which a load of names (mostly ridiculous I might add) were listed as things that the first ever Xbox console could have been named, but, luckily, wasn't.

Normally I'd let an article like this slide without a word or simply tweet it out on twitter, however the names in this list are so bizarre it's more than worth dedicating an entire post to.

First of all I recommend you check out the original article (link is that pink text above) for ALL of the rejected names as I'm only going to list the interesting ones here.

Now, it's important to remember that these names are things the original Xbox COULD have been called INSTEAD. So instead of 'Xbox', we could have been landed with a console called 'MAX', yes 'MAX'.

Guy 1: "Hey man, you wanna play some games later, on MAX?"
Guy 2: "Uh, who's Max?"
Guy 1: "What? You know, MAX...?"
Guy 2: "Who the hell is Max? Do you have another sex slave again? Oh God, I told you dude, I don't want anything to do with any of those weird orgies you have, so just leave me alone!"
*Guy 2 runs away sobbing*
Guy 1: "Jesus, why bother including a Co-Op feature on the console if no-one wants to play with you?"

What was 'MAX' supposed to be, your gaming 'buddy'? A games console with a human name? Sounds pretty dodgy if you ask me. But 'MAX' is actually an acronym. It actually stands for: 'Microsoft Action Experience'. What the hell is with that? Was the early 2000's really this sad?

Meh, MAX isn't even that bad though. Apparently Microsoft considered the name 'AIO'. That really rolls off the tongue easy huh? A-I-O? Sounds like a robot from an 80's si-fi flick.

And what about 'MIND'? The 'MIND' console. Did anyone else get an image like this:

in their head when they read or thought of that? MIND?

"Hey kids, play games on your MIND!"

Well, they already could. Called 'imagination'. How's that for you Microsoft?

But one of the best ones has to be 'FACE'. Yeah, Microsoft actually considered calling the first ever Xbox 'FACE' instead.

Seriously, you couldn't ever ask a girl to come over and play on it with you, could you? imagine that:

Guy (to girl): "Hey what you doing tonight?"
Girl: "Nothing. Why?"
Guy: "Wanna come over and play some games? On my FACE?"
Girl: "You sick, sick, sad deprived little man. You're a real pervert you know that?"
*Girl starts to walk off*
Guy: "Hey, wait, no it's a games console! We can play all sorts of things. Shooting games, right? You like them? I can shoot you in the face? Or you can shoot me in the face? C'mon, everyone loves these games right?"

OK, so maybe you'd have to be mental to actually say 'I can shoot you in the face', but I couldn't resist that joke. If you're wondering what 'FACE' actually stands for though, it means: 'Full Action Centre'. I know, I know, 'Full Action Centre' doesn't actually turn into 'FACE' if you break it down, but apparently Microsoft thought 'FACE' would be more appropriate than 'FAC', and given that 'FAC' obviously sounds a bit like 'Fuck' it's arguably no surprise they went with the whole 'face' thing. That said, I don't know why they even considered 'FACE' or 'Full Action Centre' in the first place.

Tic-Tacs could have had stiff competition if Microsoft had actually gone for the name 'TAC', which was apparently considered too. Video game discs for the 'TAC' console, which stands for 'Total Action Centre' (seriously, M$, what the fuck was with your obsession with 'Action Centres'?) by the way, could have been called 'TACs'. Yep, people almost had to go around calling their games 'TACs'.

You know what I really want to know? I want to know who the fuck Microsoft had employed as their head of fuckin' Marketing or 'Name Deciding' or whatever the fuck the department that came up with these stupid names was called. He's probably fired now though. Well, actually, given the fact Microsoft decided to name the newest Xbox the 'Xbox One', he is probably still working for them. And '360' wasn't exactly a genius name either, was it?

The name 'MARC' is pretty funny when you consider it is just a dumb way of spelling 'Mark' and is just a face-palm of a thing to call a console, however what's REALLY funny is what 'MARC' means.
'Microsoft Acton Reality Centre' is what's behind it.

