FB vs. FB. A comparitive comparison.

There have already been an epic number of complaints about the new look Facebook. Not since the last update have so many people complained and started groups petitioning the owners to revert back to the old style. Flashback on the other hand, never got complaints. So here i have compiled a rough comparison of both to see which comes out on top. It's been on everyones mind, which one is better? Facebook or Flashback. Wait no longer little childrens, here is the answer you've been waiting for.

Storyline.

Flashback - Conrad Hart, a young-ish rotoscoped gentleman has discovered something. We pick up the story as he is escaping from some sort of base, chased by trench-coated men with triangle shooting laser-pistols. He hops on a bike and rides away with his pursuers left behind. All is well he thinks, until a huge ship starts shooting yellow toblerones at him, blowing his hoverbike out of the sky and into a lush jungle environment. He awakes with no memory of his adventures and no idea of what he is doing. As you take control of his adventure you learn his past, his mission and his part on some weird gameshow where you have to kill people. And eventually find out who was chasing him and why. Pretty standard for a 90's sci fi game, but it still holds up against...well every other sci-fi game that stole the story and changed the names. 8/10

Facebook - You play a character that you can customise to your own specifications, creating the history, backstory, name, age, sex, religion and political beliefs. As the game progresses you discover that the internet is a gigantic waste of time, and that you, as the only remaining "correct" person in this unforgiving environment, must attempt to sway the beliefs and ideals of a truly staggering number of NPC's, via swearing, overuse of capital letters, rhetoric and angst, ultimately attempting to prove yourself to be the one and only person whose opinions are actually facts. An original and innovative idea, unmatched so far, but greatly impersonated by various other lifestyle sims such as "Myspace" and "Bebo". The lack of a cohesive narrative does let the game down, tending towards building up your "friend" list, and playing farming simulators. 6/10

Graphics

Flashback - For the 90's the graphics in Flashback were astonishing. The movements of all the human characters were recorded on camera and then animated over the top, much like the style of the original "Prince of Persia" games. The futuristic scenery and attention to detail made this stand out in it's time, but it shows it's age now. 7/10

Facebook - Opting for a more Photorealistic style, Facebooks graphics are widely varied. Each NPC has their own individual look, and they have albums full of pictures showing their backstory and their lives. The minigame elements (of which there are literally hundreds) are a strange mish mash of styles, drawing from the Anime genre mainly, but also taking inspiration from board games, the 1950's, popular culture and pretty much every other style you could imagine. The sheer amount of styles, rather than lending to creating a style of it's own, make the game feel sort of thrown together, as though they had hundreds of people working on the art simultaneously, working completely separately, giving no real "look" that it could call it's own. It's a bold idea, that leaves the whole game feeling quite schizophrenic. A valiant attempt no less. 6/10

Gameplay

Flashback - Because of technical limits for games of the era, Flashback opted for the then traditional platform option. But this is platforming with a difference. There is no acrobatic leaping from ledge to ledge with no thought for physics. Aiming for realism, the game allows you to jump, climb, run, jump and shoot in order to solve puzzles and advance through the game's hundreds of "screens". The shooting is nicely implemented. Enemies are either to your left or right, meaning that you don't need to aim specifically, just shoot in their general direction. The storyline gives the game a good pace, letting you explore a bit, whilst never letting you get lost. The job section in the second level could have been worked on a little better, but all in all it's fun, which is what it was intended to be. 7/10

Facebook - Facebook has one very clever and original idea up it's sleeve. Rather than your standard levelling up system that games tend to shoehorn in these days, they have opted for a "friend" count. The more you explore, the more people you can meet. Each NPC has a number of friends ranging from the low twenties to the high thousands. As you gain more friends, you notice that some of those friends are already on the list of people you have on your own list. This gives the game a nice "network" feeling, as though there is a real "life" to the game that operates while you are away. Your friends post messages about how they are, what they have done, mini games that they have been playing, sometimes posting links to wesbites created specially for the game, videos, both real and game generated and "quizzes", which ask you a series of questions in order to figure out which member of the simpsons you are, or which Britney Spears song you would be if you happened to be a Britney spears song. The mini game element really extends the lifespan of the game, but offers no rewards for completion. To this date there is no record of anyone actually completing the game, which gives you an idea how massive the game actually is. For this reason alone it is a must. 9/10

