My Little World10

So much going on in the world - debates over heathrow, possible elections, first weekend of the premiership (now officially the premier league) and guess what i'm talking about - video games!!

In fairness it's about violence associated with it, which is a hot topic every so often - i like this bbc article about it 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6943835.stm

i admit to feeling the same way about games as him, i remember i was playing timesplitters (first person shooter - like unreal tournament/doom etc) for several days at the start of uni when we had nohing better to do during freshers week, when i actually went into freshers week and all the twats with megaphones and hooters were annoying me it was quite stunning how much i wanted to pull out my shotgun and blast one of them off the steps, i was even judging distance and aiming...obviously i didn't have a shotgun and it was only a fleeting feeling

it's fairly obvious that this was the result of constant and repetitive actions, and i'm pretty good at shooting games (excuse the arrogance) so my brain had probably wired into first person shooter mode, i was used to carrying a gun and strafing left and right so my first instinct was to fire

scary thought? maybe, i'm no proponent of video game censorship as many of my older posts will show you (as if anyone reads this) and it's not as if there's ever been a solid link between actual violence and these type of games, like i say i easily resisted the instinct, this maybe because i'm repressed and british but i think even if i'd had a shotgun on me i would have been able to fight the urge

far from trying to stoke the argument over violent video games i want to see some serious scientific research, as suggested by the article i linked, into affects on the brain, regardless of sociopolitical motives

i see a fundamental difference between timesplitters-esque games (first person shooters) and other violent games, such as GTA, it's all in the Point Of View (POV) - in GTA (3 onwards obviously) you direct a character around, instruct him to shoot, carjack etc whatever but in a first person the action is through your own eyes, the action (shooting mostly) is modeled as if you were doing it yourself, and presumably your brain will pick up on this and adapt, thinking this is the real environment, whereas in a third person game the brain is linking buttons to the actions of a character, i have never had the desire to flying kick a bloke off a motorbike or do a bit of drive-by despite the amount of hours i have put into GTA, because, for me at least, there is a detachment, much like watching the actions of someone on tv/film, your brain is associating an action with a button but to my mind the first person is far more influential

so now i have to mention it - manhunt, or rather its sequel manhunt 2, which has been 'banned', or rather in britain it hasn't been classified which means it can't be sold

i have never played manhunt but i am under the impression that the killings take place from a third person perspective, apparently from in game cctv cameras, which means while you witness the killings you don't actually get that feeling of strangling someone from behind or whatever, your brain isn't getting the information that says run up behind someone and stick a knife in them, it's getting run up behind them, press button, watch cut scene

the certfication people say games are more interactive than a film so they are slightly more restrictive because of their slightly higher 'risk', but they have never commissioned a report or study into the topic, just assumed that because you are pushing a button to kill someone in a gory way this may tell you to do it in reality, obviously my theory is completely untested and based on limited experience but i think it's a valid hypothesis and worth exploring

take some examples of violence - GTA3/VC/SA, final fantasy, zelda (on wii) - now the gore level is significantly different, but i don't think that's important here, it's the action that matters, gta uses guns mostly, ff a variety of things like swords and zelda a sword, i chose that one because of the wii control

now i suggest that these games do not have a significant impact on my brain despite all the shooting and sword swinging, i used zelda for a reason - you have to swing the wiimote to swing the sword - surely that's a turbo-realistic gameplay and should affect me? i can't say it did, maybe gave me tennis elbow but i was never inclined to swing my right hand at anyone and i believe that this was because it was third person, the character is always ahead of the camera and he acts when you swing and i firmly believe that if this was first person i would be far more inclined to swing my hand at a nearby goblin in reality

as i say i have no firm proof to base this all on but i believe it's an area worth looking into, and perhaps it's time to stop worrying about the ultra-gore fest that is manhunt 2 and start worrying about timesplitters and unreal tournament instead? (i'm not saying ban first person shooters per se but perhaps a realistic and extremely bloody game like manhunt if it was totally first person could be a serious risk?)

--------

anyway, i neglected to mention several weeks ago that i finally finished zelda - a link to the past! the snes game from the 90s, only took me 15 years! i started from scratch obviously and had it done within 2 days i think (probably about 10 hours), very strange how hard it felt when i was a little kid, it was a really long hard game back then, and it was bloody easy, i guess as a six or seven year i wasn't quite as intelligent or skilled

------

i hate blogspirit - just lost a paragraph on coppers, i try again

thames valley police have appointed two 16 year olds as 'community support officers' - these are essentially local bobbys with reduced powers, mainly to do with minor offences and 'stop and search' (grrr) who get paid less

now aside from the fact that these two can't enter a pub but can confiscate alcohol in a prohibited zone, or can direct traffic without being able to drive legally would a couple of 16 year olds command your respect?? i doubt it, i was pretty mature at 16, lacked confidence granted but even if i had confidence back then i still wouldn't get respect as an authority figure, they can't even shave! (presuming at least one is male of course) 

can you imagine a 40-something drunkard behaving respectfully towards a child? granted they might not towards an equally aged copper but there's more chance, plus the experience difference is massive, even between an 18 and 16 year old - personally i am 21 and would consider myself borderline as an authority figure, if i was big and ultra-confident maybe, i have a fair bit of experience and can deal with most pillocks, but i still think i'd want to look a bit older though, 25 say