Let's just all say that again, but out loud this time. Make sure you do say it out loud too, as if you were suggesting to a friend that they come over and play on it with you.

'Microsoft Action Reality Centre'.

What I don't quite understand about these names, or rather what I'm sensing about these names, is that Microsoft just took every 'cool' word that was used in the early 2000's and by kids of that generation and stuffed them all into a shitty acronym so it would appeal to young children.

I mean, 'Action'? I guess there was action in the games if you played, well, action games.
But 'Reality'? And 'Centre'? 'Action Reality Centre'? Those three words mean nothing. They make no sense together. There is zero sense to be made out of them.

Microsoft were just hoping 12 year olds would see a poster for it in their local game store and be like:

"MOM! LOOK! The new 'Microsoft Action Reality Centre' is being released! Look mOm, it says 'action'! ACTION MUM!! Can I have one? No? But MERM it's the centre of all action and reality! It's an 'action reality centre' merm! Please? I want one Meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrm. MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRM.... MERM??!"

Actually, let's do that again, except just so you read at least the 'merm' and 'muuuum' parts in his voice, here is a picture of Cartman:

OK, so read it again now and hopefully it will be in his voice:

"MOM! LOOK! The new 'Microsoft Action Reality Centre' is being released! Look mom, it says 'action'! ACTION MOM!! Can I have one? No? But MERM it's the centre of all action and reality! It's an 'action reality centre' merm! Please? I want one Meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrm. MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRM.... MERM??!"

Did it work? Leave a comment telling me if it worked or not!

Anyway, trying to get kids to want the console when the it has far more mature titles than teenage or kiddy ones is a pretty suspect marketing ploy.

Names like 'MAP' and 'MIC' really do open up the question of how people would react when asked to play on them with you. Like with a couple of the other names mentioned, I don't think inviting people to play on your 'MIC' or 'MAP' would work out well. Probably because half of the people asked would be like:

"Dude, why would I want to play on your map? I ain't 12 years old. I'm going home to play on my Playstation."

Or they might be like (assuming you pronounced 'MIC' like you do the abbreviation of 'Microphone'):

'Uh, man, you do know we have games consoles like the Playstation? And we have TV? I think we're a bit past the time when we have to rely on microphones to keep us entertained."

I know all these 'confusion over the name' issues could be resolved by simply telling the person: "No, not a 'microphone', 'MIC', as in the new console!", but how dumb would you look telling people your new console was called 'FACE' or 'MIC' or 'MIND' anyway?

Guy 1: "Ooooooooh, you thought I meant 'face' as in MY face? Hahahahaha, no I meant 'face' as in my new console 'FACE'.
Guy 2: "Your new console is called 'FACE'?"
Guy 1: "Yah."
Guy 2: "...."

Nah, I'm just joking. If you've got good friends they wouldn't make a big deal over the fact they own a perfectly normal 'Playstation' while you own a, uh, 'FACE', but you couldn't blame them for laughing at it either.

In the end it's a good thing that Microsoft's first ever games console was called 'Xbox', because otherwise we could all be awaiting the release of the 'FACE One' or the 'MIND One'. Or maybe the 'MAX One'. Or the 'AIO One'. Yeah, thanks for not going too outlandish with the final name.

One final funny thing worth mentioning is the fact that all of the 'rejected' names stood for something, like 'MAX' stood for: 'Microsoft Action Experience', however the final name, Xbox, doesn't actually stand for anything. Well, not as far as we know. All of the 'possible' meanings behind the name 'Xbox' are just people thinking up things themselves. Microsoft has never said what it really means, although given that the '360' that was shoved after 'Xbox' for the console's second generation was confirmed as meaning Jack-shit, it is perfectly possible that Microsoft decided to give up trying to make the console sound 'cool' with words like 'action' and just named it something pointless. Well good thing you did too Microsoft, because inviting people over to play on your 'FACE' isn't something anyone would have enjoyed doing.

