Hey y'all! I discovered the secret to making yourself write when you don't feel like it: writing prompts. A prompts is basically an assignment from a teacher or writer pro that gives you a little gimmicky motive to write. It entails writing in such a unique way that it's interesting and it doesn't take long enough for your inspiration to dry up.
For example, I created a prompt I call drawing a line through two dots. Several notepad bits have random words on them, names of objects and places. The writer takes two of these notepads, and then figures out what they have in common. By making up the reason in a super short story. The point of this exercise is not necessarily to finish a tale (unless you want to) but to take two different things and write, in one or two pages, a possible connection between the two. The possibilities are literally endless.
So, here are some things. Pick two at random and write a connection between the two. Pick once and go for it; no switching.
- spoons
- Santa
- the British government
- a train station
- an old rifle.
- pianos
- pizza
- a pot of coffee
- Toronto, Canada.
Thursday, December 13, 2012
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
Parenting Tips: Embarrassed Moms
Hey y'all. Y'know, one of the reasons why it's so important to have a father figure is because fathers seem to understand how to act better in public. They might not be such good fathers in private, but when I see a parent acting up in public, it's almost never a male. In fact, I can't directly remember any bad male parents off the top of my head in public.
I feel the need to get ranty today because I saw one of the worst mothers ever at work today. While she didn't threaten to kill her child like another mom I saw, she just lost it. Her cute little daughter was being naughty by banging on one of the drums we have at work. I went to the child and was like, "don't bang on that, Sweetie." The instant the mom hears me, she runs up and grabs the child, saying something like, "I told you not to do that!" She then proceeds to yell at the child and go on a long tirade about acting right while the little girl cries and says, "I wanna get down!"
Seriously. That is not how you talk to a child. Would yelling work if you made a mistake? No? Then don't use it on a child.
But what should be obvious from my story is that the mom was embarrassed. She didn't want to be known as a bad parent. Ironically, her defensive behavior is what caused me to call her a bad parent. Children are grabby by nature because they don't understand personal property. I don't think someone is a bad parent because their child is acting like a child. That's normal, unless the child is around ten and really is old enough to know better (kids can't read your dang mind!).
However, grabbing a child and yelling at her is the exact way you'll get me to think you're a bad parent. Surely the bad mothers must realize they look stupid when they yell. Honestly, it doesn't work and moms look bad when they do it. So why do they constantly persist in overreacting?
Another time, back when I worked at a cafe, a little child grabbed some lollipops after his mom told him not to. I saw him and told him to leave them alone, but I really should have prefaced this with "Mommy said". Unlike the first mother I mentioned, this second one merely pulled the child away and said little. However, she did call my manager and tell her that I was yelling at her child and that I'm a bad worker.
First of all, I'm a former nursery worker. I don't yell at children. Secondly, I'm trying to help YOU out, mothers, when I reinforce what you tell your kids. Third, I'm responsible for my cafe, and if a kid is messing it up, I'm going to stop them. I won't hurt them or yell at them, and I won't touch them unless I have to pull their hand from something. Sure, parents won't know that right off, but it should be a given that employees are responsible for their jobs. Do you really expect me to just stand there and let your little kid tear up my candies until you notice them? Do you really want to pay for all that opened candy?
So let's go over a few takeaways here.
1. Don't take it personally when your kid does something rude or insensible. Children push boundaries by nature, and when they get grabby, all you have to do is let them know this is wrong. If you don't care about looking bad in public, your child won't care about you looking bad in public either and rebel against you without concern.
2. Children learn by example. If their parents freak out easily, they'll freak out easily.
3. When children do something that embarrasses you, don't let it. Okay, so the little child was banging on the drum when she really shouldn't have. Should the parent feel bad? No. The child should feel bad. Not horribly bad, but just bad enough to realize banging on a drum that doesn't belong to you is rude. Don't be emotional about it, just let the child know she was in the wrong. If you yell, your kid will just assume you're a crazy person and continue to rebel.
4. It is okay for other authorities to speak to your child. If someone says a child was behaving improperly, don't assume that your child is a perfect little angel and the person in question is a jerk for trying to rationally tell your child he is behaving improperly. Other people can tell you things to help you with your kid, and if you think you're the only one who can tell your child anything, well, then your child is probably going to be hell on wheels to his teachers because he know you'll always take his side.
5. Always remember: you are not a bad parent if your child is less than perfect. You are a bad parent if your embarrassment turns to anger. If you feel yourself starting to get mad, calm down and say very little. I know it's embarrassing when people tell your kid not to do something, but don't feel the need to control your little one to the point where you can't stand them doing the slightest thing wrong.
I feel the need to get ranty today because I saw one of the worst mothers ever at work today. While she didn't threaten to kill her child like another mom I saw, she just lost it. Her cute little daughter was being naughty by banging on one of the drums we have at work. I went to the child and was like, "don't bang on that, Sweetie." The instant the mom hears me, she runs up and grabs the child, saying something like, "I told you not to do that!" She then proceeds to yell at the child and go on a long tirade about acting right while the little girl cries and says, "I wanna get down!"
