FFXIV and the changing nature of summons

I have not played this game, largely because it is not out yet. Currently writing a review on Minecraft: Story Mode and I think I should totally turn this " I have not played this game" into a seried on this blog.

So on to Final Fantasy 15 and the Ramuh summon that was revealed earlier this year. As a fan of jrpgs I played many of the classics, like the old FFs and the Tales series, with Golden Sun 1 and 2 being the ones closest to heart. Many of these games lets the players' character summon gods and beasts from various mythologies as their most powerful attacks to deal good damage, and the Golden Sun series' djinn setting and summon system makes it very unique within the sea of jrpgs. But here is the issue I have, these summons don't seem to FEEL powerful. Yes the summons do destroy the sun and earth and solar system in the process of the summoning animation (You know what I am talking about), but in the end the damage shown done by these powerful summons is merely represented by damage on the opposing player. FF15's open world style and way superior graphical fidelity, I feel, has allowed it to let summons mean something. Here are a few things that I think it did right:

Firstly, the use of contrast. Noctis being picked up by Ramuh during the summon shows to us the size of the summoned creature. I remember Ramuh being just a tiny old man when playing FF4 and for whatever damage he does the summon itself doesn't feel powerful. The contrast between the epic summon music and the quiet atmosphere during the summon charging time gives one the sensation that shit is going down when Ramuh appears on the field. Golden Sun does have specific summon animation, but the same tune playing just makes the summon a part of the battle that is nothing special, instead of the "Man invoking the power of Gods" sensation FF15 gave.

Secondly, the use of space and more specifically environmental destruction. In a classic rpg style summons can't really do much to show impact because of the nature of battles, and most of the time when a summon destroys the world and yet your character is still standing there simply breaks the immersion than making it feel epic. In FF15 nearby trees are burnt and the game environment in such an open world setting allows for such an implementation. They need to work a way out on how the summons don't hurt the teammates not picked up by the summons, though.

Now a caveat to this is the reasonable assumption that one will get bored of long summon animations after a few watch. And the way to mitigate this is to switch off animations, but I suspect this game has another trick up its sleeves. And that will be item number three, the use of conditions. Noctis seems really injured before being able to perform the summon, so it may be that summons can only be invoked when certain conditions are met, such as being of low health, or can only be used once per a certain period of time. Firstly this resolves an old problem I have with summons in the old games, how spending 10mp gives you small ball of fire and maybe 50mp gives you the roaring God of Thunder bringer of storm and destruction. The God of Thunder feels nothing more than 5 fireballs, and probably took up that much sprite space on the screen too. Making it hard to call upon summons allows them to feel special, and justifies the use of over the top music, animations, and dealing way too much damage to the opponent and the environment. Making them not so much a part of core gameplay mitigates the problem of seeing them too frequently, and perhaps it can be a thing to fight with normal spells and finish off with a chain of summons (it will be cool if one can use multiple summons and have them animated at the same time too!). Dedicating a specific summoner in the party in the Tales and FF game does help, but when they are just dealing the same damage as other characters are it diminishes the power of the summons so much they become pointless and boring. Summoning, if FF15 manages to pull this off, becomes something that is special again. 

If any other game has already done this, then good for them. I'm simply excited for FF15 and maybe I'll buy a console just for it. 

Beauty and Gym

When I'm not lying around being fat, I go to the gym. The trip is enjoyable, less physically and more mentally. That's because the gym is a microsm of our modern society in its own - it has its beauty and ugliness that is unique within this enclosed space.

On one hand, there is the beauty, the aesthetically pleasing to the eye, or working hard to become healthier. On the other, there is the mindless pursuit of constructed masculinity, pretence beauty, and our topic today, irresponsibility.

Anyone who has been to the gym woulf have seen these strange creatures that have somehow disguised themselves as humans. The 'Octopus', who requires 8 dumbbells at every moment to work their two arms. The 'Groaner', who squeals in pain like animals in heat or make sex noises while pressing the lightest of weights. The 'Narcissist', who only uses one equipment in the gym - the mirror. The 'Friends', who is here to sit on benches and chit-chat with friends. The list is by no means exhaustive and can go on. There is one I hate the most, and I encountered one today, who is the creature whom I have no fancy name for, but is unique in the way they do not put back the mobile equiments, such as mats, dumbbells and weights after using them.

