Sex & Mortal Kombat: 100 Things In Common (Guest Post by @EricVBailey)

Sex and Mortal Kombat have a lot in common. 

     So I wrote a list.

1) You can choose whether you’ll have sweat or you’ll have blood.

2) You might go two or three rounds.

3) Successive impacts may elicit heightened vocal response.

4) Skill with hands is good but some may prefer skill with feet.

5) There might be costumes involved.

6) You might sneak in a match at your buddy’s house.

7) Your parents aren’t entirely comfortable with your participation.

8) You aren’t entirely comfortable with your parents’ participation.

9) You went through a phase of ‘researching’ more information online.

10) Years ago, you would’ve had to rely on magazines for this ‘research.’

11) You may stick with a main for a while but try to switch it up sometimes.

12) Some of your friends have no clue about it.

13) Remember that period in high school when everyone was talking about it?

14) Every new release still feels like a big deal.

15) The acting in the films is not the greatest.

16) The films also lend unrealistic expectations with inaccurate portrayals.

17) Still, many have their favorite movie on the topic.

18) Some may worry about their children being exposed to the subject prematurely.

19) Politicians occasionally take fanatical positions concerning it.

20) Some prefer the men, some prefer the ladies.

21) Thousands of people are enjoying it right now, at this moment.

22) Some people don’t even like it.

23) There is plenty of amateur art online, and a lot of it is inappropriate.

24) People have written entire books about it.

25) Be careful -- overdoing it can exhaust you.

26) It might cost you some money.

27) There are some spectacular finishing moves out there.

28) Apparently there are YouTube tutorials to help improve your skills.

29) Typically, men are lauded for playing the game but women are met with disrespect.

30) Fists play a part.

31) You may see some unusual or extreme anatomy featured.

32) It has a long history, generations’ worth.

33) You can match up with a partner online.

34) Might make for an interesting first date.

35) Some married couples don’t even bother with it anymore.

36) You don’t see it play out in public much. But you might.

37) You can play by yourself but it’s not as fun.

38) You probably won’t make much money writing about it.

39) You can enjoy it in the bedroom, or maybe on the living room sofa; the kitchen, more rarely.

40) You used to see it at the arcades a lot more.

41) If you could go at it for five hours straight I’d be impressed.

42) I understand if you’ve never tried it, but it’s harder to believe you’ve never heard of it at all.

43) If you keep getting kicked in the face, maybe you’re not doing so well.

44) If you do it a certain way, you end up with a baby.

45) If you do it another way, you end up as friends.

46) And if you really screw it up, you might have your spine torn out of your body.

47) It’s rare to have more than two players at once.

48) The setting doesn’t really make a huge difference, honestly.

49) Often, one player is going to have a much better time than the other.

50) Typically, a “nothing but roundhouse kicks” strategy is frowned upon.

51) There are very few friends of whom I’d be comfortable asking about their performance.

52) You’d probably get in trouble if you were caught doing it at work.

53) “Excessive jumping” is totally a thing.

54) I understand Nintendo is reluctant to release this kind of content.

55) I’d prefer to not have someone watching over my shoulder while I’m going at it.

56) Some people are more vocal than others while it’s going on.

57) C’mon, don’t make fun of people who are new to it.

58) I think the Bible has some relevant commentary.

59) Juggling at the same time would be rather difficult.

60) The right soundtrack can help set the mood.

61) There are oh-so-saintly prudes out there who probably take pride in never trying it.

62) I see chatter on Twitter about it occasionally.

63) It’s the sort of content that gets an “R” or “M” rating.

64) Sometimes you just have to growl “Get over here!”

65) If your doctor says you’re not healthy enough for it, please listen to them.

66) The 3D modeling has really advanced over the years.

67) It’s all about who’s in control.

68) There are firm boundaries, and it is good to know them.

69) Leave your grandmother out of it.

70) The classic debate: Should you try everyone, or stick to one main selection?

71) You might have luck finding it on Craigslist.

72) The motion-capture work is always interesting.

73) If you record yourself doing it, someone out there would probably watch.

74) Let’s be honest: Sometimes it’s gross.

75) Mileena is either the best or the worst, depending on how you look at her.