What do you think of these rejected names? Share your thoughts bee-low!

Saturday, 6 July 2013

Why KSIOlajidebt Is The Biggest Arsehole On YouTube

I've never done an article 'hating' on someone before for the simple fact that if someone pisses me off, I will keep my contact and interaction with them at a minimum and be done with it.

But there are a few reasons why I really want to point out why Mr. KSIOlajidebt is the biggest arsehole, piece of shit on YouTube. 

There are many YouTubers that I dislike. However KSI is different. The thing with him is he is actually affecting you even if you don't watch his videos. Yes, his arseholism is reaching further than YouTube itself.

I know I'm gonna get a lot of hate for writing this, especially from his fans, but do note that I am not doing this because I'm 'jealous' or I've got 'nothing better' to do. I simply want to express my opinion on why KSI is a total dick.

1) His Pranks Cross The Line

I like watching YouTube pranksters like Vitaly and PrankVsPrank because what they do is funny. The thing about KSI's pranks is, well, they're not funny.

Recently he did a video titled 'What Did You Call Me?' and it was a prank featuring himself dressed up in a monkey costume along with Callux (another YouTuber) who was holding a mic. Oh and the anonymous camera man too.

So KSI (dressed as this monkey), along with Callux, would proceed to approach people and talk to them. Callux invited them to do a little test and asked them basic questions like 'what's the capital of England?'. After a few of these easy questions, Callux then pointed to KSI in the monkey suit and asked: 'What's this?', to which almost everyone replied: 'A monkey'. Cue the extremely predictable and dumb 'climax' where KSI rips off the head of the costume in order to respond in an angry fashion, like some kid that has just had his World Of Warcraft subscription cancelled and found out that he isn't going to Burger King for lunch.

KSI basically starts getting angry at these people for calling him a monkey, because he himself is black. Obviously any normal human can see they're not being racist. He just happened to be wearing a monkey outfit.

Now this probably just sounds like a shit prank, right? But there are a few things that the infamous KSI did that were just downright stupid.

Number 1: He started squaring up to everyone like he was about to beat the shit out of them. One guy looked like he was going to shit himself. In fact, KSI was so close to the poor man's face he couldn't even look straight at him. Is this supposed to be a 'joke'? All you're doing is threatening people with your body language. If he'd done that to me I actually would have nutted him. And I'm not just saying that. I hate people that get up in my face and act like, well, pricks. I'm really surprised he didn't get into a fight over it. And remember: these people weren't even being racist. He is pretending to be offended by them. Apparently that's the prank. Or something like that.

Number 2: He called them out as racist. Yes, in the middle of the street he called a guy out as being a racist.

"Ladies and gentlemen," he called out obnoxiously, "This man called me a monkey!"

Little tip, KSI, you can't do that. You can't call a white person out for being racist in public. Do you know how bad that looks? What if people actually thought the guy was being racist? Do you not have ANY maturity?

Number 3: He insulted them. He called one girl a bitch, which she seemed pretty insulted by. And all of this for what? Where is the prank here? I don't GET IT?!

Getting angry at someone - or at least 'pretending' to - is not a prank. The prank should be the OTHER way around. When Russian prank pro Vitaly does a prank, he pushes people's buttons. "Hey," he'll say to a body builder with clearly massive muscles, "You're a bit skinny in the arms aren't you?". And then the body builder is pissed at him. The audience can go "Woah, Vitaly, you gonna get hit one of these days!", and it's totally brilliant! And then, at the end, Vitaly usually tells the guy it's a prank, they bump fists, have a laugh and then everything is cool.

There is nothing funny involved in getting angry at some poor people for something they didn't mean and squaring up to them, insulting them and calling them out as racist. Where is the prank there? A GOOD prankster makes it the other way around. He/her makes the OTHER person get angry at THEM and then at the end they chill it down and have a laugh about it.