Seriously. That is not how you talk to a child. Would yelling work if you made a mistake? No? Then don't use it on a child.
But what should be obvious from my story is that the mom was embarrassed. She didn't want to be known as a bad parent. Ironically, her defensive behavior is what caused me to call her a bad parent. Children are grabby by nature because they don't understand personal property. I don't think someone is a bad parent because their child is acting like a child. That's normal, unless the child is around ten and really is old enough to know better (kids can't read your dang mind!).
However, grabbing a child and yelling at her is the exact way you'll get me to think you're a bad parent. Surely the bad mothers must realize they look stupid when they yell. Honestly, it doesn't work and moms look bad when they do it. So why do they constantly persist in overreacting?
Another time, back when I worked at a cafe, a little child grabbed some lollipops after his mom told him not to. I saw him and told him to leave them alone, but I really should have prefaced this with "Mommy said". Unlike the first mother I mentioned, this second one merely pulled the child away and said little. However, she did call my manager and tell her that I was yelling at her child and that I'm a bad worker.
First of all, I'm a former nursery worker. I don't yell at children. Secondly, I'm trying to help YOU out, mothers, when I reinforce what you tell your kids. Third, I'm responsible for my cafe, and if a kid is messing it up, I'm going to stop them. I won't hurt them or yell at them, and I won't touch them unless I have to pull their hand from something. Sure, parents won't know that right off, but it should be a given that employees are responsible for their jobs. Do you really expect me to just stand there and let your little kid tear up my candies until you notice them? Do you really want to pay for all that opened candy?
So let's go over a few takeaways here.
1. Don't take it personally when your kid does something rude or insensible. Children push boundaries by nature, and when they get grabby, all you have to do is let them know this is wrong. If you don't care about looking bad in public, your child won't care about you looking bad in public either and rebel against you without concern.
2. Children learn by example. If their parents freak out easily, they'll freak out easily.
3. When children do something that embarrasses you, don't let it. Okay, so the little child was banging on the drum when she really shouldn't have. Should the parent feel bad? No. The child should feel bad. Not horribly bad, but just bad enough to realize banging on a drum that doesn't belong to you is rude. Don't be emotional about it, just let the child know she was in the wrong. If you yell, your kid will just assume you're a crazy person and continue to rebel.
4. It is okay for other authorities to speak to your child. If someone says a child was behaving improperly, don't assume that your child is a perfect little angel and the person in question is a jerk for trying to rationally tell your child he is behaving improperly. Other people can tell you things to help you with your kid, and if you think you're the only one who can tell your child anything, well, then your child is probably going to be hell on wheels to his teachers because he know you'll always take his side.
5. Always remember: you are not a bad parent if your child is less than perfect. You are a bad parent if your embarrassment turns to anger. If you feel yourself starting to get mad, calm down and say very little. I know it's embarrassing when people tell your kid not to do something, but don't feel the need to control your little one to the point where you can't stand them doing the slightest thing wrong.
Friday, December 7, 2012
Three Writer's Books
Hey y'all. So I finally found the one book I really, really wanted: 77 Reasons Why Your Book Was Rejected. This is a fabulous book that explains the ins and outs of the writing industry. True, it's somewhat negative because it focuses a lot on the statistical unlikelyhood of your story getting published, but somehow its realism and up-front honesty makes me feel hopeful about being published. It clearly defines things that could be obscure or doubtful to a new person trying to get published.
It occured to me then that there are three types of writing books. Books that help you write, edit, or market. While all these things are clearly interrelated, the differences between the three become necessary when you want to find a book to help you specifically. There are so many books out there for a writer that it becomes harder to choose which ones you want. So you have to pick one that helps you out the most.
77 Reasons is clearly a book on marketing because it talks about how to pitch your story (or nonfiction piece, for that matter) and how to promote yourself so that it sells well. There are also other books out there on publishing and getting your work out there, and this is the category of people who feel they are ready and have the other two aspects down.
However, it's always good to go back to the basics and get a book on writing or editing. Writers tend not to like repeating the basics, especially when they've learned a lot about writing simply from writing itself. However, they still don't know proper formatting, or necessarily how to keep motivated. That's where the other two come in. Though, notedly, how I define "writing" and "editing" in this blog is a little more specific than the usual definition, because there are two different needs that two kinds of writers want when they buy a writing book.
Editing is the category for people who are confident in their plot, but not so much their grammar, spelling, and how their plot is arranged. This is the hardest part for a writer, because it's the nitpickiest and a lot of the time our inspiration runs out of steam once we get the idea down -- we don't want to rehash it over again unless we've learned discipline.
However, there is a third type of book that is not like the other two. It's more intuitive and sometimes the authors of them are just weird. But this category is the one that helps writers develop the writing process itself -- forcing oneself to settle down in front of the computer to write, drawing out inspiration, and building discipline. This is different from editing in that it is step one; you can't edit if you don't have anything written down in the first place.
The reason this last one has the weirdest authors is that inspiration itself is weird and ill-defined, and at our core everyone is a strange person. All those normal behaviors are something that people have learned to use to communicate with others. On the inside, everyone has awkward feelings and ideas that they want to get out, and the writing process books help them learn to use these feelings to communicate universal ideals through the use of story.