I used to wonder why they don't try to make the lives of others easier by simply returning those equiments to the rack after using. Today I realised why. It is because these creatures are weak, both physically and mentally, compared to normal humans. Whether it is the need to take 4 sets of dumbbell or hoard the weights to reduce the hassle to change them, or needing to let out noises of pain, or needing the self assurance that one's exercise is making progress, it is a sign of weakness. In the end, you are only as strong as the weights you bother to put back, because there is nothing heavier in this world than responsibility.

Why One Piece's ending will be not as epic as it should have been

I adore One Piece. Granted the anime (done by Toei) is a load of crap that is made for the sake of milking as many episodes out of the franchise as possible, the manga is aesthetically superior to many other long series out there and the story is still mostly interesting, mostly. I've read a few older, completed mangas series recently, and I'm starting to understand why some work, and some don't. HunterXHunter was a load of filler crap by its end, and of course it is technically uncompleted, but unlike Tokyo Ghoul that was screaming for continuation it seem to be on infinite hiatus. Gantz started terribly, but in the end it told an interesting and insane love story that I quite enjoyed, hidden beneath a main plot about an evolving hero whose devlopment became nonsensical after the 'train scene' in the middle. It should have stopped there. I finally read Shaman King's extended ending which gave it rather acceptable closure, just to have that spoiled by the axed Shaman King: Flowers (I guess we have to wait for that to continue too). But no closure from these came as close to what we got from my favourite manga of all time, Konjinki no Gash (or known as Zatchbell in English, which had a terrible and incomplete anime, I should probably study and see how they screwed up such good source material next time).

So that's the problem we need to discuss today - closure. It is not uncommon when mangakas start a story with a certain ending in mind, but sometimes are forced to continue drawing because of the series' popularity. Like the rumour with Bleach of course. *Spoilers for One Piece will follow* The main story of One Piece is about the empty 100 years, and why Robin's home was devastated in the first place; and I guess we more or less deduced Roger's one piece is relating to that. This theme about lost history and the government hiding information, altering public memory would have been an interesting trope 15 years ago when One Piece just started, but by now it just feels so overused. This is the same problem I have with Shingeki no Kyojin; using this trope will require that final exposition, that much-awaited revelation to be epic and worth all our time, if not it will just be another of those series again. I have no doubt of Oda's ability to tell stories, and part of whether a story is good or not depends on how it is being told, but for me this trope's excitement factor had ran dry long ago, with movies, games and mangas incorporating it continuously.

Oda does continue to deliver from time to time, such as the recent telling of Corozan's story, and Bellamy's development. But these moments seem too sparse in between boring narratives that exist purely for filler sake to thin out a story that had been tight for the pre-New World arcs but are starting to fall apart post-New World. Perhaps it is in reaction to us expecting the rest of the story to be as long as the pre-New World arc, since this marks half way on the Grandline, but what Oda seems to be doing is raising the expectation and hype for the end plot so much and leading onto an idea that would have been better if it was used 5 years ago. The entirety of Dressrosa, especially, has been so dragged out and even fails to link back to the main plot like the end of Fisherman Island, where Shirahoshi is revealed to be Poseidon, and that leads to my second problem - I sometimes feel I've stopped caring about that main plot already. It is not helping that One Piece goes on hiatus every other week this year.

To keep it short (unlike One Piece), I think the problem lies with how long the entire project and enterprise has grown over the years. If you need a literal comparison, I think many will agree that How I Met Your Mother would have been perfect if it ended in Season 8, or even Season 1. The length of HIMYM and One Piece distorts the experience and destroyed any possible sensation one would have felt if the story was better paced. In HIMYM I will agree to a small extent it is reasonable due to the main character's characterisation - but we can all agree that some of the seasons were just there to milk the franchise. In Bravely Default I just got so bored that I didn't even bother, the idea was great, the frustration is real, but the presentation was bad causing the experience to be terrible. Let's hope One Piece surprises.

