But when you’re just starting out, eager to do what you want to do, and don’t care about getting paid, to the extent that it even ends up costing you instead, there’s something else putting up a wall to hinder your progress: Networking.

As someone that absolutely despises to network (and generally dislikes having to meet new people in general), this, I believe, has been my biggest setback.

But I don’t think I’m alone in this. In fact, I’ve seen and heard other instances where this has been the deciding factor, where network matters more than what you’re actually doing. And I think that’s horrible.

For instance, an online competition where the contribution with the most likes wins. Even if an entry is above all the rest, it most likely will not win, because a different entry is backed by someone that has a large, or larger, network that they can tap into. An even if you’re the kind of person that would only vote for the one that you feel is the better of them all, you are rare and vastly outnumbered.

Skills don’t win competitions like that, having a vast pool of connections to tap into does.

And there’s an indisputable logic behind that winner as well. If the winner has more votes, even if those votes are not genuine, that contributor apparently has a bigger draw than the others and will grant the instance behind such a contest more attention. Which is, most likely, what they’re really after.

Here’s an example: The DJ Mag Top 100

Every year, DJ Mag holds a vote where they place the top 100 DJs in the world. It’s a pure popularity contest, as the contest is decided by votes from fans. Fans that have no idea what the competition is like, other than their personal favorite. Basically, the DJ with the most fans on Facebook to get through the voting form, wins.

Then again, it just claims to present the Top 100, not the Top 100 Best. And I’m not saying that the people on that list lack skills, I’m just claiming that the order would be very different if actual skill was the premise on which it was decided.

If a contest is to be judged on skills alone, it must have a set jury and can not be decided by popular vote in any way. Especially these days.

Watching the Summer Games Done Quick 2019, I experienced garbitheglitcheress, a speedrunner with the following twitter description:
“Valerie | romhacks and other obscure games mainly | 27 | she/her | | #actuallyautistic | | alt: @garbialteress”
Followed by the pinned tweet:
“Hello, I’m GarbitheGlitcheress; I go by garbi, garb, or Valerie mainly. I’m a trans girl who likes speedrunning retro/more obscure games, and romhacks. My stream priority is creating a good and nice community where people feel welcome.”

It got me thinking about how we define and describe ourselves. If confronted, what do we consider to be our identity? And not even that, but our condensed identity; what do we say to make a short, manageable presentation?

garbi has some very defining descriptions in her presentation, and the three words that stand out are speedrunner, trans, and autistic.
I’m not questioning the validity of any of those terms, but why they’re front and center.

Speedrunner would explain that the content of the account will be speedrunning-related material.

The other two, I’m having a hard time understanding, and I do believe that’s the reason is my inexperience with the topics. On the topic of autism, I’ve been professionally declared on the spectrum, so I have some autistic tendencies, but I also believe that the term and declaration is being used over-liberally to just explain that we as humans are developing behaviours and psychologies that just differ so much from what we were doing 100 years ago that it’s a suitable catch-all. So I’m not untouched by the subject, but I still don’t understand it.

I’ve also never experienced bigotry, judgement or any form of negative consequences of my sexual preferences or identity, even though I’m not exactly a straight cis male, so I’m very out of touch with how important such an issue can be for a person. But why would it be a defining feature, unless it’s a situation that involves personal or sexual relationships?
Is that the primary feature of you? Is that what you do, what you enjoy, and what you are as a person? Why would it be so important that it’s necessarily and introductory item?

If I were to condense my introduction, I would pick things that I do and enjoy, not social conformities. I might use words like “martial artist”, “developer”, “gamer”, “photographer”, but I have a hard time seeing myself starting with “mostly straight”.
Unless it’s a dating app.

To me it resonates as a need for non-conformity. Similar to the stereotype-joke that people that do crossfit, or are vegan, can not start a conversation without including that information; that it’s so important to them that you know this part of their life. To me, unless we’re on that particular topic, that’s just a call for attention. If the conversation is about sexuality, recipes, diet, fitness, or anything related to the topic you’re defining yourself with, then fair enough. But otherwise, it just sounds like a scream for attention over the fact that you’re different than the majority of the population.

