And I'm not even that old.
I recently found my old Game Boy and even I was surprised by how hard the games were compared to modern ones - it had been some time! I remember Duck Tales as having been great fun, but I couldn't even finish one level after over 10 years away from it! Ditto Gremlins 2.
I also remember being accused of heresy by an older school Atari gamer when I said that 'Defender Of The Crown' was crap.
My earliest memories of gaming were on a Commodore 64, playing classic stuff like Jet Set Willy and Mask (also a popular cartoon and series of toys in the 80s, sadly hasn't seen a revival to my knowledge but I'll be looking it up), then a Vic 20 after the C64 broke. Tape based games and old school programing with lots of 'goto' lines. Eventually we (me, my brother and sister) got a Nintendo (NES) with Super Mario Bros. and Duck Hunt. I clearly remember watching a film called 'The Wizard' about some video game tournament which was basically a long (and effective on my young self) advert for Mario 3, and of course getting the warp whistle in the manner shown in the film. I can't really remember many other games we had for the NES other than Defender of the Crown, Snake Rattle & Roll (which was immense) and Donkey Kong, I think we borrowed Mario 2 and Micro Machines which were both rather good.
At some point we acquired a Master System circuit board (no casing) but I don't recall playing much other than Alex Kidd which was built in. By this time I think we has received a Super Nintendo for Christmas, bringing the awesomeness of Super Mario World (we has 92 levels before we lent it to someone who saved over it!), F-Zero, Mario Kart, Zelda, Starwing, and most of Nintendo's output at the time, and some obscure classics like Pop & Twinbee, Mystical Ninja (STICKY NINJA!), Top Gear (nothing to do with Clarkson) and Muscle Bomber, possibly the best wrestling game ever committed to cartridge. I wasted many hours on Wing Commander and Sim City, and had many 4 player sessions on Super Bomberman.
One Bonfire Night we got a Megadrive, which led to us getting the first decent console football game (the first Fifa) and later spending many Saturday mornings repeatedly finishing Sonic 3.
N64 brought the joys of a 3D Mario and Zelda (two of the best games ever made) and the icon that is Goldeneye, (possible the best film tie-in game ever made). Oh and Mario Kart 64, a game I played almost every day for about 2 years. I loved the N64 but the sudden availability of cheap pirated games for the Playstation meant I was spending more and more time on Sony's grey demon. Worth it for Final Fantasy VII of course. I cried when Aeris died. You did too. Admit it. FF8 was good but pales in comparison. I've still got the memory card somewhere. Also during this era we got a PC and I played the likes of Command and Conquer and the last FPS I gave a shit about, Quake, with it's multitude of crazy mods (moshpit mode anyone?).
Then I went to uni. About the only games I played during this times were various versions of ISS/Pro Evo and Grand Theft Auto, and Final Fantasy 10, which has that irritating underwater volleyball thing going on.
From what I gather I didn't miss that much. Gaming made no great leaps during this era IMHO.
I had a brief time with a GameCube late into it's life and learnt to hate Super Mario Sunshine. The flawed version of Mario Kart helped coax me back into proper gaming though.
I bought a DS sometime in 2005 before any decent games came out for it, but after New Super Mario Brothers my collection has increased somewhat. Then we (this 'we' being me and future wife) got a Wii on the day it game out. A such I'm back into gaming properly on these two systems.
I lost the thread of what I was on about. Must be my age.
End.
Monday, 24 May 2010
Infinite Space: Harsh As.
I recently bought 'Infinite Space' for Nintendo DS. Part of the reason I've been slack at updating of late is that I've been playing the aforementioned game. I've racked up about 36 hours, not including the many hours lost by suddenly dying and forgetting to save. More on this shortly.
"What is this shit you're on about?" I hear you gasp, what with all my previous nonsense having been mostly music, politics or footballs based. I'm branching out a bit. Bear with me. It's been some time since I've done a game review.
Infinite Space is a space-based RPG. The story owes a lot to various sci-fi films; the star Yuri is essentially Luke Skywalker without the Jedi powers, and there's a lot of nods to both the Stars Wars and Star Trek, all with a strong sense that you're in some kind of anime series. This is no bad thing, indeed there's a surprisingly deep plot, which I won't ruin here.