76) You might have your heart ripped right out of your chest.

77) Personally, I don’t like involving food, I think it gets messy, but hey, you do you I guess.

78) Have I ever paid $60 for it? No. Has someone else? Yeah. I bet a lot of people have.

79) Has it gotten worse as you’ve aged? That may depend on who you ask.

80) You have to know how to push the right buttons.

81) But timing is crucial. Timing is the difference between success and disappointment.

82) However, pressure is important too. You have to know when to go hard and when to lay off.

83) Your first time is going to be an awkward disaster.

84) Sometimes it leaves a big mess.

85) You might stay up too late doing it.

86) Can you play in VR yet? I’m not even sure.

87) Try moving your thumb in gentler circles. Flick back at just the right moment.

88) You can face one way or the other way.

89) Some of the most innocent-looking people have far more experience than you’d think.

90) Be respectful of your neighbors, try not to be too loud.

91) I bet there are people who are absolutely obsessed.

92) No, I’m not interested in your podcast about it.

93) Make sure you’re properly hydrated beforehand.

94) You may experience sweaty palms for the duration.

95) You may have to compete with killer instinct.

96) Never pick a guy named Stryker.

97) There’s a chance your play will involve some electric shock.

98) It’s the shape-shifting warlock you have to worry about.

99) Use that block button to help prevent unwanted advances.

100) Your opening move might be the most important.

     And have a bonus round:

101) Whoever gets the first blow doesn’t always win.

Eric Bailey likes Nintendo games and writing about Nintendo games. You can follow him on Twitter @EricVBailey, check out his minimalist YouTube series, support him on Patreon, or ignore him altogether.

     Previous Guest Posts by Eric Bailey:

     [ Who Can Eat More: Yoshi vs Kirby ]

     [ Tribute: Link's Awakening ]

     [ You’re All Idiots, Everything's On Fire, and Nothing Ever Changes: Yet Another Critique of Gaming Culture ] 

     [ Easy-Mode Players Are The Real Gamers ]

Who Can Eat More: Yoshi vs Kirby (Guest Post by @EricVBailey )

THE QUANDRY

Yoshi and Kirby are two Nintendo characters who have a lot in common: They both have a reputation for being more “cute” than combative, they star in their own series of games, they have a limited vocabulary, and they are known for eating their opponents or other items.

But who can eat more?


YOSHI

Mario's faithful steed has to be near the top of the list of competitive eaters in gaming lore. The green dinosaur does little else besides eat and be sacrificed for longer jumps. With a flick of his tongue and a lay of his egg, he rapidly disposes of any meal placed in front of him.

In Super Mario World, the larval form of Yoshi doesn't even need the classic tonguing action. You just kinda shove his face into any enemy and Baby Yoshi will eat it. We take it for granted, just how impressive this feat is. Have you ever tried to eat something larger than yourself in less than a second?

This is the truly impressive facet of Yoshi's consumptive power – not just the size of his conquests, but the raw efficiency of the process. From the gulping swallow to the egg-to-ammo transformation, Yoshi seems to have optimized his guts for maximum capacity. You can parade an endless stream of feed-fodder straight toward his mouth, and he will just keep swallowing. Look at this .gif, illustrating the point. You could leave this thing running for decades, only to come back and still find Yoshi wolfing down Shy Guy after Shy Guy for all eternity.

So beware the tongue of Yoshi, lest he get you next. He may yet tempt you, or even impress you, with the skillful application of his long, thick, and moist appendage. He is quite capable of giving you a good tongue-lashing. Yes, he'll tongue you good. He'll tongue you hard, and deep. His skin glistens with sweat, his sinews drawn taut, his shoulders rising and falling with excited breath as he bites his lip and proceeds to-- *stares off into the middle distance*


KIRBY

In the circle of Nintendo's competitive eaters, Kirby has to be in the mix as well.

This lovable pink puffball seems to have an insatiable appetite. Whereas Yoshi converts his foes into weapon-projectiles through arcane digestive means, Kirby himself is the end of his means, the final destination for those unlucky enough to cross him. His mouth is like a black hole, his stomach the period that the story of life.