Sounds

Flashback - Again, the 90's influence is visible here, with little to no dialogue, very basic incidental music and almost no real "life" to it. THe sound effects are excellent though, the sound of the gun and the noise that robots make when you shoot their antennas off being two particular favourites. All in all though, a fairly lacklustre execution makes you wonder why they bothered hiring sound guys. 4/10

Facebook - The variety of sounds in Facebook is again, quite literally staggering. They have enlisted the talents of pretty much anyone you could care to name for the soundtrack. The music is quite cleverly unlocked through the "profiles" of the people on your friends list. You can unlock bonus material, and even some of the rare battle elements, by adding a comment to the link, telling your friend how bad their taste in music is, or how much you hate them. There are also a number of videos showing people talking, discussions, lectures etc that really add to the background, but add no real value to the gameplay as a whole. A really ambitious style that does add a whole new element to the game. 9/10

Drawbacks

Flashback -

*Fairly short lifespan. Around 10-15 hours and no additional difficulty settings
*Some minor "encryption" problems. The manual i recieved was misprinted, and so sometime the game was inaccessible due to the password protection system that was commonplace at the time.
*No outside support from other games.

Facebook -
*Some AI issues. Occasionally one of your friends will be completely backwards and refuse to leave you alone. There are also minor issues with language compatibility, and random stupidity.
*Frequent updates by your friends means that if you leave the game for a couple of days, you can be literally inundated with messages, threats and abuse.
*Games are a waste of time.
*Some random obscenity lowers the tone of the game and is really unnecessary.
*Not as fun as Flashback.
*No option to turn off the feature that enables some friends to type all in caps, or ramble on at you baout things you have no itnerest in.
*Pointless jingoism and rallying round in support of killing paedophiles gets boring and annoying after a couple of hours.
*Cannot be completed.

Summary

Flashback - A great game that really shows what the style of the 90's action gennre was, and how modern games have taken the good aspects and build upon them. A true legend. Does not hold up well against modern games though. A must for the old Skool. 8/10

Facebook - A great attempt at life simulation, held back by it's sometimes agressively open ended style, and lack of narrative. The friends system is a nice touch, and the soundtrack is outstanding. Addictive as hell, but ultimately nothing more than a casual game to while away the hours between doing other things. After a few hours there's a real tangible feeling that you have wasted too much time and that you could have been doing a lot of other things. Valiant and unmatched, but ultimately pointless. 6/10

So there you go. Flashback is the winner. If you're a fan of old skool action adventure, it's well worth searching out. Many abandonware sites on the internet are giving it away for free now. It doesn't have the depth that Facebook does, but ultimately this serves it better. It concentrates on the story at hand, rather than distracting you from the lack of a story with flashing ads and mini games.

Now i understand...A musing on Art as product.

When considering the "great" "art" "works" of the last decade or so, the ones that get headlines and fill up galleries with avid eyeballs, there are maybe 4 or 5 that would really strike me as art. The others confuse and befuddle me. Which then leads us onto the argument that "just because you don't think it is, doesn't mean it isn't art". Which is a non argument before it has even begun. Opinions are valid in one persons individual universe, and only in that one universe. They are completely valid nonetheless. There is a strange complex present that inisists that things can be only one way or the other and cannot be both. Something cannot be amazing and terrible at the same time. It must be one or the other. So we are told that Art, decided as such by "experts", "critics" and "professionals" is Art, whatever we say or think about it. That we must appreciate it's value even if we do not like the piece in itself.

The trouble with this approach is that when someone with no official capacity attempts to use the same rulings, they are shouted down by these experts that it is not art simply because they do not consider it as such. So it is not the Art that is important, it is the position of the person who judges it, and in most cases the name of the person who has created it.