The gameplay is of course the point of any game. It's an RPG, so there's lots of random battle. It's essentially turn-based combat, but with a gauge that fills up allowing you to decide what kind of attack to use based on this. As such there's lots of strategy involved, as well as modding your ship as best you can, buying new ships and making decisions that effect how the game pans out. It's the movement of the plot as much as the geekiness of the upgrading that draws you in.
However, If you've never played an RPG before this is not the place to start. If you've never played a video game made before the Playstation era, again this is not the place to start.
People talk about 'hardcore' games, by which they generally mean first person shooters or anyhting which involves killing folk. These people never played the old console games, ones which were incredibly hard, ones where you could spend a week trying to finish the first level, ones where you'd be smashing up controllers after you die in the same place for the hundredth time.
This game is hardcore. There isn't so much a learning curve, more a straight jump from 'start game' to 'harsh as fuck'. You will die, lots. You're probably thinking "yeah whatever, he's probably crap at games, it can't be that hard" and there'd be no convincing you otherwise - I say to you go try it out then, and come back when you've seen your first 'game over' screen. It will happen. Not only will it happen, you'll have forgotten to save. If you've just lost 2 hours of progress, as I did early on, you might even stomp around shouting expletives for a bit. Needless to say you'll remember to save early and save often after that!
But I like the fact that it's hard. I like the harshness of it. It reminds me of a childhood wasted playing Commodore and NES games back when games were proper harsh, when game over meant game over. I think you can even include some of the 16-bit era ('Flashback' just popped into my head). Of course you've got a save function here, you'd go mad if there wasn't [I gather I'm barely half way through despite the 36 hours of play, a completist could easily rack up more time], but it's the feeling that the odds are actually stacked against you, rather than being massively in your favour as is the case with so many games these days (shit, I'm old), the feeling of genuine achievement when you defeat someone who's killed you the previous 4-5 times.
There's bits where not much seems to happen, or you get lost as to what to do next, and these points along with the hardness factor have led to criticism in the various other reviews I've read, some (not all) of which appears to be mollycoddled modern gamers moaning about not being able to burn through the whole thing quickly.
I'll leave this digression because I'm going to carry on in a similar old man way in a separate blog post rather than shoehorning it all in here with questionable relevance.
Infinite Space is very very harsh. It's also very very good. If you like RPGs or a half decent sci-fi/anime yarn you'll learn to love this. If you only like killing Germans or killing prostitutes then you're better off looking elsewhere.
"What is this shit you're on about?" I hear you gasp, what with all my previous nonsense having been mostly music, politics or footballs based. I'm branching out a bit. Bear with me. It's been some time since I've done a game review.
Infinite Space is a space-based RPG. The story owes a lot to various sci-fi films; the star Yuri is essentially Luke Skywalker without the Jedi powers, and there's a lot of nods to both the Stars Wars and Star Trek, all with a strong sense that you're in some kind of anime series. This is no bad thing, indeed there's a surprisingly deep plot, which I won't ruin here.
The gameplay is of course the point of any game. It's an RPG, so there's lots of random battle. It's essentially turn-based combat, but with a gauge that fills up allowing you to decide what kind of attack to use based on this. As such there's lots of strategy involved, as well as modding your ship as best you can, buying new ships and making decisions that effect how the game pans out. It's the movement of the plot as much as the geekiness of the upgrading that draws you in.
However, If you've never played an RPG before this is not the place to start. If you've never played a video game made before the Playstation era, again this is not the place to start.
People talk about 'hardcore' games, by which they generally mean first person shooters or anyhting which involves killing folk. These people never played the old console games, ones which were incredibly hard, ones where you could spend a week trying to finish the first level, ones where you'd be smashing up controllers after you die in the same place for the hundredth time.