So chronologically, writing process books are first, editing is second, and marketing is third. While some books might hit all three, most generally focus on only one of these, because each writer needs help with a different aspect, or is simply interested in one aspect at a certain point in time.
It occured to me then that there are three types of writing books. Books that help you write, edit, or market. While all these things are clearly interrelated, the differences between the three become necessary when you want to find a book to help you specifically. There are so many books out there for a writer that it becomes harder to choose which ones you want. So you have to pick one that helps you out the most.
77 Reasons is clearly a book on marketing because it talks about how to pitch your story (or nonfiction piece, for that matter) and how to promote yourself so that it sells well. There are also other books out there on publishing and getting your work out there, and this is the category of people who feel they are ready and have the other two aspects down.
However, it's always good to go back to the basics and get a book on writing or editing. Writers tend not to like repeating the basics, especially when they've learned a lot about writing simply from writing itself. However, they still don't know proper formatting, or necessarily how to keep motivated. That's where the other two come in. Though, notedly, how I define "writing" and "editing" in this blog is a little more specific than the usual definition, because there are two different needs that two kinds of writers want when they buy a writing book.
Editing is the category for people who are confident in their plot, but not so much their grammar, spelling, and how their plot is arranged. This is the hardest part for a writer, because it's the nitpickiest and a lot of the time our inspiration runs out of steam once we get the idea down -- we don't want to rehash it over again unless we've learned discipline.
However, there is a third type of book that is not like the other two. It's more intuitive and sometimes the authors of them are just weird. But this category is the one that helps writers develop the writing process itself -- forcing oneself to settle down in front of the computer to write, drawing out inspiration, and building discipline. This is different from editing in that it is step one; you can't edit if you don't have anything written down in the first place.
The reason this last one has the weirdest authors is that inspiration itself is weird and ill-defined, and at our core everyone is a strange person. All those normal behaviors are something that people have learned to use to communicate with others. On the inside, everyone has awkward feelings and ideas that they want to get out, and the writing process books help them learn to use these feelings to communicate universal ideals through the use of story.
So chronologically, writing process books are first, editing is second, and marketing is third. While some books might hit all three, most generally focus on only one of these, because each writer needs help with a different aspect, or is simply interested in one aspect at a certain point in time.
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
INTP and Understanding
Hey y'all. I'm reading more about my Myers-Briggs personality type, and apparently the dude Richard Dawkins is the same personality as me. Also, INTP people tend to be task oriented, intellect-worshiping, principle admiring folk. Sounds about right.
There's little quotes beneath each person, and Richard Dawkins said something that I totally understand: basically, that he doesn't like religion because it encourages people "to be satisfied with not understanding". I get him. He wants to know everything, and thinks it's weird not to try to know everything. Trouble is, there are some things we cannot know -- like who killed JFK, for example.
However, he is slightly incorrect. One, he shouldn't lump all religions together, and two, God likes knowledge. It says in Proverbs that wisdom is greater than silver and gold, and people should seek knowledge above precious stones. It also says that it's the glory of God to hide a matter, but the glory of kings to seek a matter out. Therefore, God wants us to seek knowledge and created within us a desire to know more. He wants us to be intelligent, and directly tells us to learn, right there in Proverbs.
Y'know, the trouble with Dawkins is that he's looking at God only through logic and thought. Well, the truth of the matter is that God cannot be reached through intellect alone, though I daresay a few people have grown closer to God through studying his creation. No, the truth is, getting to God through intellect is like trying to call your neighbor with your intellect. How do you call someone or meet them simply by thinking about them? You have to go and meet him, or let him meet you.
It always reminds me of how CS Lewis said he was dragged into the Kingdom of Heaven kicking and screaming. God's existence is not dependent on logical thought, but through study. For example, I could, on an intellectual level, create a masterful hypothesis on how the kiwi bird does not exist (hey, if people believe in zombies, they'll believe in anything) and persuade some non-travelling people that kiwi birds are all a scam. However, the trouble with that theory is that all the logic in the world cannot disprove a kiwi, because you can just go to Australia or a zoo (do zoos have kiwis?) to find them. Likewise, God is a person, not an intellectual principle. All you have to do is go to him.
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Write Club -- Nonfiction vs Fiction
Hey y'all. So tonight's meeting was about stirring up the passion of a writer's soul. There is a logical basis for everything a writer writes; a core of subjects that correlate to an inner principle or topic that a writer goes on. This is true for both fiction and nonfiction. The author uses the same core base for both.
What I mean by this is, the stuff you rant about is the stuff you'll write about.
For the first exercise, I wrote down several topics on note papers and allowed the members to choose one, whichever struck them as the most interesting or relevant to themselves. They would then write a rant based on whatever topic they chose.
Topics:
- Government
- Big Business
- Divorce
- Dating
- Intellectuals
- Country vs City Life
- War
So yeah. Whatever came to mind as they thought about the topic would be what they wrote. The thing about it is, the members took each topic in a specific direction. One member wrote about big business, and how the anonymity there is similar to the anonymity of the internet. I never thought about it that way, and it was really interesting to read.