As i look and considered, i noticed something. Art has become as much a commodity as music, as gold, oil and coal. They are things for sale. Not pieces of art. It has become the case that art is no longer an exploration of theme, or presentation of an idea, representation of a feeling or an emotion. It is a thing that either looks nice, or attracts attention. Good or bad, positive or negative, all attention or even acknowledgement is an agreement to take part in the piece itself.

Art has to be safe, to be saleable. Even the work that is "edgy" or "controversial" is only considered to be pushing boundaries because they are tackling what i would consider to be fairly safe subjects, in a possibly original way. The art work that is being bought and sold and considered as "Art" is not in the least truly challenging, except to those who have no interest in thinking beyond their own agendas and reading past their newspaper. Real Art, in my opinion, should ask questions, should pose problems, should invite discussion and debate and then, only after all other criteria have been filled, consider looking nice. Look is not an issue, unless it is a part of the message/idea.

No-one is questioning religion, for fear of reprisal and threats, intimidation or in extreme cases attacks. No-one is questioning power and corruption at its source. Art, whatever this new generation of art is called, has reduced the most useful medium we have at our disposal to a hallmark moment, and a wry smile. There is no substance, no explanation of the world or where they are at in their lives, who they are as a person. Art now is completel devoid of emotion or personality, relaced instead with rehashed ideas and "shock value".

I am not suggesting that each and every piece of art should have an agenda, or that it should come with a list of reasons why it is important. But it should at least have some purpose above looking nice. If it does not make you think, then it is just furniture.

Such pieces are fine and perfect in their place. It occurs to me that perhaps their place should not be as a placeholder upon the stage of the world, which will be filled later on with something more worthwhile. Art should be food for the soul. You would not replace a meal with a picture of a meal and expect the same reaction from your guests. And so it should be with Art. It must be vibrant and real and alive and communicative. It must say something important to the viewer, other than "please hold. Your Art will be along shortly"

At least in my universe.

The Perfect Book

Standing on the back step at my lady's house, blowing smoke up into the reddening sky, i had a strange idea. Every book i have ever read, i have pretty much forgotten what happens. I thought back to when i knew stories from my childhood, old wives tales, ghost stories and the like. Those stories, you never ever forget. Oral (or should that be Aural) History sticks to your brain like bubble gum to a brand new shoe. Why then do books slide off your memory as though slick and slimy?

The only reason i can think of is that, in my case at least, books aren't there for the story. They're a collection of words that your brain comprehends and passes over. The story is not part of the words. The words themselves do not, and could not, carry anything because they are written. They have no weight, or substance. Which led me to think, how can this be overcome?

When you see a play, or watch a performance of some sort that is live; when you see a band play a song that you love and you are in the room with them. These experiences are completely fleeting. As you are, you cannot help but live in the moment. You cannot hold onto what has just happened, you cannot record it (in any physical sense) you cannot play it back later on. The most important thing i learned at college was the word. Ephemeral.

Because it is only here for now, and only right now right this second, there is no doubt that you want to be there. You, and every cell of your body, is focused upon the experience. You are there. The words and movements are filled with meanings that do not come across in any other format. There is a transfer of energy and understanding. Genesis P.Orridge tells a story of a man who told him that you can only learn from someone that you have touched. Someone that you have physical experience of. There must be "a touching of hands" for any true knowledge to be passed. Anything else is words that you figure out for yourself later on.

And so how to overcome this recorded world, and take back some form of power over it. The only answer that came to mind was that books must destroy themselves as they are read. When your eyes pass over a word, the word must leap from the page, literally, and embed itself in your mind. Each interaction with a word must be a life changing experience. You must learn everything you will ever need to know from that word that very time you read it. If you knew that the book would be empty the next time you picked it up, you would read it very differently. You would take great care to pore over every word and phrase, ensuring that you understood perfectly every nuance of every syllable. There would be no book critics, there would be no market for trash novels and bestsellers. Every word would be a sacred gateway, leading to untold knowledge and expansion. Every book you read would change your life. Each page would mark the progression of your understanding, like leaves falling away from a calendar.