This game is hardcore. There isn't so much a learning curve, more a straight jump from 'start game' to 'harsh as fuck'. You will die, lots. You're probably thinking "yeah whatever, he's probably crap at games, it can't be that hard" and there'd be no convincing you otherwise - I say to you go try it out then, and come back when you've seen your first 'game over' screen. It will happen. Not only will it happen, you'll have forgotten to save. If you've just lost 2 hours of progress, as I did early on, you might even stomp around shouting expletives for a bit. Needless to say you'll remember to save early and save often after that!
But I like the fact that it's hard. I like the harshness of it. It reminds me of a childhood wasted playing Commodore and NES games back when games were proper harsh, when game over meant game over. I think you can even include some of the 16-bit era ('Flashback' just popped into my head). Of course you've got a save function here, you'd go mad if there wasn't [I gather I'm barely half way through despite the 36 hours of play, a completist could easily rack up more time], but it's the feeling that the odds are actually stacked against you, rather than being massively in your favour as is the case with so many games these days (shit, I'm old), the feeling of genuine achievement when you defeat someone who's killed you the previous 4-5 times.
There's bits where not much seems to happen, or you get lost as to what to do next, and these points along with the hardness factor have led to criticism in the various other reviews I've read, some (not all) of which appears to be mollycoddled modern gamers moaning about not being able to burn through the whole thing quickly.
I'll leave this digression because I'm going to carry on in a similar old man way in a separate blog post rather than shoehorning it all in here with questionable relevance.
Infinite Space is very very harsh. It's also very very good. If you like RPGs or a half decent sci-fi/anime yarn you'll learn to love this. If you only like killing Germans or killing prostitutes then you're better off looking elsewhere.
Thursday, 6 May 2010
My election day nonsense post.
Permit me a dubious analogy.
My main topics so far have been politics and football, so I'd thought I'd do a bit of a mash up.
Let us consider that Chelsea and the Tories are in the blue corner, and Manchester United and Labour in the red corner.
The blues have a vast amount of financial backing form a generous benefactor, and on such a basis you'd expect them to do very well, yet this isn't always the case. Big supporters of unregulated capitalism.
The reds have been crippled by stupid financial practices and have mortgaged their futures. To fail now could see a rapid decline. Once a home to many a socialist, they've sold out their values yet remained popular. Much trouble in the ranks, with some splits in recent years, and on the verge of outright rebellion if success dries up.
[which would make FC United something like the Socialist Workers Party]
Then there's the yellows. There's not a direct team comparison here. Norwich or Watford maybe, as they play in yellow? I'll run with Spurs and keep it all Prem, lets pretend they're in their yellow away kit.
The yellows have picked up a lot of neutral supporters who want to see the hegemony at the top broken, a new challenger to the big boys. No one is expecting them to pick up the top prize anytime soon but there's a general feeling that it's a good thing that someone else is competing.
I'm about to jump the shark.
UKIP = Bolton. Have been known to sign a big hitter from one of the big boys but generally finish mid table at best, generally lower. Tactics show a lack of ambition. No one is quite sure why they're still here.
Greens = Fulham. Most people have nothing against them, they might pick up the odd success but never likely to start a title challenge.
The Nationalists (all varieties) = Celtic/Rangers. Do well in their own league but don't stand up to scrutiny on a bigger stage. Essentially bigots.
Respect = Portsmouth. Had some big name signings a while ago but it looks like their party is almost over. Those who fuelled their early charge have gone on to wider 'fame' and what momentum they had burnt out a while ago.
Monster Raving Loony Party = Newcastle. Completely mental. Crazy policies, but generally quite popular despite a lack of any success. A good side show.
Pirate Party = Burnley. Have made a brief raid into the public consciousness but were never likely to sustain any serious challenge
Veritas = Hull. Once led by a controversial bright orange chap, now directionless and on their way out.
Thursday, 8 April 2010
Why Charlie Brooker Won't Love You Back
I am aware that many ladies, not least Future Wife, have developed something of a crush on journalist and broadcaster Charlie Brooker.
For those unaware, Brooker is a Guardian columnist who is responsible for many excellent things including Nathan Barley, Dead Set, TV Go Home, Screenwipe and the award winning Newswipe. [I was going to insert links but I'll assume you can use Google if you made it here] These are all things I enjoy, which is why this next bit might concern other fans of Mr Brooker:
In an attempt to curb the festering fantasies of otherwise lovely ladies I will attempt to argue why Charlie Brooker cannot love you back.