Lovers in a Dangerous Spacetime

I have not played this game. But by the looks of it, it looks ridiculously good. And this is not coming from a gameplay or technical perspective - since technically I have not even played it - but the theme, the sensation and the concept of it is simply ingenious. It is no secret I am a fan of structures and symbolism, and here are some thoughts that came to mind when I watched reviews and let's play footage of the game. 

There is not much plot to spoil here, but anyway the basic idea is that this is a co-operative game where you will need someone to play with you. The two of you pilot a spaceship through space, rescuing bunnies, while fighting off anti-love aliens, avoiding obstacles and exploring the uncharted universe; that's about it. The magnificence of the game comes within the concept. 

From what I can see, there are essentially three things the two players have to do: Attack (By firing cannons or the special weapon), Defend (By rotating the shield to block off enemy attacks), and Move (with the ship's booster). What this means is that players are no longer independent of each other, and more importantly players cannot stay at the same posts as there are only two pair of hands for three jobs. Coordinating your path through the loveless spacetime requires real coordination between players in real life - one piloting and the other defending, and when facing a horde of enemy to booster and run while shielding, or back to one corner, throw up the shield and have both players fire the guns. The anxiety and excitement generated from these three tasks, I feel, can only be experienced when you play the game. Which I really should, but this brings me to a next problem.

The theme here is 'lovers'. The game currently does not have a online multi-player mode, and game reviewers have cited this as one of its greatest weakness. For me, as much as I agree having the online mode turns this into a better game, it downplays the theme of 'lovers' - the idea of having two person sitting on the same couch, talking to each other face to face and not through headphones, and going through a series of dangers together. What's more, the threat here is Anti-Love, and this is essentially two person journey to find the path of love together - this is not a game to play with a friend, your brother and especially not some random person online. The current state of the game, I feel, places the game right where it should be. 

And as I watched my second video on gameplay footage, I felt a sense of tingling... loneliness. The longing for such a partner to play this. It is kind of like Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons - but that of course is about a relationship between brothers, or your left and right hand. Lovers in a Dangerous Spacetime is a co-op game that calls for lovers - to undertake this journey together against whatever that is stopping you from bringing Love to the entire universe. And on this journey, there will be quarrels, there will be moments you fume up as your partner fails to support you in the way you want them to, there will be disagreements on where to head to next, or what to do together, or who to play what roles. But like love, there will be joy, moments of dancing together to celebrate a mission well done, moments where you are thankful that you are not on this journey alone, and moments where, you think, you realise that this person beside you may just be the right one, to travel to the edges of space and the ends of time.

I haven't felt so much doubt about singlehood ever since I watched Her by Spike Jonze. The feeling that something is missing, after seeing such a perfect game yet not have someone right to play it with - it just feels like I'm looking at a loving couple at the altar, burning with envy and wondering why can't I have a life like that. What this shows, I guess, is that Games, truly can be and should be considered Art forms, especially something like this - and most importantly, an Art that is not like films or dramas. A game shouldn't need long cutscenes and plots filled with twists to pretend it is a movie or anything. Instead, I think a Game can only be considered Art when the interactive, the 'playing' of the game, is invoked, It makes the player not only immersed in the experience but also involved in how the game is played out. Lovers in a Dangerous Spacetime is truly a stroke of genius, a work of Art. I hope the studio continues to make such games in the future.

Post GE2015 thoughts on snobbishness and freedom of speech

As with all my writings I'll start off with this disclaimer: This is not a complete analysis, because it is especially impossible the shorter essays go, but I'll try to say as much as possible.