What KSI did was irresponsible and obnoxious.

2) He Doesn't Show Any Subscriber Appreciation 

Oh, would you look at that, KSI reached 2.5 million subs! Does he even know? He hasn't said anything....

KSI doesn't show any sub appreciation at all. It's like he can't be assed to do a video saying "THANKS FOR THE 2.5 MIL SUBS GUYS!".

Maybe he's the most grateful guy normally, but he doesn't show it on his channel.

3) KSI Army

So this one is actually about his FANS, not him, although he doesn't help this issue. His fans and his 'army' are some of the most obnoxious, stupid and rude people on YouTube.

No one, not PewDiePie's bros, not Syndicate's fans - NO ONE - is as freakishly obsessed and as nasty as KSI's army. Say one bad thing about him and you'll have all the little weirdos threatening to kill your family. Apparently this man is God and you can't say a bad word about him.

Here is an example of the type of shit these bastards say (and by the way this comment got 49 thumbs up): "spam that fuck with hate and reports.. *EDL iJamesi*" 
EDL James was just a guy who beat KSI at FIFA. And now he is going to get spammed just for that. Why even bother playing KSI at FIFA if all you're gonna get is hate, spam and probably a few death threats too?

His 'army' is pretty disgusting in my opinion.

4) He Ruins FIFA & Takes Credit Where It's Not Due

This is where you can't avoid the wrath of the serial dick KSI. His influence is so large that when he says something, people do it. He says you should buy this player on FIFA Ultimate Team? People buy him. He says NOT to buy a player? People don't buy him.

That's not a big deal, but KSI influences people to play the game like arseholes. After he made a video titled 'Being A C*nt', in which he showed how to play the game in an incredible unsporting and cheap way that involves playing for time and not giving the other person a chance, everyone started doing it. He could have come out and said: "It was just a joke everyone! Don't really play like that!". But he didn't. He simply started playing that way himself. And so everyone on the game copied him. Now FIFA is full of people who play the game like total douche bags. Nice going KSI!

He also takes credit where it, quite frankly, isn't due. He claims he 'invented' scoring sweaty goals and playing 'like a c*nt'. But that's a ridiculous thing to claim. There have always been people that score cheap 'sweaty' goals and play for time in a cheap manor. All he did was give playing those ways titles, so people could identify them easier.

5) He Can't Take What He Dishes Out & He Has ZERO Maturity

After making this 'Being a C*nt' video, where he showed everyone how to play FIFA 13 in an incredible cheap way, he began playing like it himself.

Recently he made a video called 'Road To $100 - Great Start!' in which he was thrashed by his opponent and lost a total of, I believe, $5. Yes, he lost $5. Remember that: this match was for FIVE. DOLLARS. And he makes an extremely high amount of money from each individual video he puts up.

During the match, after embarrassing KSI and scoring a couple of goals, the opponent, who goes by the name of 'EDL James', began giving KSI a taste of his own medicine. In the 65th minute he began playing 'like a c*nt'. What did KSI do? He. Went. Mental.

He was swearing his head off at this guy and then said: "Do people actually play the game like this? My video was a joke."


Apparently KSI's video about playing the game 'like a c*nt' was a joke. OK, I can accept that. But he himself played that way for several videos afterwards. And in these videos, not only did he play 'like a c*nt', but he also sent his opponents messages afterwards saying things like "You are bad." and "Break your disc.". Really promoting being a good player aren't you KSI?

Anyway, it's clear he is a hypocrite who can't take what he dishes out.

While playing EDL James, KSI got SO mad he actually gave the other guy death threats.
"I'm going to kill you" is part of what he said. And "I'm going to find you and shove a screwdriver up your arse". I don't mean to be all 'prude' like, but what the fuck was he thinking? You can't send people death threats - even if it is online. He even went as far as saying "Someone find this guy's IP address". Oh great, poor EDL James will probably be found dead now because your silly little 'army' are so dedicated to you they will probably hunt him down and murder him. And I'm not joking either. That could easily happen.