fair enough if these kids are doing paperwork but you can't just send them on a beat to deal with abuse from the public and handle crowd control or perform searches, would you stop if some jumped up kid told you to empty your pockets? many of us have enough problems with the whole stop and search issue and it's not going to help coming from a child, personally i'd tell him where to go and probably end up arrested (once the actual cops arrived) - i'm sorry but i don't have respect for a child in authority, as a person i can respect them but we are brought up to respect adults, when you are a child the authority is parents/police/teachers all at least in their twenties, a 16 year old would just be wrong

for example as a 16 year old i didn't strike fear into your average mouthy kids, now as a full fledged adult i do, i don't know why but i think they sense weakness, and a 16 year old is still a child remember

i'm sure the daily mail will pick this up and shame me for having to agree with them but i hope i haven't come off as right wing as them ('30 mile shadow of fear!!' anyone??) and i think i'm being fairly balanced, maybe i'm not but i'm no blustering middle aged woman whinging on about society's ills either

note: this was apparently done because the police had 'targets' - obviously the only applicants were 16 year olds, and plus more community officers = cheaper! i worry for the police force, even if i don't like them 

I love radicals, thanks to the whole BBC splicing the queen a bit and ITV implying the death of the Alzheimers bloke a bit early, channel 4 are now accused of essentially fabricating that doc they did on green lane mosque a while back (i must have blogged on it, see archive)

Lets see, the BBC commisioned a doc on the queen for some anniversary or birthday or something, the trailer was edited so it looked like she stormed out which was out of context, fair enough, a bit of sensationalism - cue furore and weeks of apologies

ITV then had a doc on a bloke with Alzheimers who died at the end, apparently they said 'he died' at the end, but he actually slipped into a coma and died three days later - seriously? i hardly consider that newsworthy or lying, it didn't upset anyone and it was just a roll-on for the BBC thing - EDITING?? you can't edit a tv show!!!

Cue radical muslims jumping on the bandwagon and condemning that doc that came out about 6 months ago, oh you only just noticed?? a little convenient

lets look at the situation, the BBC doc spliced the trailer naughtily, the ITV one glossed over the facts a bit, Channel 4 apparently edited both video and audio footage to make it appear that these blokes said things which they did not, with very convincing splicing which makes their mouths move in perfect synch with the audio - see a difference

(or they were 'taken out of context' - because there's a perfectly reasonable context for saying 'kill all homosexuals')

This is a pretty serious accusation, it's conspiracy basically and the claims are so retarded that they wouldn't even go on newsnight to debate, forcing channel 4 to investigate to make sure and waste time and money

as for the 'kill all homosexuals' line (this is the only one i can remember) i'm in two minds with the whole freedom of speech unless it's a security threat - on the one hand if you are telling people to go out and kill/rape etc which harms other people essentially then there's a fair argument but the idea of restricting freedom of speech never sits well with me, i know it's always been restricted in some ways - libel/slander etc but when you talk about enforcing rules i don't like it, i prefer the idea of self-control, the idea that you know the line and you control yourself to be reasonable and rational, unfortunately not everyone thinks like me and some people are scum - on the most part people are free in this country so the self-control works on the ground, social rules control what is acceptable but still the idea occasionally worries me

hmm, all those references to death/radicals etc may make me appear like a terrorist to those government conspiracy people who search for bad guys online - i'm not a terrorist, honest!

i haven't written anything in a while, perhaps laziness but also i haven't been doing anything lately, just boring old routine

i 'm debating whether to see the simpsons movie, reviews are mixed, most people say it's funny but not at the apex of humour like it was in the good ol days, so by that i compare it to seasons 9/10 - good but not its best, but better than the crap theyve been serving up for the last few years 

apparently it lacks memorable quotes, good episodes have several, all ive heard so far is the 'spiderpig' song, which is pretty funny, and unfortunately in the bloody trailer anyway

likewise not enough supporting cast (i am told), a major weakness of recent seasons has been too much focus on the eponymous family 'the simpsons are going to...' or 'what crazy adventures can the simpsons get into now?' - more location changing and plot driven stories - it's understanable considering its been going for 20 years, there's only so much you can do with character development and comedies always suffer the same fate, they explore every avenue - look at friends, scrubs, frasier - there becomes so much backstory that little more can be added to save confusion - the simpsons has got away with it through reputation and self-mocking but watching a few of the latest episodes you see it's just crap now, the one ricky gervais wrote is supposed to be one of the best 'new' ones - it was nothing compared to the old seasons (currently airing on channel 4 every evening)

I'd quite like to see this movie be the end of the Simpsons, it's not going to get any better and whilst the movie isn't a classic by all accounts it's a good watch, better than letting it continue its current run - i love the show but i think its time is over now - i still need to watch it of course

onto more pressing issues - football, it returns! praise be someone! something to watch on the weekends

chelsea and united had the mostly pointless community shield today - united won on penalties in a match that seemed to have already been aired in may 

but that aside we got to see a bit of new blood - nani was taking united's corners and looked good, so they now have a spare ronaldo, or just two of them, chelsea had new boy malouda out - he looks strong and his goal was well taken, he might add something that's been missing from the blues for a while, a bit of excitement - he looks like good cover for the missing african strikers that may well damage them next year, likewise terry is out for a few weeks apparently - they rely on him far too much and i fear they may slip slightly at the start, so lets just hope liverpool can have a decent start for once

 that'll do, it's hot