And not even population, actually, but the culture that you’re living in. Or when was the last time someone made a big deal over ladyboys in Asia being transvestites or transexuals? Whereas in western culture, it’s more uncommon. However, I would suggest not rare or controversial enough to make it a notable issue.

I guess my life has been very privileged, since I can not relate to these topics.
Or I just find them such unimportant parts of a person that I simply can not understand the behaviour anyway.

Please be aware that this post contains major spoilers for the movie Avengers: Infinity War

In the culmination of 10 years of the MCU, Marvel Cinematic Universe, almost all of the characters that have been introduced end up in a war against the titan Thanos and his Infinity Gauntlet. The two sides of this conflict are the Avengers (and friends) that want to stop Thanos from eliminating half the population of the universe, and Thanos and his minions that wish to balance the universe that he sees to be overpopulated compared to the resources available. The Infinity Gauntlet, when completely assembled, has the power to do this, as it can control life, death, and reality itself, thanks to the powers of the Infinity Stones.

But here come a problem that is lost in translation between the comics and the movies.

The premise for, what the comics call the ultimate nihilist, Thanos is that he wishes to save the universe by removing half the population so that there are enough resources to go around. This does not take into account the possibility for the universe to repopulate and face the same problem again, not does it address other solutions that could be implemented when controlling all of reality and the rules of physics and existence. One simple answer would be to just double the resources, or how about halving the needs? If one controls all, are needs even necessary, or could they be eliminated instead of the populace?

All solutions that would satiate the requirement of saving the universe from over-consumption of its resources. But the motivation for Thanos in the comics is different. There, his goal is to pay tribute to the embodiment of Death, a being he is deeply in love with. He wishes for nothing more than for Death to adore him the same way and for them to become equal. He also states that her feelings can not be forced or manipulated through mind-control, as that would be disingenuous. As a gift, a token of his affection, to win Death over he strives to kill half of the universe using the powers of the Infinity Gauntlet.

There aren’t many other solutions to that equation. He can’t force Death to love him through the Mind Stone, nor circumvent the problem by doubling the resources or halving/removing needs. The goal is no longer to save the universe, and there may be multiple solutions to reach that goal. The quest is to eliminate half of the universe’s populace, and using the Infinity Gauntlet is one solutions to that task; most likely, the best one.

Naturally, not everything can be translated to the silver screen, but this motivation and solution seems somewhat broken. This did not remove any of my enjoyment of the movie, I found it fantastic and I’m yearning to see what the finale in Avengers 4 will bring us. Only about eleven-and-a-half months away.

What I just thought was a great alternative band would be shown to become one of the most experimental bands I’ve ever come across. Their music has always mixed styles and influences from the entire spectrum, and right from the first album it was clear that the potential was enormous. Even though they were stereotyped as, what in my circle of acquaintances was called, “angry white boys” and memes composed of angsty, crying teens with captions such as “I’m gonna go listen to Linkin Park” mocked them and their fans, they were always there with new and interesting music.

Reanimation, where they took the songs from the first album and not only remixed them but totally restructured them together with artists such as KoRn’s Jonathan Davis and Stephen Richards from Taproot, is still a part of my list of Top 5 Albums Ever. The song Frgt/10, together with one of my favorite voices Chali 2na of Jurassic 5, is one of my favorite tracks of all time.

I try to read the stories we’re being sold in the cinema before I go see the movies. Partly because I like to read comics, but also to recognize all the hints, nods, references, characters, original stories and set pieces they portray and write in.

The Infinity Saga is basically about taking escalating doses of shrooms, acid, and DMT

So what I did was gather what is known as The Infinity Sagas, which includes: The Thanos Quest, The Infinity Gauntlet, The Infinity War, The Infinity Crusade, Infinity Abyss, and The End. It was not as daunting and time consuming as reading the entirety of Civil War, but it was still quite rewarding. Both because it’s a good read, but also because it introduced me to a new set of characters that I had not met before.