And then I took several items out.
- Turtle with bunny ears
- Fairy statue
- A Mega Man 2 cartridge
- A glass globe with color in it
- A glowy shimmering device that spins
- A Chinese fan
The members would take these items and relate them to their topic of choice, and then write up a fiction scene based on the item. For example, the member who chose big business wrote a little scene involving the making of Mega Man 2. I chose the fairy statue and wrote about how an intellectual would see a fairy statue in art versus her non-intellectual sister.
You see? You can always draw a straight line between two points. Any item can inspire a story from your base motivations -- base as in the foundation, not base as in low class. The last thing I had the members do was write a short list of the things they could rant about for hours. The list they compiled could usually be summed up by one or two words.
For example, one list was:
- Theology
- The middle east
- Troubles with democracy
- Moral dilemmas
The obvious tie between these is cultures, meaning that the writer would probably not write war novels or general fiction, but rather about cultures and how a person would live in such a culture when it contradicts their own morality.
So yeah, what are the things that you rant about?
What I mean by this is, the stuff you rant about is the stuff you'll write about.
For the first exercise, I wrote down several topics on note papers and allowed the members to choose one, whichever struck them as the most interesting or relevant to themselves. They would then write a rant based on whatever topic they chose.
Topics:
- Government
- Big Business
- Divorce
- Dating
- Intellectuals
- Country vs City Life
- War
So yeah. Whatever came to mind as they thought about the topic would be what they wrote. The thing about it is, the members took each topic in a specific direction. One member wrote about big business, and how the anonymity there is similar to the anonymity of the internet. I never thought about it that way, and it was really interesting to read.
And then I took several items out.
- Turtle with bunny ears
- Fairy statue
- A Mega Man 2 cartridge
- A glass globe with color in it
- A glowy shimmering device that spins
- A Chinese fan
The members would take these items and relate them to their topic of choice, and then write up a fiction scene based on the item. For example, the member who chose big business wrote a little scene involving the making of Mega Man 2. I chose the fairy statue and wrote about how an intellectual would see a fairy statue in art versus her non-intellectual sister.
You see? You can always draw a straight line between two points. Any item can inspire a story from your base motivations -- base as in the foundation, not base as in low class. The last thing I had the members do was write a short list of the things they could rant about for hours. The list they compiled could usually be summed up by one or two words.
For example, one list was:
- Theology
- The middle east
- Troubles with democracy
- Moral dilemmas
The obvious tie between these is cultures, meaning that the writer would probably not write war novels or general fiction, but rather about cultures and how a person would live in such a culture when it contradicts their own morality.
So yeah, what are the things that you rant about?
Saturday, November 24, 2012
Mega Man is Dead
Hey y'all. Grim title, eh? Well, it's true. Not that Mega Man doesn't have a ton of fans, each playing the games, listening to the music, and writing fanfiction. These all exist, and yet the series is over. Gone. More or less finished forever.
The thing about Mega Man is that it's not a continuous storyline. It has to end sooner than other series. Take Super Mario Bros for example. It has almost no plot, and there is almost no relevant connection from one game to the next. Mega Man and other similar series (Metal Gear Solid, Halo, Assassin's Creed, etc) will all die in the end, because eventually people will run out of plot. If plot continues from one game to the next, then it one day must end, or people will call the newer games hacks and tell the game developers that they might as well let the series die.
Mega Man is already dead, and not because fans asked for it. In fact, the fans have protested time and time again for it to come back. But it can't, for the simple reason that the plot is over.
I'll start with the Classic series. It was wonderful when it came out, and unlike what many people thought, the series was not intentionally cheesy until 7, and it was only the 8 bit graphics that made it so. Think of the ending sequence for games 2 and 4. And what's so cheesy about Mega Man's long lost brother kidnapping their creator? Only when Mega Man came on the SNES did the developers decide to add in forty bajillion eye-popping colors and flying confetti.
The darkness in the early games, particularly 2 and 4, reveals what Keiji Inafune had in mind all along: a grim, futuristic story of a society that creates robots, and thus their own doom. However, once the Super Nintendo came along, there was no need for Classic to be serious. In fact, it was probably made intentionally goofy to contrast with Mega Man X, who first debuted on the SNES.
The X series was more or less like the Classic series, only with more complex gameplay and plots. There was a lot to like and dislike about it, but what it did do was take a more or less happy series and plunge it into gloom. Instead of a blue robot merrily destroying goofy baddies, we get a blue emo and his blonde friend pondering all the crappy parts of life. The story goes down such a bad direction, that thinkers among the gamers will realize a disturbing truth: in no Mega Man X game does the future turn out better in the end. In fact, many times the world is only marginally better off than it would have been if X and Zero hadn't fought at all.
