Dude, bacon pancakes

asdasd school blog asdsasd JACE

Notice how the trainer in Pokemon X and Y’s trailer is in his teens?


Begin essay. Title: Dude, you still play Pokemon?

Alright, so before anyone freaks out and starts getting backhurt (word isn’t really ‘back,’ but this is an academic blog post, so) and gets heated up, getting ready for a debate over how the game is not even really for kids, I must say that I, myself, still play Pokemon.

We cool?

Now, deciding on this topic, it would be difficult to determine whether the siding of this essay would lean towards a big, green ‘yes’ that says it really is marketed for children age 7 and probably below, or that it is marketed otherwise; that the main market that Nintendo is, whether it be subtly or not, (m)aiming to are us. The generation that as kids started with Red, Blue and Yellow. The now-20’s. The young adolescence.

Personally, Pokemon has been an interest of mine ever since Pokemon Yellow came out. The idea of the variety of options to use for a team of monsters, along with the friendliness and being engaging of the environment and the gameplay, among other factors, make the game something that would pique the interest of most gamers. I recently got Pokemon Y, the sixth and latest generation of the franchise, and as much as I can say that it stayed true to the essence of playing a Pokemon game, it clearly introduced a number of aspects added to the gameplay that is undoubtedly too critical and complicated for a mere kid to comprehend.


Aside from the online aspect of the gaming (to which we can give props to Nintendo to, nonetheless, as they made attempts to make their online community exhibit a safe and friendly environment, but that’s a different case), they made effort to officially open and make known to the gamers the concepts of EVs or Effort Values and IVs or Individual Values, moreso and implementing it with additional gameplay aspects like EV-Training and the now more intricate but less complicated (word: systematic) field of breeding for IVs.

Thus, then, with these very facts, it supports my claim that Nintendo could have started aiming into a different market with the release of their latest game. Further research on the web shows quantifiable proof of the claim; even if a number, still, of younger audience entertains the product, a noticeable and major increase towards the audience of ages 19-24 can be seen growing. (Source is here and here.) The chart below shows the start of the said trend upon the fifth generation’s selling.

A way to make sense of why this path is what Nintendo took as to how they presented and produced their sixth generation games, namely, Pokemon X and Y, is to monitor and give consideration to their “loyal” market, meaning, those who grew up playing their games and are, then, now in their 20’s or around. The moment they started giving attention to this then-tapped, now-tappable-again (-or still) market is the moment when they realized that adding a few concepts that are very intricate, challenging and yet still enjoyable is doable and in fact, would gain a lot of praise and positive commendation for them.

Granted, Pokemon in one, quick look is very childish. But saying “to each his own” is not fair in justifying why adolescent people become interested in it. This sense of a game that we grew up with paired with new, now-needing-effort aspects of gameplay is only a few (albeit major) of the factors that make these games inclined to the world of Pokemon.




They have a point.


Ever since the reveal that was this racy, almost naked version of everyone’s beloved wigged-singer Hannah Montana featured in a music video singing about how they lack the capability to ‘stop,’ the internet community has gone (and went over being) bananas with how un-class-y our darling of a Miley Cyrus has become.



Has she succumbed to the dark side that is the pop industry who’s overly famous and known for exploiting women and sex to sell and make multiple platforming records and songs to the desensitized community that is us consumers? And did this certain kind of submission to “the devil,” that is, the producers and the recording companies with their marketing strategies, only occurred now, which is why the internet people has only voiced out their so well-meaning concerns and ideas regarding how “oh, this is such an unfortunate event to happen may the Lord God help her?”


CollegeHumor’s video points out their point (hehe) that it is most certainly not the case.


As their video progresses, they talk about how little miss Cyrus’s escapades are the catalysts of such irrational, racy and offensive behaviours. The irony of their presentation is that, as their loads of opinions are being catapulted to the audience, clips proving said certain behaviors are inserted and shown, without miss Cyrus in it, ultimately proving that dancing naked in a music video or posing topless for a magazine cover has been done way back and years before. This issue then asks the question, “why only act out now, people?”