1. He hates people.
'Misanthrope' often appears in the same sentence as Charlie Brooker; a bit of googling revealed such gems as "the misanthrope's misanthrope Charlie Brooker" and "celebrity misanthrope Charlie Brooker". You're a person. He hates you. and if you've ever quoted Nathan Barley in public, even ironically, he probably wants you dead. In fact if you've ever breathed oxygen he wants you dead. And if you hated Nathan Barley he hates you for that too. And your mum.
2. He hates everything on TV.
Except 'The Wire' obviously. He's not going to sit through 'America's Next Top Model' or 'Four Weddings' without interrupting to point out why it's shit, writing an article about how much he hates it or actually throwing his own shit at the TV. And don't even think about putting 'Friends' on.
3. He spends a lot of time doing fuck all but watch TV and play computer games.
The lucky bastard. It's also his job. That means he'll be hogging the TV and computer pretty much 24/7. You'll see him, but only slumped over a controller or remote, going slowly mad as he simultaneously watches Sky News and shoots zombies. Presumably not real zombies.
4. He's in a long term relationship.
With his right hand, if Screen/Newswipe are anything to go by.
5. He's a cynicism-powered robot sent from the future.
Yes. Yes he is. As such he cannot love, so your love will be wasted on him.
6. You can't change him.
See above. Robot. From the future. Also if he's running on Windows (which would explain his disdain for non-Microsoft systems - not compatible!) he could crash at any moment.
P.S. In the unlikely event that you see this, no offence Mr Brooker!
For those unaware, Brooker is a Guardian columnist who is responsible for many excellent things including Nathan Barley, Dead Set, TV Go Home, Screenwipe and the award winning Newswipe. [I was going to insert links but I'll assume you can use Google if you made it here] These are all things I enjoy, which is why this next bit might concern other fans of Mr Brooker:
In an attempt to curb the festering fantasies of otherwise lovely ladies I will attempt to argue why Charlie Brooker cannot love you back.
1. He hates people.
'Misanthrope' often appears in the same sentence as Charlie Brooker; a bit of googling revealed such gems as "the misanthrope's misanthrope Charlie Brooker" and "celebrity misanthrope Charlie Brooker". You're a person. He hates you. and if you've ever quoted Nathan Barley in public, even ironically, he probably wants you dead. In fact if you've ever breathed oxygen he wants you dead. And if you hated Nathan Barley he hates you for that too. And your mum.
2. He hates everything on TV.
Except 'The Wire' obviously. He's not going to sit through 'America's Next Top Model' or 'Four Weddings' without interrupting to point out why it's shit, writing an article about how much he hates it or actually throwing his own shit at the TV. And don't even think about putting 'Friends' on.
3. He spends a lot of time doing fuck all but watch TV and play computer games.
The lucky bastard. It's also his job. That means he'll be hogging the TV and computer pretty much 24/7. You'll see him, but only slumped over a controller or remote, going slowly mad as he simultaneously watches Sky News and shoots zombies. Presumably not real zombies.
4. He's in a long term relationship.
With his right hand, if Screen/Newswipe are anything to go by.
5. He's a cynicism-powered robot sent from the future.
Yes. Yes he is. As such he cannot love, so your love will be wasted on him.
6. You can't change him.
See above. Robot. From the future. Also if he's running on Windows (which would explain his disdain for non-Microsoft systems - not compatible!) he could crash at any moment.
P.S. In the unlikely event that you see this, no offence Mr Brooker!
Wednesday, 7 April 2010
The Audacity of Dopes
Merry fucking Christ, the media launched their election frenzy as full pelt. From now until May, probably longer, we'll have nothing but tedious bullshit on the news, in the papers and in various partisan blogs.
After the hundredth dreadful and tenuous metaphor on BBC News last night I gave up interest in the early coverage. That's not to say I'm not interested a t all, but by comparison 'The One Show' seemed like a fucking documentary. Let's hope that the party leaders don't decide that Adrian Chiles and Christine Bleakley's sofa is the place to campaign, although wedging them between items about leeches and diseased cat shit would be quite fitting.