To make it worse, their main enemy Sigma simply cannot die. Unlike Dr. Wily, who thought of various silly ways to escape and return for revenge, Sigma is literally killed seven times and comes back afterwards without fail. Clementj642 likes to say that Sigma died in MMX8 for good, but we really have no way of knowing that, as the game doesn't say directly and it would be easy as ever to retcon Sigma alive. You almost want to tell X and Zero to just give up before Sigma comes up with an even more nefarious plan and infects more robots.
Starting from the Mega Man Zero series onward, the series just continually drops more of its basic elements and becomes something else entirely -- usually something depressing. While Zero did have a refreshing gameplay style (a new villain for every game? Whaaaaa...?), it got even more depressing than the X series, particularly because X is now a floaty orb thing and Zero is far in the future trying to save a band of desperadoes from annihilation. The world is scorched and devastated, all except for one city. Which eventually gets destroyed. X eventually dies, Zero eventually dies, and just like the X series, every single game in the Zero series ends with the world in a worse position than before, as Zero was not able to bring any real peace, no matter how hard he fought. The last game literally ends with a girl crying on a hill. Heck, if it hadn't been for saner heads in Capcom, Keiji Inafune would have made Mega Man X the main villain of the Zero series, the only way it could have been any more depressing.
Then there's the Z/X series, which I have not played or seen on youtube. I saw a bit of the beginning, but couldn't really get into it. I find it silly, to be honest. It abandoned even more elements of its predecessors, becoming instead a future where people and robots have merged, and pure robots (reploids) are illegal. Thus, the reploid virus that emerged during the X series can now infect humans.
Honestly, whoever decided humans and reploids should merge was pretty dumb. Not only do humans now get the virus, but if you were a robot wanting to negotiate peace with humans, would you agree to merge with them into the same bodies? No, because that would basically guarantee the extinction of all robots.
This game is just not one fans of the older series can get into that much. I'm sure new gamers think its fine, but that's only because they don't realize it's a bizarre knock-off of the older games. There's a reason only two of them came out. Gamers would much rather play as X or Zero rather than people who have merged with the "souls" of the robots. Yeah. Souls. In metal objects. That's real cute. /Sarcasm.
Mega Man Legends is even more wonky than the others. The worst part of it? All the humans are dead. No really. Those characters you play are not humans, but rather aliens that have come to earth because the humans were gone and they figured they might as well settle here. There's apparently some gimmicky DNA storyline or something explains that humans can come back, but for the duration of the two Legends games they're dead. D-E-D redneck dead.
In contrast with that disturbing bit of news, the games are actually pretty happy and colorful. People seem to like them. Unlike with the Z/X series, I'm fine with that. Why not enjoy a fun game? At least they didn't want to depress you to death. However, the game is not really very Mega Man, bearing only mild resemblance to the series by a couple of names and some blue armor. Someone said they'd like the game better if it was an original game rather than tacked on to the Mega Man series.
But, you protest, how does that make Mega Man dead? People are all the time hankering for a new X, Legends, or Classic game. Heck, Classic even got two new games on the Wii pretty recently.
Well, let me explain. Mega Mans 9 and 10 were created for the nostalgia factor of people around my age. They were not created for new players, and add nothing of significance to the Mega Man plot. Well, not that Mega Man classic plots were ever that continuous anyway. They just touch on our childhoods briefly, without any potential for the MM series. If Capcom made a similarly styled MM11, they would be called hacks for not being original anymore.
Besides, who really wants to play a new Mega Man game when you know in the end that it will only turn into the Mega Man X series? The happy-go-lucky world of Rockman will turn into a really grim world where the good guys never can seem to kill the guy causing all the world's crap. Thus, there's nothing that can be added to the Mega Man Classic series that extends the plot, unless they want to make a transitional from Classic to X. Frankly, they'd be better off just leaving that to the readers' imaginations. Classic is doomed.
Mega Man X does have some potential for a sequel, but it too is cut short by the fact that Sigma's plans have already succeeded; the backstory for Mega Man Zero is already set out, so X can't do anything that goes against what was already written. X would end up almost as repetitive as a Classic sequel would, except for gameplay.
As for the Zero series? What are you going to do? Zero's dead. I don't know much about Z/X, but again, people would rather play as robots than people possessed by the souls of robots. It's just less creepy that way.
At the end of the day, Legends has the most potential for a sequel. However, it's not really Mega Man. Only the vaguest references reach back, and you can't really call a Legends game a true sequel unless one of them has a time machine that goes back to kill Dr. Wily or something.
So, as I said, Mega Man is dead and gone. There's nothing that can ever bring it back, because the whole series is locked into a storyline that forces depression and death on all the characters that we loved so much. It's really difficult to enjoy a series when you know that they'll all fail and die in the end.
So that it's. RIP Mega Man, 1987-2012. Wow, only twenty-five years old. And that's assuming you count this as the official death year. Maybe I shouldn't complain, though. It happens to games. They run out of plot, and the circle of life continues. It just sucks that the game series that made me so happy as a kid is dead now.
Or is it?
There's actually one idea that never really got off the ground. I'm not sure why, as to me it's the most obvious thing imaginable. There was always one guy that they never really used to his full potential, who got the short stick in a lot of ways. He was introduced, and then promptly forced into becoming a side character who just gets to antagonize a little. Basing a game on him would create not only a new series with new plot, but also allow new gameplay developments to arise and shake up the Mega Man series. And what am I talking about?