The big antagonist wielding The Infinity Stones mounted on The Infinity Gauntlet is the titan Thanos. Also known as the universe’s biggest nihilist. He is a enchantingly interesting character that I had not know outside of shallow trivia before, but he is simply grand to dive into.

But the lessons I’ve learned from reading Infinity Sagas and comparing it to what they’ve done with the MCU so far are as follows

1. The movies, Avengers: Infinity War (part 1 & 2) will have very little to do with the source material. But that was also a lesson we learned from Captain America: Civil War.
2. Omnipotence and Omnipresence according to Marvel does not mean what they mean according to, say, Merriam Webster. Or how do you explain lying to/tricking a being that knows all thoughts and intentions; I don’t care how disciplined Thanos is, something is wrong.
3. The Infinity Saga is basically about taking escalating doses of shrooms, acid, and DMT, and then having to endure overwhelming trips of both good and bad nature; sensations of loneliness while being connected with everything in existence, and knowing that one’s victories and failures are both everything and meaningless at the same time. But it also touches on things such as suicidal depression and what happens after you face and conquer it.

I can’t breathe

Horrible things are going on and happening in the world that shouldn’t. But it’s not my world, it’s not the world I’m living in, because it’s not happening in my space. And like most people, I dismiss it with a “I can’t help or effect that in any way” and escape into another world instead: entertainment.
So I start up my Netflix and head into the last two episodes of Orange is the New Black of the current, fourth season. But there are other people in the world that did not dismiss the world they’re living in, and they decided to do something. And what those people, the people behind OitNB, decided to do was make sure even your escape into entertainment could go by without addressing the matter.

They decided to write the death of a character much like the events surrounding Eric Garner. And it’s followed up by the administrative bullshit that represents the way many people feel the matter was handled in the aftermath. Of course there had been things leading up to these events, but effectively they just fit the entire birth, and explosion,  of the Black Lives Matter-movement within these two episodes. And they did it beautifully, showing motivation and effects on both sides, presenting how fear breeds fear, and that people, no matter how horrible, are still people.

No matter how bad the world gets, it’s still worth spending time in

But the pristine gem that made the season finale shine so brightly is how they contrasted the life of the victim, Poussey Washington, portrayed by Samira Wiley. The show usually shows the story about how the characters ended up in their current situation. Since we’ve seen Washintons past before there was no real reason to revisit this story. So instead we get to see what her last night before getting arrested was like. And it was adventurous and magical in a very improbable, but plausible way. She was very happy and we got a glimpse into her joy and a reminder that no matter how bad the world gets, it’s still worth spending time in and not all people are horrible.

I cried like I stubbed my toe on the leg of the table, then fell over and struck the bridge of my nose on the edge of the same table.

However, the issue I have with it is the same across all platforms.

The ending is really weird and unfulfilling. I commend the game for not requiring you to battle your way through it. In fact, it seems to encourage you to go through it using social skills, stealth, and subterfuge rather than combat. Except for the final boss, which can be beaten in a non-lethal manner, but it still requires you to engage. But before that you’re given a choice between going to the battle, or to warn people. Both choices have negative outcomes in some manner, but if you’re fast enough you can do both.

So I started with the battle, and then rushed to warn people. And that ended really abruptly. There was a tiny cut-scene, without any real urgency, and then the game was over after some dialogue with another character.

Before the credits you get to watch a news broadcast that basically goes through the consequences of your actions throughout the game.

And that’s it. There are a lot of threads left to unravel, there’s no real conclusion to the story, and you’re left with a sense of the ending being rushed together to meet a deadline. But looking at what developers have said, journalists have investigated, the practices of the publisher, and the marketing campaign for the actual game, you can see that there’s most likely something else going on.