I'll probably regain interest once it stops being so fevered and ridiculous. Or should that be 'if'. Actually who am I kidding, I won't be able to avoid it without getting rid of TV, burning the modem and barricading the doors.
They're trying to turn it into the media circus that the US elections are, making it all about imagine and personalities rather than policies. And there's probably a section of the population that likes this sort of shit, but not a big section. At a time when trust in politicians is at an all time low (and that's saying something) it's going to be hard to stomach a month of wall to wall lies and spin.
There's every chance I'll watch the live debates, in the same way I'll slow down to have a gleg at the scene of an accident. The fact that it was Sky News who did most of the bullying to make it happens tells you a lot about how they feel it will go, considering News Corp have already come out in favour of the Tories. Cameron is probably the most media savvy of the party leaders, and it's going to take a sterling performance from the other two to make any headway. He'll have been watching Obama's performances from 2008 on loop. He's not as cool a customer as Obama though - he makes it look easy and natural, whereas Cameron always seems to be trying too hard (WebCameron anyone?). Clegg is a bit of an unknown quantity (quite literally for some people), but it's Brown who will mostly likely struggle under the glare of the studio lights.
Considering the hatchet job the papers have done on Brown and Labour in the last few years it comes as a surprise that Labour are anywhere near the Tories in the polls. It would be nice to have what is constantly referred to as a 'hung' parliament, or what the rest of Europe calls a coalition government. There's a fair few countries who operate quite nicely with such a thing, such as Germany. I'd rather the Lib Dems were keeping one of the others in check, and I think Vince Cable probably has more public trust than any of the parties leaders or cabinet and shadow cabinet members - him as Chancellor in a coalition government is probably the best case scenario.
I tend to vote for a candidate as much as a party, since that's how our system actually works (note to tabloid editors...), although that's increasingly difficult in this day and age.
Last time around I was in the Withington ward, where John Leech ran a nasty campaign for the Lib Dems mostly involving lies about Christies, a specialist cancer hospital, being 'closed by Labour'. And they were outright lies, the sort of 'make the bastard deny it' shit that has been used in politics for too long - it became the agenda, and it worked, outing the sitting Labour MP who've been there since the 80s. It put me right off him, although he's not done a terrible job since getting elected. If I see any such bullshit this time around my few readers can expect to see an angry post about whichever lying bastard is responsible.
What I'm not going to do is tell you who to vote for. I'm not stupid enough to think a lone voice on a blog with a tiny readership will make a difference.
After the hundredth dreadful and tenuous metaphor on BBC News last night I gave up interest in the early coverage. That's not to say I'm not interested a t all, but by comparison 'The One Show' seemed like a fucking documentary. Let's hope that the party leaders don't decide that Adrian Chiles and Christine Bleakley's sofa is the place to campaign, although wedging them between items about leeches and diseased cat shit would be quite fitting.
I'll probably regain interest once it stops being so fevered and ridiculous. Or should that be 'if'. Actually who am I kidding, I won't be able to avoid it without getting rid of TV, burning the modem and barricading the doors.
They're trying to turn it into the media circus that the US elections are, making it all about imagine and personalities rather than policies. And there's probably a section of the population that likes this sort of shit, but not a big section. At a time when trust in politicians is at an all time low (and that's saying something) it's going to be hard to stomach a month of wall to wall lies and spin.
There's every chance I'll watch the live debates, in the same way I'll slow down to have a gleg at the scene of an accident. The fact that it was Sky News who did most of the bullying to make it happens tells you a lot about how they feel it will go, considering News Corp have already come out in favour of the Tories. Cameron is probably the most media savvy of the party leaders, and it's going to take a sterling performance from the other two to make any headway. He'll have been watching Obama's performances from 2008 on loop. He's not as cool a customer as Obama though - he makes it look easy and natural, whereas Cameron always seems to be trying too hard (WebCameron anyone?). Clegg is a bit of an unknown quantity (quite literally for some people), but it's Brown who will mostly likely struggle under the glare of the studio lights.