Mega Man: Bass
No really, I mean it. I didn't play the later classic games as a kid, but when I would watch the playthroughs on youtube, I wondered why they didn't give him more to do. It would be a good way to shake up gameplay. Mega Man's gameplay didn't change much until you get to the Zero series, and by then the doom and gloom plot pretty much assured that all the characters you cared about would be dead.
That's why Bass is so important. Removing Mega Man as the main protagonist and replacing him with Bass would automatically guarantee different gameplay just due to Bass' shooting abilities and how he flies with Treble. Bass is most of the time more flexible in gameplay than Mega Man, as cute as the blue bomber is. Levels would be designed after Bass' style of fighting and end up being way different.
On a plot level, it would be interesting to do this. Though it would necessitate getting rid of Mega Man somehow, permanently or just for a game or two.
1. Bass actually does kill Mega Man, but afterwards realizes his victory is hollow because "Wily is stealing all my glory" and goes to kill Wily.
2. Bass kills Mega, but is badly injured. Dr. Light repairs him out of kindness, and Bass feels guilty so he goes after Wily.
3. Mega Man retires and rejoins Dr. Light in his laboratory.
4. Bass has to rescue Mega Man. (Lol!)
5. Mega Man is down for upgrading and can't stop Wily. Bass goes to prove that he can do it alone.
6. A new villain shows up and destroys both Dr. Wily's and Dr. Light's labs. Bass goes in revenge.
7. A new villain shows up, but Mega Man is busy dealing with Wily so Bass decides to see if the new baddie has anything worth stealing. Bass ends up being hailed as a hero, and starts getting addicted to the praise of the public.
These are all possible storylines, and I'm sure you can think of some you'd like as well. The only trouble is that the robot apocalypse, a concept created by fans to explain all the depressing whatnot of the X series, hasn't been dealt with. The future is still going to be dark, gloomy X stuff. And, unfortunately, one of the options available is to have Bass responsible for the apocalypse, because he took over Mega Man's job. That's just too sad. Bass has been struggling with significance since he was built, and to have him responsible for the ultimate destruction of the world is too much.
But there's still a solution. A time change! Yay! When I was doing my Mega Man fanfiction, I did such a change. For a possible game, however, this change would have to be directed by Bass, as he would be the main character. After a few games with Bass as the hero, there would come a game with two endings. One would lead to the X series, and the other to freedom, and a new future for Mega Man! One that isn't depressing as all get out, and is a new blank slate for the series! That means more games, more fun characters, and a future that can last into a new generation of gaming.
Why not give my Mega Man fanfiction a look while you're here? It's fun stuff.
http://www.fanfiction.net/s/5128867/1/Okkusenman
The thing about Mega Man is that it's not a continuous storyline. It has to end sooner than other series. Take Super Mario Bros for example. It has almost no plot, and there is almost no relevant connection from one game to the next. Mega Man and other similar series (Metal Gear Solid, Halo, Assassin's Creed, etc) will all die in the end, because eventually people will run out of plot. If plot continues from one game to the next, then it one day must end, or people will call the newer games hacks and tell the game developers that they might as well let the series die.
Mega Man is already dead, and not because fans asked for it. In fact, the fans have protested time and time again for it to come back. But it can't, for the simple reason that the plot is over.
I'll start with the Classic series. It was wonderful when it came out, and unlike what many people thought, the series was not intentionally cheesy until 7, and it was only the 8 bit graphics that made it so. Think of the ending sequence for games 2 and 4. And what's so cheesy about Mega Man's long lost brother kidnapping their creator? Only when Mega Man came on the SNES did the developers decide to add in forty bajillion eye-popping colors and flying confetti.
The darkness in the early games, particularly 2 and 4, reveals what Keiji Inafune had in mind all along: a grim, futuristic story of a society that creates robots, and thus their own doom. However, once the Super Nintendo came along, there was no need for Classic to be serious. In fact, it was probably made intentionally goofy to contrast with Mega Man X, who first debuted on the SNES.
The X series was more or less like the Classic series, only with more complex gameplay and plots. There was a lot to like and dislike about it, but what it did do was take a more or less happy series and plunge it into gloom. Instead of a blue robot merrily destroying goofy baddies, we get a blue emo and his blonde friend pondering all the crappy parts of life. The story goes down such a bad direction, that thinkers among the gamers will realize a disturbing truth: in no Mega Man X game does the future turn out better in the end. In fact, many times the world is only marginally better off than it would have been if X and Zero hadn't fought at all.
To make it worse, their main enemy Sigma simply cannot die. Unlike Dr. Wily, who thought of various silly ways to escape and return for revenge, Sigma is literally killed seven times and comes back afterwards without fail. Clementj642 likes to say that Sigma died in MMX8 for good, but we really have no way of knowing that, as the game doesn't say directly and it would be easy as ever to retcon Sigma alive. You almost want to tell X and Zero to just give up before Sigma comes up with an even more nefarious plan and infects more robots.