Point (and you may sing along to the tune of Cyrus’s infamous courage and hope and all that good things theme, cos let’s all admit it, we all know this): It ain’t about how fast you get there, and it ain’t about what’s waiting on the other side. It’s the hype.



This is how the internet works. Get something interesting enough to work and keep someone’s attention held for more than a little over five minutes, pair it with good publicity (in this case, a certain good girl celebrity gone super, super, what-in-the-hell bad worked like a charm) with a stunt or what-not, bonus points if you can make it scandalous as ever (again, in the case, Cyrus hits the jackpot with her behaviour); add them all together and there you go, ladies and gentlemen. You get an internet hit.


With the miss Cyrus issue, it all comes into place, albeit not in anyone’s desired manner to be so (unless you’re a sick perverted pedophile then good for you, you psycho). She’s been well-known as Disney Channel’s child actress showcasing a wig and passing it off as an alternate personality known as Hannah Montana. Capturing most of the then-young generation that are now members of the internet community, this abrupt and sudden (and most of all, out of nowhere?) change toward Miley Cyrus’s total image is a big blow to their childhood. Pair that with how racy she has become as proven in her ‘We Can’t Stop’ music video as a release to her new album ‘Bangerz’ (really, now, Miley), and you’ve got an issue scandalous enough to incapacitate the consciousness of most, if not all, of the citizens residing in the interwebz. Concerns have been WELL-brought up, with people tweeting and posting statuses on Facebook how they’re very much either a) offended, b) concerned with her well-being, and c) a mere post of how “hey I know Miley is basically a tv porn star now yeah I’m in the know I’m cool sup.” The issue has been brought up with so much impact that it has pushed blogs and news websites to feature her radical change and what it could entail towards the audience that is us.



But has it only been an issue to come up now? In this very recent year that was 2013? Voicing out CollegeHumor’s video, has anyone forgotten the “ideals” and “values” that are brought up and supported by celebrities and singers such as Britney Spears, Katy Perry, Madonna, and others over the past couple or so decades?


So why only now?


As said, it’s all because of the “hype.” The hype that was apparently either incompetent, unseen or barely even there when the videos and songs and other feats by the said other artists came up to the spotlight. No one gave this big a damn when Katy poses naked in a music video for a song about how women from a certain region are “unforgettable,” and most certainly no one gave as negative feedbacks as miss Cyrus did when Britney started exploiting innocent themes and such, perfectly and successfully inserting sexual topics and premises onto and into them.


If you want an issue tackled, if you want a certain idea to be reviewed by everyone concerned, and if you want the public to take such and certain matters at hand with much involvement and self-initiated participation, don’t forget to make sure that the issue you are bringing up to the internet will come with a feasible and probable capability to generate one thing: a hype.




It might be a dead serious video documentary discussing the notions of having an ‘alter-ego’ who’s also you but different when it comes to dealing with the social media, but it gets to the point, nonetheless.


As the title says, are you the same person you are online and offline?


Looking at polls online, one would eventually choose to conclude that yes, indeed, we are different, albeit could be very much or not so, when it comes to dealing with ourselves (on how we look, act, or interact) on the digital side of the grass. Contrasting answers contain I’m-shy-in-real-life-but-outspoken-online claims while there are I’m-too-modest-online-but-very-introverted-offline issues at the same time. They may be two and two claims differently, but altogether, they both say that the very thing that is actually contrasting is the reflection of ourselves and our selves online.



Me? I’m a wild card. At one point in a day I could be talking my mouth off to people non-stop, but look away for a second, and coming back would land you into a place where you’re hanging out with a freshie-like quiet dude who enjoys having his lips closed together and uttering nothing but, well, nothing. They say it’s all about the mood of a person. But radical changes in the blink of an eye could be something more than just emotion control, is it not?