I think that words do have lives and minds of their own. They convey certain ideas and emotions, and a great speaker can sway entire populations with well placed words. Sounds have vibrations, and vibrations change reality.

I think it is time we gave words the credit that they are due. But also, because of this, we must effectively destroy our relationship with them.

We throw words around like mashed potato at a childrens party. I have no interest in correct grammar or pronunciation. I am not in the least bit bothered whether people spell with s's or z's or extra u's or fewer f's. In my opinion, the meaning is the important thing. Words just happen to be the best way that we have so far come up with to convey ideas and meanings. It so happens that language has become useful, so useful in fact that we rely upon it, and even "need" it. Need is used here in it's strictest sense. Not just in the common "I need money; she needs a car" form, but in the actual honest to goodness sense of desperate, starving, ravenous NEED. There are those of us who would be at a complete loss in the world if we did not have words to navigate around our environments.

And so I propose, like many before me, that it is not only necessary to lessen our clutching requirement of words, but also to be essentially more selective with our words. Not to just simply blurt out what we think. But to take our time finding our own vocabulary and our own languages. If this language happens to be composed solely of vowels, after careful selection, then so be it. It is essential that as we create the universes we wish to be a part of, that we decorate these evirons with furnishings of our choosing. Whether or not we are completely sure of our surroundings, we should at least be certain of ourselves and how we affect our worlds and ourselves as we inhabit.

This is of course a learning process, there is no point saying that there would be a time or a place when this phase would be complete, since we are not the same individual day to day. And so it would be pointless to place limits on ourselves. But we must at the very least ensure that we are not wasting our time, our space or our lives.

There are many ways and means to work towards this. Perhaps i will go into some ideas in more detail in later days. Who knows...

To sum up. Use your words, don't let your words use you.

A musical epiphany, or musipiphany if you will.

Pop music is not written by musicians or songwriters.

Now, that being the main gist of the piece, i feel i need to clarify a few points before you go all dissapproving on me.

Pop music or Popular Music to use it's old timey name, was a genre named and created as a catchall term for music that was easy to enjoy. The sort of unassuming, non-threatening, mild mannered material that can be played anywhere at any time and offend only a minority of people. Anything that gets into the top 40 can be classified as pop music. Yes, Limp Bizkit, and now Rage against the Machine are Pop music, as is Eminem, Marilyn Manson, The Offspring. Anyone sufficiently popular to be counted on the Pop chart, becomes pop music.

Pop music is a pigeon holey sort of a term, that can encompass many many different things, whilst being nothing at all in fact. Ask someone to define a pop music record and you will get hundreds of different responses, most of them drawing attention to style, structure and lyrical content. Rap became Pop when people realised you could make money from it. Rap Metal became pop once people realised you could make money from it. Any genre you care to mention, if people have discovered that there is significant money to be made from it, and produces it to fit a certain style, becomes pop. Groups like REM and Maroon 5, though at completely opposite ends of the blandness scale, are essentially the same genre. Inoffensive songs about being in love with someone, the world being difficult, things getting you down, looking at the good things. Pop music.

Musicians and song writers are artists essentially. There is a great deal of difference between a song writer and a singer. A song writer has spent possibly years of their life working on their craft, building and composing music that they will be able to market to people. (Because it is a business once you get to the stage of selling it). Singers however, have (possibly) a good voice, some sort of saleable appearance...and that's it. They go through vocal training and learn to use their voice "correctly" and are brought on board a musical project in the same way a spokesperson is brought on board an advertising campaign. They are essentially the salespeople for the song. The song is the commodity, and they are selling it to you.

When i say that they learn to use their voice correctly i am of course being "sarcastic". It occurs to me that you could turn on any radio station anywhere in the country and hear the same song, the same vocal style, the same musical arrangement, but a completely different artist. The commodification of music has sucked all the soul out of it. Because it has become a business, they have streamlined and commercialised it. So there is no room for experimentation in Pop. No time for long instrumental pieces. They are selling you a product, and the way they can do that most easily is with "singers" preferably these days, singers that ordinary people can relate to. One of the most important rules in sales is that of relating to your customer. 