Anyway, EDL James, I salute you. You, Sir, are a legend.

Ultimately KSI has gone from a friendly teen who makes funny videos to an angry, immature, extremely irresponsible serial areshole. It's a shame, because he seemed such a nice guy a year or so ago. Now, however, he calls people in public racist, gives people death threats on FIFA over $5, can't bear having people play against him how he plays against them and turns the FIFA community to shit. Well done, KSI, you're officially the biggest piece of shit on YouTube.

Wednesday, 3 July 2013

Why I Gave The Last Of Us A Bad Review

Warning: Contains spoilers for The Last of Us

You'd think that the explanation on someone's opinion of a game would be in the review of that game itself, but I've been getting a lot of flak for my review of TLOU and people don't seem to get why I gave a game with one of the best stories in gaming a mere 5.5/10.

The gameplay is an aspect of the game that almost everyone has admitted isn't the best. So, if other reviewers can admit that TLOU had Okay-ish gameplay yet still give it a big score, why can't I?

Well I'll give you my explanation in the form of comparisons.

Take Spec Ops: The Line. Great story. Amazing story in fact. Actually, it has one of the best stories in gaming in my opinion. It's similar to That Last Of Us too in that it ends on a moral mind-fuck.

However the gameplay was NAF. Well, the gameplay itself was OK. I guess. It wasn't broken. Just like it wasn't broken in TLOU. But playing the game was such a drag and SO boring that there is no way, if I reviewed it now, that I could give it higher than a 6. I probably would give it a 6/10 actually. And yes, I know that score is higher than what I gave TLOU, but the gameplay in Spec Ops wasn't wonky and annoying to use like it was The Last Of Us. So that's ONE plus I guess.

The similarities between The Last Of Us and Spec Ops: The Line is undeniable. Both have a stunning, 9+/10 story, but both have shitty gameplay with shitty pacing.

There are only two aspects to The Last Of Us' gameplay and those are the shooting and the general gunplay and the 'platforming' and 'scavenging/exploring'. Both were below par.

Look at Uncharted. Decent gunplay. Not bad. Bit wonky and irritating to use, right? But the gameplay still ruled because gunplay was only a small part of the bigger picture. The AWESOME platforming and puzzle solving made up for the other issues it had.

Strip away the climbing and brain teasing puzzles, though, and you have, uh, 'OK' shooting to keep you entertained. That would suck. But that is EXACTLY what TLOU is.

It takes away the GOOD elements of Uncharted's gameplay and keeps the mediocre part. And it was boring. Boring as hell. A drag.

Naughty Dog tried to include a little bit of platforming, I guess, but why? It was really bad. I know I made fun of it in my review, but seriously, it was really poor. Why bother making us run around trying to find this thing and get to this section when it's not fun? There were no awesome climbing sections. It was as simple as: get up here; walk here; climb this ladder and you're there. Or maybe even just: pick up this bit of wood; walk as slow as a snail for 10 seconds; place the wood; walk across it.

All these bits did was prolong the story and make it last 10 seconds longer. So, basically, pointless.

Personally I did not find the scavenging fun at all. Or the so called 'exploring'. Thing is the environments were just too regulated and linear to be able to enjoy any form of looking around.

Now I know what you're thinking: shit platforming aside, Naughty Dog's shooting mechanics might not be perfect, but there are tons of highly rated third-person shooters out there. So why does having 90% of the gameplay revolve around shooting make the game bad and not fun?

Let's look at Gears Of War. I love that series. All three of those games are brilliant. Oh, what, there are four? Four Gears Of War games? Uh, no, I don't think so. Unless you're referring the unmentionable Gears game that was released this year that was RUBBISH.

Ahem, anyway.