Enough psychoanalysis. The point is, I could be contrasting myself when it comes to the real world interactions I have offline. It could be dependent on the circle of friends I’m with, the level of tiredness and stress I currently am going through, or yeah, it could be mood. But nonetheless, it’s all boiling down to one fact and one fact only: that I am someone unpredictable when it comes to how he is. Contrasting may be an overused word in this post, but contrasting (ugh) is the most apt word to use to describe my digital identity. Shy and not shy, quiet and not quiet, adjective and not + adjective. Me, offline.



But online? I seem more composed. Composed, in a sense, that, I am not as jumbled as I am in real life. This could be brought about by the fact that you can literally monitor (okay, wrong use of ‘literally’?) what you are going to ‘post’ online for your social peers to see, and just by having this capability, you can then pre-organize what you are going to show to the world digitally. I can’t be the contrasting-me as I am offline online, simply because seeing someone like that online would only give you judgments such as rash, does not think clearly before doing (or posting) something, or hell, even weird. Because everyone knows you can choose to filter what you want to post, and you have a lot of time to do so as seen by the evidence that as opposed to human interaction where the person you’re talking to is right in front of you, what in front of you is only a screen. If you would still get awkward silences (?) with your own personal laptop then you are the god of awkward silences.



Is this a faithful representation of myself, then? Technically, yes and no.



Yes, in the sense that it is still me, I post only what I think and is solely coming from me, yet also no, because what I post is not all of me. I filter that one side of me who is rash in thinking and outspoken in almost everything, and what only goes through this coffee-personality-filter is that organized side of myself; not exactly organized, per se, but something more concrete and elaborately thought upon of before making it available for everyone online to see.


Yeah, Cos I Don’t Need Protection for My Breast-al Area


Even without watching the video above, I guess it is perfectly safe to say that in role playing games, and no further paraphrasing from the short clip’s title needed: female armors suck.


Enter the male character. Whether it be a knight or a crusader, or whatever job classes there are that require heavy plates and mufflers, they will almost always come in armor. Fully-clad, from helmets to boots, including the torsos with body plates made from the hardest and most durable available material by your old, friendly or not, reliable blacksmith from the town.


Enter the female character. Oh, wait, am I still playing the same game? Or have I plunged into the depths of some dysfunctional web forum (*ehem* 4 *ehem* /b/) and their female anatomy fantasies mixed with a little steel here and there to satisfy some geeky pleasures? No?



This is the problem. On most role playing games, if not all, armors are weareable hard plates made of steel or other hard materials that are made for the purpose of protecting one’s skin from fatal damages and injuries. Therefore, ideally, armors are supposed to cover every possible bit of exposed skin area this certain character has. No problem when it comes to the males, but wait, females do need it, too. In the same intensity and coverage of materials, ideally.





Who’s that? Who said no? Ah, yes. Consumerism.


Role playing games, no matter what title or platformer they may be, are still in one side, a business. Companies make them in a way that would appeal to their market so as to ensure sales and income and therefore, company success. Most companies can do this by giving the game a little more than enough effort when it comes to enhancing the storyline, making the gameplay unique but still enjoyable, designing a breath-taking overworld, and then there are those who rely to cheap tricks. Tricks known to work on most males. Tricks that are downright effective, as proven by generations of gamers and even societal patriarchy. Tricks, that are, simply put, boobs.


Armors for males, fully-covered, check. Armors for females, fully-covered? A one big no. “That’s how we’re supposed to get our market to get the game!” Low. Even lower than the depths of the underworld whereabouts of Cthulhu. No matter what some of the members of the board, who hopefully are still exhibiting an intact sense of dignity and all the good things the Powerpuff Girls came with (except the girl hair, or maybe yes, that, too), the overpowering hand that dictates the decision for these games will always and always be the market, at least to the extent that these producers believe their market to want.



So how should it be? A blogger from Kotaku claims that “we should barely be able to tell the difference between the shape of functional men’s armor and functional women’s armor.” A separate Tumblr blog  even features artworks of female RPG characters wearing appropriate armor as opposed to what is the “norm.”