I have lost a lot of sleep over the past few days, mainly trying to juggle work and political enthusiasm over the 2015 Singapore General Elections. I go to rallies, read stuff online, and made fun of people who were simply making baseless criticisms that were completely lacking in self-awareness. As the elections draw to a close with PAP winning an almost 70% majority - the hardcore opposition supporters are making themselves look like heroes of a new world that was supposed to come, but was hindered by the still dormant and un-awakened 60% joined by another 10% of traitors and defectors. All over my facebook wall are these people of this lot chiding at Singaporeans who voted for the PAP, how they better not complain about problems in the next 5 years, how they only did so because they were drawn in to the lies of a freak election, how the PAP's dominance of the mainstream media helped to stop these people from leaving their opiate fantasy.

Many a time the political candidates are complete fools, and in this round we had people like Cheo Chai Chen, Lawrence Wong, and that pathetic son of JBJ... but I think most of the time the fans make them out to be worse people than they are (or they really are). These people, who also happen to be the vocal majority (on the social media platforms I am exposed to at least), are fashioning themselves as a bunch of snobs who think they know of that better world with their 'democracy', and 'freedom of speech' and whatnot. The 70% to them, are people who cannot accept their opinionated ideals and therefore should be criticised.

There are a two things I want to discuss here. Firstly, the idea of snobbishness and elitism. Elitism, to me, is a feeling of superiority that is for the most of it baseless because it is based on the claim that you are intellectually and mentally superior to another, for your supposed wit and erudition above all because of a paper degree, or you simply are because you can see things better or something. For instance, you are student of the pseudo-sciences and you can analyse things with your pseudological imagination, or you are the supporter of an opposition to a party that has been in power for 55 years and therefore that makes you the hero of the democratic dawn of some sort. Elitism plunges into pure snobbishness when people in these elite circles refuse to explain why they are better, or are unable to explain, because their stance was never based in logic nor reason. Some of these people have never read a word of policy recommendation from the parties they support, and join the fray because they are unhappy their selfish needs cannot be fulfilled by the establishment. Leaving the debate on first past the post aside for now, and assuming democracy is the most system that we all trust in, is democracy not about the mandate of the majority? If the majority does not vote in a way that you desire, I think it is more reasonable to question who is the lot who is deluded here, the people who sided with 70% of the population, or those who sided with the 30%? If all you are saying is that you are more awakened and more knowledgeable than the potatoes that sided with the PAP, is that not the elitism that you chided PAP candidates and supporters for? If you accept democracy, then please also accept that your opinion is simply not shared with many, many out there, including me. We can have an endless debate on who is more deluded, with theories and history and pretty words till the cows come home and no conclusion can be drawn unless one of us starts beating the other up, because there simply isn't a better opinion. Democracy is not a system that elects the better opinion, but only the thoughts of the more, or to use that recently dirtified word, the opinions that are popular.

Secondly, the idea of democracy and freedom. This is where I flash out my elitist side - I will not go in length to discuss why I think these ideas are relative and should not be enshrined as some natural and moral good - because you should really be reading more, and other people would have explained this point better than me. I will just like to throw in a few questions in relation to this context. Does letting the Worker's Party take all 20 seats they contested in in Parliament mean democracy? Are there no problems with other two-party systems in other 'democracies'? Is Singapore the only country using the first past the post voting system? And in general, what is this, Democracy? The point that is less discussed and meditated upon is the idea of 'freedom of speech'. I will argue that we absolutely have freedom of speech by my understanding of the term - and this is not about Hong Lim Park, but about Low Thia Khiang and the WP's debate with PAP members in Parliament (and amongst the PAP MPs also), this is about the Internet, EDMW, HWZ where people can throw distasteful comments at Mdm Halimah Yacob after her mother passed away yesterday, and still get away with it. This is about all the more opened discussions we have seen in post-LKY Singapore for the past 4 years - not national conversation but the discussions on different pro- or anti- establishment websites, MPs and statesmen's social media pages, news sites and forums. You can argue that the Amos Yee issue is a case where freedom of speech was suppressed, but although I would agree that the punishment was rather uncalled for, whether hate speeches are a good thing is high debatable, and frankly speaking I don't think the government was doing this oppress freedom of speech considering the backlash from the general public afterwards. People are allowed to overreact over the death of LKY by spouting lies about how Singapore was a fishing village in 1965, and people are allowed to overreact over the case of Amos Yee by claiming that the government was containing free speech over his capture, that's freedom of speech. People can act like snobs and claim the PAP is deluding the masses, and not be hunted down like poor Marx was over his Manifesto, that's freedom of speech. Where debates are allowed to exist, freedom of speech exists - and you are allowed to disagree and debate with me on that.