Because they have "streamlined" and "downsized" their business, there is only room for standardised products. There can be no factory seconds, and so any stench of difference is cleansed to within an inch of its life, lest it affect sales. Standardisation is the name of the game now. And with standardisation comes mediocrity, banality, lack of thought or imagination and a deadening of the product, so much so that the industry itself blames its own demise on the consumers for not consuming enough. Never mind the fact that the songs are all sounding vaguely exactly the same now, or that you could swing a cat in a tv studio and hit someone who has released an album or a single. It's obviously the audience that are doing it wrong. The method cannot possibly fail. It's obviously the case that the people who the music is made for are wrong.

They say that the internet is killing the music industry. That people aren't spending enough money on albums. It couldn't possibly be that the music being played on the radio and on the tv is by someone with no discernible talent of their own (save for the fact that they can hold a note or two), and that these ten a penny "singers" are springing up in literal droves on the internet, some even better than those that do make songs that get into the charts. In my opinion the internet is saving music, and reviving the ghost of what was once a great industry, before the big companies came in and removed any trace of creativity or originality. It's just that now the big companies can't hack it in the competitive market, they're crying out that the new way isn't fair. That they hadn't planned for it, and that they didn't know it could go this way. Well tough. You should have thought of that before you ruined music.

As Jello Biafra says in "MTV Get off the air" Could it be that you made one too many lousy records?

Pop music (not music that becomes defined as pop. Music that is written specifically under the heading "pop music") is written by scientists. IF you listen to any pop song on the radio now, you will find that they follow a certain formula. Every sub genre has it's own trademarks and signatures, but by and large you can basically predict how these songs go. Try it out for yourself. Find a pop song you have not heard before and see if you can tell when the chorus is coming up, when the bridge is coming up, when the solo/middle eight section is coming up and when the surging key change is coming up. These are the standard elements of the pop song, and they are ever present. 

A writer of pop songs knows exactly what to put where. Popular music is popular because, like anything popular, it is safe and predictable. For some reason people really like predictability. Predictability becomes a hallmark of skill and talent. These people are basically taking the equation for a song, fitting the melody, the tempo, the key around this skeletal structure, finding a singer that suits the style and putting out the songs. They are not creating anything artistic, anymore than i am performing mathematical calculations by writing the numbers one to fifty in ascending order. 

Next week i'll tell you how to write your own pop song. With any luck, i'll be raking it in in the new year.

Here is my asking.

This is my asking,

This is my request. Put me to work, use me as required. Help me to be as close as possible to useful as i can be. If i need to be a channel, then please work through me, if i need to be a vehicle, please take control. I wish to be of as much benefit as possible. I'm moving into a space of love and acceptance and i'm hopeful for the way things are going, and how they will work out. I can see great things ahead, and i wish to be of as much use as possible.

If i stray, please don't give up on me. I have an active imagination and i like to wander around and take in the scenery. I do have a couple of requests that i would ask be taken into account before any deal is struck. I would like to only work with those who will work for my best interest. I will only cooperate with those who have my highest and greatest good in mind. I do not wish to work with any who would cause harm or work in a way which unnecessarily affects anyone in a negative way. I would appreciate it if i could be used as much as possible as a force for good, and not in pursuit of any negative energy.

If you are willing, please get in touch. I will be awake for the next couple of hours, so don't worry about disturbing me. I am very eager and anxious to get started, so please don't hesitate if you are interested.

Yours in anticipation

Much Love

Anton

Tra La Laa...

There are many many reasons not to get out of bed on a morning. Number one, it's nice and warm. Number two, there's not really any need to. Number three, you will never be as comfortable during the day as you are at that moment. It occurred to me how much time i actually spend in bed. Not sleeping, not attempting to sleep. Not really doing anything, just staring at the ceiling and thinking. Or staring at the wall and thinking. Mainly just thinking.