But female characters showing little to no skin at all? Who would want that? Well-adjusted people would, Blizzard. Well-adjusted people would.


But apparently, these well-mannered people are not apparent enough.


No matter how strong arguments are of people, not necessarily only the gamer feminists that would most likely involve Anita Sarkeesian among others, these outside decisions would never matter as long as it sells. And who would have the guts to deny a fact such as ‘sex sells’ if it is still prevalent in our time today? Sex sells, and it is the most guaranteed way to success financially when you have the chance and capability to put female characters out there with bikinis made of metal and passing it off as Level 95 armor.



If only these female characters could speak, they would probably sound like the woman in College Humor’s video. And one of them would probably even do more than just merely threatening them with a sword. Where’s your armor now, “honourable” hero?


“How did they get Home Depot to approve this, though?”

Is what this kid, Troy, age 13, come the 00:57 mark in Fine Bros recent Kids React series video, “Kids React to Gay Marriage,” remark with. Not why a boy and another boy. Not eww the Lord doesn’t approve that. Not wow such gay much burning in hell.

“Is that okay?” “Mm-hmm.” “Oh;” “Is that a girl?! *smiles*;” “*lesbian couple kisses* D’AWWWWW.”

 None of that “It’s Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve” crap, just a showcasing of pure innocence and pure acceptance of what these children just observed.

 Ever since the medium of expression that is the internet, people have been, as a sort of expression, then, expressing their contemporary ideals that proved to be more accepting of the then-seen abonimations of mankind – the LGBT community. What source was this hatred originated from? And why is there a need for such hatred, for such unacceptance to these queer folk, in the first place?

Before, when people have yet to rely on the quickness of iMessage, Skype, or text messaging and communication in general, the culture that was apparent in most societies were conservative. Conservative in a sense that people have yet to cross thresholds that they then deem to be unnecessary to deal with, because of such comfort that probably these people are currently enjoying. What this seemingly harmless conservativeness, and its subtle goal of keeping things the way they are, has failed to take consideration to is the reality of the phrase “you can’t please everybody;” such quote that, in a sense, is saying that when you are in a state of comfort, of such state of keeping and withholding what you deem as true, ideal ideals (ideal ideals, true), you are consequentially regressing some aspects of community that have been long deemed incompatible with how the people and their lifestyles are in the current time. This can be in no particular focus only to the LGBT community, but also to such ancient (or maybe still apparent in our time now?) racial condescension towards those of the “melanin-rich skinned” African-Americans. This latter may have been addressed much earlier than that of the former, yet it must be taken into consideration that such acceptance was harbored by literary media, such as novels (The Help is one, notable novel for this) and more active “rebellion” using the means of media. What could then be in store for the Adams-wanting-to-be-Eves and the Eves-wanting-to-be-Eve’s, now that a more effective, penetrative even, type of media is in store for the society?

Reading that last sentence might be instilling of some sort of fear. But no worries! Unless you’re part of a certain church activist group actively fighting such gay, gay (get it) cause with plaque cards and unproductive street rallies, you’ve got nothing to worry your coconut about. Because yes, people are gay for gays.

It became more apparent that the fact that irrational hatred towards the unfortunate part of our community is, in fact, irrational, and this being more apparent of such a fact is made possible by the accessible medium that is the internet, that is the new media, that is life and society in general, if they came as more accessible in the early times. And who wouldn’t agree to such idea of acceptance for the people who have been deprived of from ever since the era of closed-mindedness has plagued our society?


“Gay is bad for you.” “Why do you think that?” “Cos… I don’t know.”

This kid just emulated most of that part of the society that keeps on playing as if “Hey, waiter, that man beside my table ordered a spaghetti, I don’t accept that. Let’s stop him from ordering the food that he chose himself and that will make him happy cos I don’t agree to spaghettis.”


Because of the new media, it’s easier access and its apparent availability to the people who, before, did not have any possible means to have and do so, they became more accepting as they became more informed. Informed of the fact that these people are people, too, wanting of their own preferences, and are the same people as they do who can uphold their freedom of choosing who they can be happy with.