My recommendation for all this is really to start your meditation with the idea of democracy and governance, and not start by assuming that majority votes are good thing. If you wish to talk about how our system of democracy is not good, and should be fashioned after another system existing somewhere else in the world or in some theory, we can have that debate but I am quite sure I will win that too. But we should still have that debate, we should always have debates.

Laments: Authority over Memory

This is a scrapped section of an essay on an Autobiography that I felt was pretty interesting, posting it here so that I know where to find it if it becomes useful again. FYI: The book is Sold for Silver by Janet Lim. Maybe I'll post it here if it turns out as an acceptable read.

-------------------------------

Who are we to judge whether a piece of writing is authentic or not? Who are we to judge whether the author is lying or not? Who are we to say whether the author is writing with specific intentions or not? And to that I answer, why not? 

When a piece of writing calls itself an autobiography, memoir, reflections, it becomes impossible (unless if one is a mind reader) for an outsider to grapple with the ‘truthfulness’ of the information conveyed – memory has a special kind of authority that is hard to topple because memory is personal and inaccessible without first being filtered through the mind of the person who holds those memories. Memory grants the autobiographer or memorist almost absolute power over the reader and it intimidates us into not judging – because we are unable to create an equally authentic alternative, due to the fact that we did not physically live in the world the author has reconstructed.

I will like to present two counterpoints to rethink that position. Firstly, memory is imperfect. Memory can be altered, fragmented or lost through traumatic experiences or simply due to aging. When one tries to reconstruct a coherent picture from incomplete memory of a lost time, he takes the fragments and clues left within the memory to piece out a complete picture that at least makes sense to him. Secondly, people can lie and more importantly not lying is not the same as telling the truth. As authentic an account may be, the author may choose to communicate to us only part of the memory and conceal other parts, again consciously or unconsciously – there is a high chance that the eventual portion of the memory being conveyed to us through the text is incomplete and far from a certain ‘truth’ that gives the person holding those memories the authority over outsiders in the first place.  

Changing nature of Prostitution in Geylang

Keywords: Power relations, control, organisation, social backlash, shifting patterns, negotiations

Practical tools to clamp down on freelancers - use of security cameras at every corner, brighter lightings (?) to shy away illegal freelancers. Symbols of the state's power to observe and control? Foucault?

Clandestine prostitutes forced into bars, karaoke lounges, or under the control of a pimp to continue to sell. Turning prostitution into an organised activity that is easier to monitor and control.

New third party (bar owners, karaoke owners, new pimps) now involved between this once solo-operational freelancers to use as point of contact/ control. Also a figurehead to blame if issurs pertaining eg. moral, std, pop up.

Does this prove my previous point that the state is not inherently concerned with social issues, but more of social backlashes from people? Populism sentiments rising within the party-state?

What is the relationship between the state/police and these third party figureheads? Wary frienemies? Marriages of convenience?

What can we read about the state? Power seeping into every crook and nanny of society - confining a vice to a small area and impose newer ways to futher control it.

Double whammy of vice control in same time period? Anti-prostitution + anti-alcohol. Common area of confinememt also?

On the economic side - how will this affect Geylang's economy? More businesses at bars, karaokes and legal brothels going into accountable GDP? Or banning reducing the general crowd to geylang (together with alcohol ban).

Who does this benefit? If this diverts business to organised prostitution (both legal, illegal; and both direct and indirect), the people with the economic and social capability to control such organisations will definitely benefit. Secret societies rising in power? Why? Through negotiation of power with the state? How is the police/ state involved in all this? (Not implying corruption, simply negotiation and changing power relations).

[I don't have time to write these into proper arguments now. Will do so when I am free.]