This game is not unfinished, it is cut up. And the unfinished parts are to be sold to you at a later date, either as DLC or a sequel.

It’s not the first time we’re faced with a game where the overarching story is left unfinished after a game concludes. Mass Effect for instance is cut into three parts, but each game has a definitive, climactic ending.

I had a great time with Deus Ex: Mankind Divided, and I’m most likely going to purchase the next game as well (although I won’t pre-order. Never pre-order, kids). But a great adventure need a great ending to feel like a complete, satisfactory experience. And in that aspect, it has failed.

This trailer has gotten a lot of people up in arms over how bad it is. Especially how it ridicules an aspect that is prevalent in their target demographic with the reference to the stereotype that nerds are lonely losers without a social life.

Cry like an anime fan on prom night

It’s a great example on how the people that do the marketing for games have no clue about how their customers work, what they like, or what will make them buy products. What gamers seem to forget is what their role, and the role of this particular trailer, is.

Ignore the actual game and whether or not it’s any good for a while and let’s talk about marketing. The whole point of marketing is creating awareness; hopefully to sell a product, but mainly to create awareness and implant the knowledge that the product exists in the first place.

What gamers did was spread the word over how bad this commercial was. And as it spread, more and more people became aware that the game exists. No matter how bad the trailer is, the information got out there. And there might have been some people that thought “That is really dumb… but the game looks like it actually could be fun”.

Gamers seem to forget is that that trailer wasn’t for them

The second part that gamers seem to forget is that that trailer wasn’t for them. Gamers that are in the loop and try to keep current already knew that Mighty No.9 existed. They knew the pedigree of the product. And the decision of whether or not they were going to play it had already been made. And that makes them useless to the marketing department in this instance.

And there already were other trailers that showed the people in the loop what they wanted. But those trailers didn’t go viral, because they weren’t controversial. They didn’t ridicule an aspect of geek culture, and so there wasn’t any particular attention drawn to it. The theme was the same, but the target wasn’t the same. It wasn’t meant for the “dudebros” and the rest of the world that didn’t know about Mighty No.9 already.

There was an even earlier trailer for the purists.

But gamers will be watching a game, waiting for news and trailers about it, thinking that they’re owed something by the developer and publisher. They forget that it is a business and that in the end they’re being sold a product, just like any toothpaste trying to be THE toothpaste that you use. And then they will pre-order and buy season passes, hoping for the industry to change.

Of course there are exceptions and good marketing for video games out there. But even those are just using a different approach to reach you as a consumer.

DOOM is all about mechanics

While many FPS, first person shooters, these days go for some sort of realism by using cover and having to deal with magazine-sizes, DOOM is all about mechanics and flow. Instead of tactics that involve sneaking from cover to cover and going for a precise headshoot to  minimize the usage of ammo, DOOM has both corridors and open areas that work both horizontally and vertically, and lets you charge straight in, dodge incoming fireballs and rockets, and with the weapon of you choice, shoot until you run out of ammo. And the mechanics are build around the old school feel of DOOM and Quake from yesteryear, as by executing you low-health enemy with a gory glory kill you’re awarded with health pickups. And when you run out of ammo for your guns, if you have enough fuel, you can cut your enemy down with your trusty chainsaw to be awarded with ammo instead.

And they take good care of the heritage, in a nod to all people that are nostalgic about the old id Software games. The game is full of throwbacks in the form of key cards to unlock doors, and secret areas. Some of which actually are segments and graphics of the old DOOM games. But the cutest are still the Doomguy dolls that are hidden across the levels that play the original soundtrack when picked up.

DOOM is a great change of pace from the majority of modern shooters that are out there today. The feel of the controls and mechanics are fantastic for those of us that grew up on the old games and franchises that id Software gave us. Just make sure you’re playing with a mouse and keyboard; while the game might work with a controller, it’s not meant for it.