“But if you really like that person, you should be with that person.”

 And these kids know it.

*cue cheesy song* No-nope, no more proposals for now. But yes, more acceptance pls tnx. Four for you, internet Coco. You go, internet Coco.


Ok, glass, google ‘how to be an ass.’ And most probably, the first result would be to get yourself a pair of Google Glass.


Google Glass, as Google’s definition gives, is a wearable computer that bases its functions as a glass-like contraption to be mounted on your head. It utilizes a hands-free, voice-enabled functionality that is paired with a singular screen mounted as some sort of a lens.



As Nasdaq.com describes in their Breaking Google Glass into Pieces article, it defines the manufacturing cost of a pair by something that is not exceeding $194. This would then include materials such as its processors that is handled by Texas Instruments, SanDisk for its memory, a Himax FSC LCOS display for its display, and others. Now product and output-wise, they will come in head mounts that are supposed to function as if it is a pair of glasses, but as of recent, comes only in lens-less versions, yet. The production team plans on pairing up with Ray Ban and Warby Parker for provision of lens that they will then pair with the display of Glass, as mentioned ni The New York Times’ ‘Google Searches for Style’ article.


As usual, people would then again see this as an innovation, technology-wise, that would definitely give an impact to the day-to-day lives of people. As personal, desktop computers transitioned to laptops, from mobile phones to smartphones, and the occasional inclusion of the tablets and what else gadgets that has become integrated with the daily lives of a modernized citizen, will Glass, then, be an addition to this list?


Given by the video of Mashable, they have already assumed that Glass will be perfectly accepted by society as a seemingly ‘normal’ occurrence, with your workmates, family and friends wearing it and having no one to make a big fuss about it. And in the purposes of this analysis, let’s assume that the problem of familiarity and acceptance of Glass as something of a normal occurrence as if a smartphone or a tablet is given.



See how an ass of a guy that guy was in the video? It may be illustrated in extreme proportions in the video, but there is definitely an undoubted possibility that this will be a trend that a few percentage of our society would go down to. What Glass does is that it gives a definite area of the society (say, those potential dudes that can be assbros) a capability to fulfil their life goal of annoying people they interact with. It enables them to bring about that side of themselves that is in a fortunate slumber due to their inability to be smart enough to know trivia people are dying to not know of, or their incessant desire to make a photo documentary of their day-to-day lives that they themselves are dying to push into each one of our throats, hoping for an insincerely sincere compliment that they need as fuel for their lives.



(Before I proceed, I apologize for the lengthy, unfortunate description of these bros/girlbros.)


As innovative and ground-breaking this new invention is, we cannot just go and bow down to Google for giving us something we’re not even sure if it’s something we essentially need in our lives. Yes, it’s new, yes, it’s smart. But for something that is bound to be of an impact to the society in general, we cannot just deny the fact that its functionality, purpose and over-all appeal will be dictating of whether it would be a positive or a negative impact. And with the given situational ‘crisis,’ that is, the norm of social interaction that will be gravely affected by Glass, as this post’s focus, it’s bad. It’s bad enough that we have a**holes in a circle of 20 people we interact with on a daily basis, but with Glass, it’s enabling yet a different market of potentially-capable-to-be-an-ass people that they by just themselves fortunately cannot. Thanks, Obama!


Should this stop? Not at all. Its innovativeness can be utilized in productive means if they are given at the hands of able-bodied, antitheses of these bros. But once it is out in the market, there is no way that we can stop these bros to lay their hands on a pair, is there? Society is itself its own bearer of its own unfortunate consequences.


Ok, glass, good night. No, seriously, stop.


P.S. Not sure if ‘ass’ is a cuss word that should not be used in professional or academic work, but given the usual standard of it’s-a-cuss-word-if-you-can’t-say-it-in-front-of-your-mom rule, I apologize for the many instances that I’ve mentioned the word.