Considering the hatchet job the papers have done on Brown and Labour in the last few years it comes as a surprise that Labour are anywhere near the Tories in the polls. It would be nice to have what is constantly referred to as a 'hung' parliament, or what the rest of Europe calls a coalition government. There's a fair few countries who operate quite nicely with such a thing, such as Germany. I'd rather the Lib Dems were keeping one of the others in check, and I think Vince Cable probably has more public trust than any of the parties leaders or cabinet and shadow cabinet members - him as Chancellor in a coalition government is probably the best case scenario.
I tend to vote for a candidate as much as a party, since that's how our system actually works (note to tabloid editors...), although that's increasingly difficult in this day and age.
Last time around I was in the Withington ward, where John Leech ran a nasty campaign for the Lib Dems mostly involving lies about Christies, a specialist cancer hospital, being 'closed by Labour'. And they were outright lies, the sort of 'make the bastard deny it' shit that has been used in politics for too long - it became the agenda, and it worked, outing the sitting Labour MP who've been there since the 80s. It put me right off him, although he's not done a terrible job since getting elected. If I see any such bullshit this time around my few readers can expect to see an angry post about whichever lying bastard is responsible.
What I'm not going to do is tell you who to vote for. I'm not stupid enough to think a lone voice on a blog with a tiny readership will make a difference.
Wednesday, 10 March 2010
A thought: England Team Prediction 2014
Yes it's a long way away right now, but indulge me.
I was mildly concerned about the future of the England squad whilst watching Rio Ferdinand putting in a half decent performance in against AC Milan just now.
Then I looked at our recent under-21 squad and was actually not as alarmed.
Some predictions (and a lot of typos):
Goalkeepers:
*Joe Hart will be first choice by this point.
*Rob Green might still be knocking about as back up.
*Hopefully Ben Foster will have joined a club where he'll get some games, the lad's got talent but could go the way of Carson and Robinson.
*Scott Loach will have made a move to a prem club by then (posibly this summer in fact if Watford's financial woes should continue).
David James will be running a comedy club somewhere.
Defenders
I hesitate to lump them all together but some of them are yet to specialise as full backs or centre backs.
I would be shocked if Terry and Ferdinand haven't retired from international football by this point, probably Cashley too. Unless Upson and Lescott suddenly raise their games they will be replaced by young uns.
*Glen Johnson will be 29, nd hopefully have learnt to defend as well as bomb forward.
*Micah Richards will have matured by this point so will be in there at right back or centre back.
*The only positon where we have proven specialists right now is left back, and Leighton Baines and Kieron Gibbs will be a good shout.
*Gary Cahill continues to look useful,and will be 28 by then.
*Ditto David Wheater.
*If Chris Smalling fulfills his promise he's a possibility.
*Ditto Mancienne.
*Spurs signed two lads called Kyle - Naughton and Walker, both of whom are very highly rated.
*Stephen Taylor, assuming he ever makes it back to the Prem, is an outside chance.
Midfield
The Gerrard/Lampard conundrum will have disappeared with their respective retirements from international football, Beckham will be nowhere near the squad, and Barry will be getting on a bit. Joe Cole and Owen Hargreaves probably won't even make it to this world cup.
*James Milner should have established himself as a regular someone in this side. Anywhere frankly.
*Ashley Young will be an option on either wing.
*Lee Cattermole (cat? or mole?) already looks like a future Hargreaves, hopefully with less brittle legs.
*Lennon another option on the right.
*Jack Rodwell looks a fantastic prospect, very skillful and has some power.
*Ditto Jack Wilshire.
*And probably Dan Gosling.
*I'm not convinced about the likes of Muamba, Delph and Jack Cork, but they all have a lot of time
*Tom Huddlestone is a fantastic player on his day. He seems to have shed his beer gut over the last season, and could make the step up.
*Stewart Downing - don't laugh, he's doing well for Villa right now and is probably the only proper left-footed player on this list.
*I'm going to throw Lewis McGugan into this list because I'm mental. He's a fantastically talented player, and there's been rumours about Prem clubs sniffing around him for a couple of years.