Starting from the Mega Man Zero series onward, the series just continually drops more of its basic elements and becomes something else entirely -- usually something depressing. While Zero did have a refreshing gameplay style (a new villain for every game? Whaaaaa...?), it got even more depressing than the X series, particularly because X is now a floaty orb thing and Zero is far in the future trying to save a band of desperadoes from annihilation. The world is scorched and devastated, all except for one city. Which eventually gets destroyed. X eventually dies, Zero eventually dies, and just like the X series, every single game in the Zero series ends with the world in a worse position than before, as Zero was not able to bring any real peace, no matter how hard he fought. The last game literally ends with a girl crying on a hill. Heck, if it hadn't been for saner heads in Capcom, Keiji Inafune would have made Mega Man X the main villain of the Zero series, the only way it could have been any more depressing.
Then there's the Z/X series, which I have not played or seen on youtube. I saw a bit of the beginning, but couldn't really get into it. I find it silly, to be honest. It abandoned even more elements of its predecessors, becoming instead a future where people and robots have merged, and pure robots (reploids) are illegal. Thus, the reploid virus that emerged during the X series can now infect humans.
Honestly, whoever decided humans and reploids should merge was pretty dumb. Not only do humans now get the virus, but if you were a robot wanting to negotiate peace with humans, would you agree to merge with them into the same bodies? No, because that would basically guarantee the extinction of all robots.
This game is just not one fans of the older series can get into that much. I'm sure new gamers think its fine, but that's only because they don't realize it's a bizarre knock-off of the older games. There's a reason only two of them came out. Gamers would much rather play as X or Zero rather than people who have merged with the "souls" of the robots. Yeah. Souls. In metal objects. That's real cute. /Sarcasm.
Mega Man Legends is even more wonky than the others. The worst part of it? All the humans are dead. No really. Those characters you play are not humans, but rather aliens that have come to earth because the humans were gone and they figured they might as well settle here. There's apparently some gimmicky DNA storyline or something explains that humans can come back, but for the duration of the two Legends games they're dead. D-E-D redneck dead.
In contrast with that disturbing bit of news, the games are actually pretty happy and colorful. People seem to like them. Unlike with the Z/X series, I'm fine with that. Why not enjoy a fun game? At least they didn't want to depress you to death. However, the game is not really very Mega Man, bearing only mild resemblance to the series by a couple of names and some blue armor. Someone said they'd like the game better if it was an original game rather than tacked on to the Mega Man series.
But, you protest, how does that make Mega Man dead? People are all the time hankering for a new X, Legends, or Classic game. Heck, Classic even got two new games on the Wii pretty recently.
Well, let me explain. Mega Mans 9 and 10 were created for the nostalgia factor of people around my age. They were not created for new players, and add nothing of significance to the Mega Man plot. Well, not that Mega Man classic plots were ever that continuous anyway. They just touch on our childhoods briefly, without any potential for the MM series. If Capcom made a similarly styled MM11, they would be called hacks for not being original anymore.
Besides, who really wants to play a new Mega Man game when you know in the end that it will only turn into the Mega Man X series? The happy-go-lucky world of Rockman will turn into a really grim world where the good guys never can seem to kill the guy causing all the world's crap. Thus, there's nothing that can be added to the Mega Man Classic series that extends the plot, unless they want to make a transitional from Classic to X. Frankly, they'd be better off just leaving that to the readers' imaginations. Classic is doomed.
Mega Man X does have some potential for a sequel, but it too is cut short by the fact that Sigma's plans have already succeeded; the backstory for Mega Man Zero is already set out, so X can't do anything that goes against what was already written. X would end up almost as repetitive as a Classic sequel would, except for gameplay.
As for the Zero series? What are you going to do? Zero's dead. I don't know much about Z/X, but again, people would rather play as robots than people possessed by the souls of robots. It's just less creepy that way.
At the end of the day, Legends has the most potential for a sequel. However, it's not really Mega Man. Only the vaguest references reach back, and you can't really call a Legends game a true sequel unless one of them has a time machine that goes back to kill Dr. Wily or something.
So, as I said, Mega Man is dead and gone. There's nothing that can ever bring it back, because the whole series is locked into a storyline that forces depression and death on all the characters that we loved so much. It's really difficult to enjoy a series when you know that they'll all fail and die in the end.
So that it's. RIP Mega Man, 1987-2012. Wow, only twenty-five years old. And that's assuming you count this as the official death year. Maybe I shouldn't complain, though. It happens to games. They run out of plot, and the circle of life continues. It just sucks that the game series that made me so happy as a kid is dead now.
Or is it?
There's actually one idea that never really got off the ground. I'm not sure why, as to me it's the most obvious thing imaginable. There was always one guy that they never really used to his full potential, who got the short stick in a lot of ways. He was introduced, and then promptly forced into becoming a side character who just gets to antagonize a little. Basing a game on him would create not only a new series with new plot, but also allow new gameplay developments to arise and shake up the Mega Man series. And what am I talking about?