And then it occurred to me how much time i spend just thinking about things. Not even important things, just opinions, ideas, theories. How integral thinking is to my life in general. That kind of stuff. Which reminded me of something someone said to me a few months ago. 

I asked one of my friends at work (colleagues is probably closer to the truth. Acquaintances even more so) what she thought about religion. She said she never really thought about things like that. I asked, "don't you ever wonder about the big stuff? Like aliens, heaven, life after death? Things like that?" 

She said. "No..."

"...i don't like thinking"

Not, "i don't like thinking about that stuff." or "No, i don't like thinking too much." Just that she doesn't like thinking. About anything. At all.

I tried to press the issue with her. Nothing? THere was no topic she was ever curious about, that she just liked to sit and think about?

To which she replied, "Thinking makes my head hurt"

I nearly burst into tears at this point. I had spent quite a few years having to convince myself that people like this were only fictional. Fairy tales, along with 15 year old mothers of four. But here she was, real as you like. My brain just stopped. I didn't have a reply, an answer, even an idea what to say to this. How could someone get by in the world, being happy just working in their mind numbing job, and completely without any interest in whether there might be anything to this crazy old thing we call life. It actually literally broke my head.

Having met this person, i realised that not everyone does have a thought about the meaning of life, or love, or their purpose in life. Maybe i am some kind of intellectual snob for assuming that people actually care about these sorts of things. Maybe i am completely out of touch with anyone and everyone. 

Not that it makes any difference, other than now i know that i'm more alone than i thought i was. But not that much more.

Am i wrong? I can't be wrong about this...

I think...

Seasons in the sun...

I had a moment the other day where i said goodbye to a part of myself. I was lying on the sofa snuggled up warm, watching a cheesy romantic comedy (The Holiday, which is surprisingly not as bad as i was thinking it would be. Jack black is good in it, even without crazy voices and funny eyebrows. Quite understated.) There is a section where one of the women (kate winslett. I don't know what her name was in the film. I wasn't paying that close attention when it was introducing people.) was giving a speech about being alone and feeling miserable. It was the first part where i really got into who the characters were and what was happening, mainly because i recognised myself in them all.)

(too many brackets already)

I had a little moment of sadness myself. A self pitying remembrance of my own, and what i had considered to be my creative heyday. Sadness, depression, heavy drinking, smoking and swearing. And pages and pages of writing with which to back it up. Reams of self deprecation and snide remarks. Sarcasm dripping from every sentence. 

There was a point not too long ago where i felt that for me to be happy would be selfish. It was only in my depression and my misery that i was producing anything of value, and so to turn my back on the maudlin me was an affront to my own artistic ambitions. I could either be miserable and prolific, or happy and average and ruined as a writer. There was no middle ground. Being happy would take away all notion of creativity and i would be left smiling, but art-less.

I suppose i had always looked at my writing as therapeutic more than anything . There was no real merit to it. My whining/acoustic guitar phase had passed and writing was all that i had left. The misery was the only way to be creative. Not that i had any reason to be creative, i just knew i had to be creating something. Which seemed as good a reason as any.

So lying on the couch, listening to miss winslett, thinking i'd like to go back to that hole, even just to look around and say hello, i suddenly realised something. I didn't want to go back. The very idea of of it seemed incredibly self indulgent. I wasn't doing it for any artistic reason. I was attempting to force a depression because i would be able to write about sadness and depression and hopeless despair, as though the world wasn't swimming in it already.

And i thought to myself, i don't need that anymore. I am more intelligent than i am depressed, and so i can write using my intelligence. I am more funny than miserable, so i can write with my sense of humour. I am more spiritual than i am suicidal, so i can write about my ideas and beliefs. I am more philosophical than i am deranged and despairing, so i can write about my thoughts and understandings. I don't need to rely on violent moodswings as a crutch for creativity any more. And more to the point, i don't want to.

And i gave my lady a kiss on the back of her head. She asked, "what was that for?". I said "no reason" and silently said goodbye to my angst, my depression, my suicidal tendencies and my self destruction. I'm sure he'll be back to visit every so often, but he doesn't live here anymore.