*Micheal Johnson appears to have fucked his life up with pies, beer, fighting and going to 42nd Street, he won't make it, which is a shame as he was a great player.
Strikers
Surely no one will be talking about Owen or Heskey at this stage. Crouch and Defoe will be in their 30s but are possibilities.
*Rooney, obviously. By this stage he should be recognised as one of the best players in the world.
*Gaby Agbonlahor should be reaching his peak. He's not reached great heights yet but he's got the talent to do so.
*Daniel Sturridge might have ruined his career by going to Chelsea, but he looks a great prospect and if he can get games he could be fantastic. Unlike Frazier Campbell (who will end up a mid-range Prem player at best) his club did not want to lose him, and Chelsea actively courted him. The lad's a bit special, and if he can learn from Drogba and Anelka he could end up deadly.
*Can't really tell with Carlton Cole - he could end up at a top half club this summer, and that will be the making or breaking of him.
*Freddie Sears looked great in the few West Ham starts he got, he hasn't had many goals though so another unsure one.
*Danny Welbeck - probably not.
*If James Vaughan ever gets fit he'll be great!
Somewhere
*Theo Walcott might have turned into a striker a la Henry by this point. Hopefully he'll have learnt to put in a consistent performance too.
*Tom Cleverley - you're thinking "who?" unless you're a Watford fan or a particularly dedicated ManYoo fan, he's 20 and looks very useful, can play attacking midfield or striker.
Obviously more players will emerge in the meantime, and some of these lads could go downhill rapidly (Shawcross is highly rated right now, I have missed him out because I think he might be another Nicky Shorey/insert briefly promising player here).
Of course, it's going to be held in Brazil so we probably don't have a chance, but it's nice to dream.
Any thoughts/glaring omissions?
Saturday, 6 March 2010
Class and politics ramble
Some scribbling on class and politics:
I should probably give up trying to establish a class identity. It’s fairly irrelevant to most of our generation and all of the generations below us, except those that get involved in socialist/anarchist politics – and those people would come under ‘middle class’ really anyway as they’re either a) students or b) people with enough leisure to time waste at such meetings. I used to bother to defend my alleged ‘working class’ roots but sadly the media own such debates now and ‘working class’ now seems to mean ‘dole scum’ i.e. the non-working class.
[It’s as tragic as the misappropriation of the word ‘emo’ to describe a recent fashion trend rather than an excellent 90s sub-genre of punk. I can’t even use the word now. Post-hardcore isn’t really the same, but it will have to do as a description for the future now that 'emo' is forever tainted.]
There’s isn’t a classless society as some politicians might like to suggest, but once clear lines are now faint to the point of barely existing, like a recently cleaned whiteboard.
I have perhaps in the past exaggerated my relative scumminess in comparison to the people I generally see these days, i.e. university educated, some of whom went to public school. I’ve probably been in more fights than most of them having lived in Mansfield from birth ‘til uni, and my family are far from rich, but I’m hardly a council estate kid selling hash and robbing pensioners.
To skip back to a half made point, it seems the people most interested in things like marxism and anarchism are students, especially the students who get involved in student politics. They don't seem to recognise the irony there.
It doesn't help that political debate in this country and others has been reduced to stupid reactionary debates, led by tabloid agendas set by media moguls who think it's their right to try to influence elections. It's created a situation where the papers will bang on about immigrants and muslims being the root of all evil using misinformation, outright lies and picking at latent prejudices, and if you speak to people who don't know much about politics there are the issues they will talk about, informed by the slow drip of hate coming from various media outlets. When the BNP try to campaign on exactly these issues (sometimes using quotes from these papers) the papers attack the BNP, having failed to notice that they have created a climate where their ideas can be accepted by people who would normally find such parties abhorrent.
Then the problem is created that expressing fairly liberal opinions on these issues leads to accusations of somehow agreeing with islamist terrorists and 'hating this country' because it's been turned into some stupid 2 sided argument (I hesitate to use the term 'black and white' here...) when in reality it's far more complex than that.