The battle between Superman and Batman on the big screen is inspired by the comics The Dark Knight Returns, written and penciled by Frank Miller. Which isn’t at all surprising when you consider that Zack Snyder, the director of the film, also directed the movie-adaptations for Watchmen and 300; two comics that were both written by Miller. But there are synergies between the two that are a bit too powerful to stay within the established boundaries of the main characters.

I think it must have started with Christopher Nolan’s version of The Caped Crusader in his movies Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, and The Dark Knight Rises. These movies were very dark and took the characters and villains to a place we had not seen in the movies before. Most iconical being the portrayal of the anarchistic Joker, by Heath Ledger. This was a fresh take on the well-established superheroes and foes, as most interpretations before had been very colorful and somewhat campy. And it works for Batman, because he is a dark character and he resides in a dark world. But the executives at Warner Brothers and DC Entertainment, the companies that own the cinematic rights to the DC Universe, must have seen the success of these three movies as a sign that people want dark movies about superheroes. Which isn’t really true, as we’ve seen with Marvel and the MCU, that are very adventurous and mostly true to source. But be it out of spite to differ themselves from Marvel, or just misinterpretation of the audience, DC decided to keep the dark tone as they started their own venture to build a cinematic universe.

A pivotal moment that purposely separated the DCEU from the comics

So Zack Snyder got the job to direct the first movie to kick off what is to be called DCEU, DC Extended Universe, the new version of Superman in Man of Steel. And in his first go, in the mov he takes some of the basics of the character’s origin story and gallery of characters and brings it into the modern world. But in the third act he does something that utterly destroys what the character has previously been built up to represent over the last sixty years.
Superman kills.
More than ever before the collateral damage of Superman’s engagement with his foe is presented and In a pivotal moment that may have been purposely meant to separate the DCEU from everything that the comics had forged into the very core if its being, Kal-El breaks the neck of General Zod to save the future of his adoptive planet. He then proceeds to tell the government that he will operate entirely on his own. A big leap from the Captain America-esque, boy-scout version that we’ve seen previously.

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice start with a different view from the third act of Man of Steel, with buildings collapsing and the consequences of a battle of that magnitude and a spaceship crashing being presented again and Bruce Wayne in the middle of the crumbling city. Since the movie only has so many minutes to develop characters and relationships, this is used as motivation that shoulders Batman with many characteristics that have previously been carried by Lex Luthor in the comics; the anxiety that Superman is powerful enough to destroy the entire planet and needs to be stopped. Lex. portrayed by Jesse Eisenberg, on the other hand is transformed from a charming, calculating, power-hungry sociopath to a more clearly villainous psychopath that is a closer approximation of The Joker than Luthor from the comics. But that doesn’t forgive the next sin against the source-material, as Batman not only seem to kill his opponents, he actually does so with guns; a weapon that goes against every fiber of the character as proposed by his origin story.

When the headliners finally collide we get treated to a great homage to what took place in The Dark Knight Returns, which previously pitted the two combatants against each other in a battle of superhuman powers versus human will, ingenuity and martial arts. But where the comics feature the “death” of Bruce Wayne, the movie instead goes on to the two joining forces and the franchise spends one of Superman’s deadliest foes in a spectacle-filled third act that duct tapes the titular heroes together with Wonder Woman, whom could have gotten a better presence in the movie, as they essentially play out the ending of Death of Superman. Doomsday makes an appearance, to give our heroes an enemy of some actual magnitude, and Kal-El goes under while taking the monster down. Bruce and Diana attend their new-found friend’s funeral and in a last second shot we get a glimpse that Superman may not actually be gone forever; also evidenced by his casting in the upcoming Justice League movies. But the scene itself is a reminiscent mix of scenes from The Dark Knight Returns and Death of Superman.

Even if I really enjoyed the movie and the universe that they’re establishing I had to remind myself continuously of one thing. And whether you place the blame on WB, DC, Snyder, or David Goyer, the guy that actually wrote these first installments, you may need to teach yourself the same thing: This is not the DC you grew up with. This is Snyder’s Batman v Superman.