Gears Of War is a great example of a near perfect third-person shooter series. It was all shooting, so why did it not suck like TLOU?

Well first and foremost the gunplay was fun. It felt good. It played well. Nothing wrong there.
Second of all it was made to be a third-person shooter. The Last Of Us felt like Uncharted, with its dodgy shooting, but without the other gameplay elements. It didn't feel like it was made to be a dedicated shooter.

Gears games have amazing environments and a story that while not amazing, allows you to feel the intensity of battle. Feel the war that is upon you. Everything about GoW was made to be a shooter. That's what it was. It was fun because it did right everything that it needed to do right. Its pacing was almost always near perfect and it was never dull or boring.

The Last Of Us had zero innovation. It was just a typical shooter. It didn't do anything new. And what it did do it didn't even do that well. The gameplay can be compared to Spec Ops because they're both generic and stereotypical. Gears Of War did something new with the whole 'Humans Vs Locust' thing. It had the perfect cover system. The gameplay we all wanted. It was just brilliant. Pure brilliance.

Here's another comparison. The final one.

Metro: Last Light was released this year and it was a great game. I gave it a 7.8 score due to its poor boss battles and awful pacing towards the end along with some of the story issues. But in the end the game packed a hell of a punch. It was a survival horror set in post-apoclypitic Russia.

The game world was amazing and while it wasn't really that open, it made sense for it not to be. The underground sections were set in metro tunnels, which are naturally enclosed spaces. Not much room for exploration there, right?

But when you went above ground, the world felt scary and intimidating. Like anything could happen at any moment and you could wind up dead. In fact, all it would take is for your gas-mask to break and you're done for.

Where do you go? What do you need to do again? Putting your weapons away in order to get out your compass and objective list isn't something you ever WANTED to do, as it would leave you exposed, but it's something you NEEDED to do. Otherwise you'd be lost there forever.

The gameplay was also really fun. As papery as it sometimes felt, the stealth and the shooting were always a pleasure and there were tons of weapons to use. In fact, what weapons do you use? A shotty? Along with an AK-47? Or maybe a silenced pistol of some kind? It all depended on what you need them for, but that was hard to tell when the world of Metro: Last Light was so hard to predict.

The gameplay was also original and realistic, whith the inclusion of the gas-mask, the compass and objective list, the lighter, the electrical charger etc. There was a lot of uniqueness there.

Last Light felt better in so many ways. Sure the story wasn't anywhere near as good as The Last of Us', but the game had heart and the gameplay was fun. It was just a good, all round, game. I never felt bored playing it. Not once.

But I felt bored of The Last Of Us' gameplay on more than one occasion and, ultimately, the game may have reached new heights where the story is concerned, but if it's not fun, what's the point of it? Games aren't movies. The word 'game' and the word 'movie' having nothing in common. They mean different things. So why do developers think making a game more like a movie is better? In the case of TLOU, it just made it less fun. Maybe if they'd appreciated that people would actually have to PLAY IT and thus had improved the GAMING experience, it would have been a far better game and so received a far better review and score from me.

So that's why I gave The Last Of Us a 5.5.

What did you think of the game? Did you like it? Do you agree/disagree with me? Say what you think in the comments!

Tuesday, 2 July 2013

Guest Post & Article Delay

Hey guys, how you all bean? And yes, I mean bean. As in human-bean. Human-beans.

Anyway, so today my guest article on was published. If you don't know, I wrote an article for them a couple of weeks ago and it was only just published today! So check that out here! It focuses on changes to FUT (FIFA Ultimate Team) that I would like to see.

Aside from that I just want to say that there haven't been articles for a good few days because I've been mega (like MEGA) busy. I've been going about to places and haven't had time to even game, let alone write much.

But don't worry, more articles are gonna be published shortly! Including Ep.2 of the FIFA 13 CDM Journey shiz that was surprisingly popular. Anyway, articles will resume, hopefully, tomorrow. So stay tuned beans!