Then there's the feedback loop of parts of the media accusing other parts of 'dumbing-down', a debate so unhelpful it's ridiculous. When a newspaper accuses the BBC of dumbing down and then spends 3-4 pages talking about Katie fucking Price what conclusions are we supposed to draw from that? Even the 'quality' papers are increasingly guilty of this kind of shit.
Then in the same paper there will be talk of the government encroaching on our freedoms with tracking technology, CCTV, airport scanners etc, while encouraging the government to 'crack down' on crime and 'illegal immigration' . What do you want? A police state or anarchy? If you want it black and white then those are your choices. The reality lies in the middle, as ever. Some people like the idea of a crack down until it stops them doing what they want, as quickly as they want (see any UK airport, or any kind of police cordon anywhere), while others love the idea of anarchy until they get robbed or someone pushes in front of them in a queue. I could go on, but I've already rambled to much for now.
You can have it both ways - we've had a version of it for a long time - but it needs some tweaking. I have no faith that any of the political parties currently in existence will be able to make these tweaks.
I should probably give up trying to establish a class identity. It’s fairly irrelevant to most of our generation and all of the generations below us, except those that get involved in socialist/anarchist politics – and those people would come under ‘middle class’ really anyway as they’re either a) students or b) people with enough leisure to time waste at such meetings. I used to bother to defend my alleged ‘working class’ roots but sadly the media own such debates now and ‘working class’ now seems to mean ‘dole scum’ i.e. the non-working class.
[It’s as tragic as the misappropriation of the word ‘emo’ to describe a recent fashion trend rather than an excellent 90s sub-genre of punk. I can’t even use the word now. Post-hardcore isn’t really the same, but it will have to do as a description for the future now that 'emo' is forever tainted.]
There’s isn’t a classless society as some politicians might like to suggest, but once clear lines are now faint to the point of barely existing, like a recently cleaned whiteboard.
I have perhaps in the past exaggerated my relative scumminess in comparison to the people I generally see these days, i.e. university educated, some of whom went to public school. I’ve probably been in more fights than most of them having lived in Mansfield from birth ‘til uni, and my family are far from rich, but I’m hardly a council estate kid selling hash and robbing pensioners.
To skip back to a half made point, it seems the people most interested in things like marxism and anarchism are students, especially the students who get involved in student politics. They don't seem to recognise the irony there.
It doesn't help that political debate in this country and others has been reduced to stupid reactionary debates, led by tabloid agendas set by media moguls who think it's their right to try to influence elections. It's created a situation where the papers will bang on about immigrants and muslims being the root of all evil using misinformation, outright lies and picking at latent prejudices, and if you speak to people who don't know much about politics there are the issues they will talk about, informed by the slow drip of hate coming from various media outlets. When the BNP try to campaign on exactly these issues (sometimes using quotes from these papers) the papers attack the BNP, having failed to notice that they have created a climate where their ideas can be accepted by people who would normally find such parties abhorrent.
Then the problem is created that expressing fairly liberal opinions on these issues leads to accusations of somehow agreeing with islamist terrorists and 'hating this country' because it's been turned into some stupid 2 sided argument (I hesitate to use the term 'black and white' here...) when in reality it's far more complex than that.
Then there's the feedback loop of parts of the media accusing other parts of 'dumbing-down', a debate so unhelpful it's ridiculous. When a newspaper accuses the BBC of dumbing down and then spends 3-4 pages talking about Katie fucking Price what conclusions are we supposed to draw from that? Even the 'quality' papers are increasingly guilty of this kind of shit.
Then in the same paper there will be talk of the government encroaching on our freedoms with tracking technology, CCTV, airport scanners etc, while encouraging the government to 'crack down' on crime and 'illegal immigration' . What do you want? A police state or anarchy? If you want it black and white then those are your choices. The reality lies in the middle, as ever. Some people like the idea of a crack down until it stops them doing what they want, as quickly as they want (see any UK airport, or any kind of police cordon anywhere), while others love the idea of anarchy until they get robbed or someone pushes in front of them in a queue. I could go on, but I've already rambled to much for now.
You can have it both ways - we've had a version of it for a long time - but it needs some tweaking. I have no faith that any of the political parties currently in existence will be able to make these tweaks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)