Mega Man: Bass
No really, I mean it. I didn't play the later classic games as a kid, but when I would watch the playthroughs on youtube, I wondered why they didn't give him more to do. It would be a good way to shake up gameplay. Mega Man's gameplay didn't change much until you get to the Zero series, and by then the doom and gloom plot pretty much assured that all the characters you cared about would be dead.
That's why Bass is so important. Removing Mega Man as the main protagonist and replacing him with Bass would automatically guarantee different gameplay just due to Bass' shooting abilities and how he flies with Treble. Bass is most of the time more flexible in gameplay than Mega Man, as cute as the blue bomber is. Levels would be designed after Bass' style of fighting and end up being way different.
On a plot level, it would be interesting to do this. Though it would necessitate getting rid of Mega Man somehow, permanently or just for a game or two.
1. Bass actually does kill Mega Man, but afterwards realizes his victory is hollow because "Wily is stealing all my glory" and goes to kill Wily.
2. Bass kills Mega, but is badly injured. Dr. Light repairs him out of kindness, and Bass feels guilty so he goes after Wily.
3. Mega Man retires and rejoins Dr. Light in his laboratory.
4. Bass has to rescue Mega Man. (Lol!)
5. Mega Man is down for upgrading and can't stop Wily. Bass goes to prove that he can do it alone.
6. A new villain shows up and destroys both Dr. Wily's and Dr. Light's labs. Bass goes in revenge.
7. A new villain shows up, but Mega Man is busy dealing with Wily so Bass decides to see if the new baddie has anything worth stealing. Bass ends up being hailed as a hero, and starts getting addicted to the praise of the public.
These are all possible storylines, and I'm sure you can think of some you'd like as well. The only trouble is that the robot apocalypse, a concept created by fans to explain all the depressing whatnot of the X series, hasn't been dealt with. The future is still going to be dark, gloomy X stuff. And, unfortunately, one of the options available is to have Bass responsible for the apocalypse, because he took over Mega Man's job. That's just too sad. Bass has been struggling with significance since he was built, and to have him responsible for the ultimate destruction of the world is too much.
But there's still a solution. A time change! Yay! When I was doing my Mega Man fanfiction, I did such a change. For a possible game, however, this change would have to be directed by Bass, as he would be the main character. After a few games with Bass as the hero, there would come a game with two endings. One would lead to the X series, and the other to freedom, and a new future for Mega Man! One that isn't depressing as all get out, and is a new blank slate for the series! That means more games, more fun characters, and a future that can last into a new generation of gaming.
Why not give my Mega Man fanfiction a look while you're here? It's fun stuff.
http://www.fanfiction.net/s/5128867/1/Okkusenman
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
Arc Rose Parenting Tips -- Baby Planet
Hey y'all. I know, I know, I have a blog primarily concerning writing and video games, and here this is, a blog about parenting? Well, I've been a nursery worker for eight and a half years (with a half year break somewhere in there), and a babysitter before that. And I am dang pissed off about how people act these days around their kids. It mystifies me how horrible some parents are. I see them in public, acting all stupid, and I know for a fact that they're hurting their child, if only with their words.
You will notice, however, that most of the people I mention in this blog are mothers rather than fathers. This is primarily because I usually see women being stupid parents in public rather than men. This seems to be due to the privacy of men; if they do something involving bad parenting, it's not usually in public. Or so I'm going to say. See if this bears out in your experience, either with your own parents or your friends'.
The number one parenting mistake is this: expecting your children to know everything. Yes, this is worse than yelling, throwing stuff, hiding toys, or basically anything short of physical abuse. You see, expecting your child to know everything is precisely where all these other problems come from. A parent screams at a child because he expects the child to know better than to color on the wall. A parent rolls her eyes and calls her child stupid because the little girl was playing with the swingy door on a trashcan at a restaurant (this literally happened right in front of me). A dad will get mad at his two year old son for crying because he was tired.
But you know what? There's a reason why kids do all these seemingly nonsensical things. There's a reason they say "bootie booger butt" and run around in circles. There's a reason they build up blocks and knock them down. It makes perfect sense for a little one to cram everything in his mouth. And that reason?
You will notice, however, that most of the people I mention in this blog are mothers rather than fathers. This is primarily because I usually see women being stupid parents in public rather than men. This seems to be due to the privacy of men; if they do something involving bad parenting, it's not usually in public. Or so I'm going to say. See if this bears out in your experience, either with your own parents or your friends'.
The number one parenting mistake is this: expecting your children to know everything. Yes, this is worse than yelling, throwing stuff, hiding toys, or basically anything short of physical abuse. You see, expecting your child to know everything is precisely where all these other problems come from. A parent screams at a child because he expects the child to know better than to color on the wall. A parent rolls her eyes and calls her child stupid because the little girl was playing with the swingy door on a trashcan at a restaurant (this literally happened right in front of me). A dad will get mad at his two year old son for crying because he was tired.
But you know what? There's a reason why kids do all these seemingly nonsensical things. There's a reason they say "bootie booger butt" and run around in circles. There's a reason they build up blocks and knock them down. It makes perfect sense for a little one to cram everything in his mouth. And that reason?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)