Yoshi's gift for rapid-fire snacking is nothing short of miraculous, but Kirby has him beat in a few specific ways. For one, Kirby can eat more than one thing at once. Yoshi has this certain physical limitation about him, this constraint whereby the tip of his tongue must physically connect with his target. Kirby shows no concern for paltry ideas like “physics,” instead electing to consume, consume everything.

Yoshi's backstory has something to do with living on an island and playing a part in the rise of the Super Mario Bros. Kirby's story always seems to essentially boil down to “One day, Kirby was having a picnic or taking a nap or otherwise being perfectly innocent and adorable, until his idyllic peace was interrupted by a paradimensional entity bent on the violent destruction of all life. So Kirby ate him. Peace was restored, the end.”

You don't mess with Kirby.

Kirby will eat everything, instantly, forever.

At this point, some Yoshi apologist will say “b-b-but what about Mega Yarn Yoshi, and those giant metal eggs from New Island?!” Get that garbage argument out of here. Look, Yoshi's a dinosaur, he has to adhere to certain physical limits. Kirby, on the other hand, laughs at every attempt of the cosmos to contain him.

We can look to one title in particular for the most compelling persuasion: In Kirby Triple Deluxe, Kirby does this thing where he goes “hypernova” and his suction rips entire dang trees out of the ground, among other objects. There is video evidence. But if you're going to watch one video to summarize Kirby's nigh-apocalyptic prowess, check out his final boss battle from that game, in which he swallows... a streaming blast of supernatural energy? And then fires it back out of his face to annihilate all in his path? Ridiculous. That kind of eating can't be quantified.

Perhaps there was a time when this article began with a good-faith intent at debate but, no, let's be honest, Kirby wins this battle of bites and it's not even close. Even if Yoshi forked his tongue, and stretched it out, and massacred his mouth into an inescapable maw of unfathomable tentacle-tongues, Kirby would just suck 'im up like the infinite vacuum he is and swallow it all whole.


THE WINNER

Kirby wins.

Easily.

Decisively.


     …


          Although...


               Now I do have to wonder:


                       Could he eat a ghost?

Special thanks to internet pal and Kirby expert Jonathan for his input on this piece. You can follow him on Twitter @radicaldefect.

Eric Bailey likes Nintendo games and writing about Nintendo games. You can follow him on Twitter @EricVBailey, check out his minimalist YouTube series, support him on Patreon, or ignore him altogether.

     Previous Guest Posts by Eric Bailey:

     [ Tribute: Link's Awakening ]

     [ You’re All Idiots, Everything's On Fire, and Nothing Ever Changes: Yet Another Critique of Gaming Culture ] 


     [ Easy-Mode Players Are The Real Gamers ]

Tribute: Link's Awakening (Guest Post by @EricVBailey )

People enjoy stories about likeable protagonists who overcome adversity.

In the face of overwhelming odds our hero manages to triumph, and our sympathetic tension achieves a victorious payoff. One popular framework toward this end is the shipwreck. You have a happy character, on top of the world, enjoying some maritime travel, who is suddenly thrust into harsh conditions. This is quite a dramatic turn, bolstered by historical examples, and works to unfold our fears of an uncertain future.

Castaway is a generally well-received film, with Tom Hanks continuing to stretch his acting range in a challenging role. Robinson Crusoe is regarded as a literary classic. The television series Arrow leaned heavily on a “stranded on a remote island in the Pacific” backstory. Even the Bible heightens its drama with the account of a shipwreck in the book of Acts. And tucked back in the late 20th century, on a humble handheld machine, gaming also has its premiere shipwreck story --

Survival Kids.

… no, wait, sorry, not Survival Kids.

The Legend of Zelda: Link’s Awakening.

On a dark and stormy night...

The Legend of Zelda: Link’s Awakening is a video game that originally released in 1993 for Nintendo’s portable Game Boy system. It is one of my personal favorites, and I believe it is great.

This topdown adventure oozes classic Nintendo appeal and, in my view, sports some brilliant design strokes that perfectly complement a delightful original world. The setting often straddles the line between charming and unnerving, and I found the overall effect intoxicating when I first played the game as a child. Just as a good book is described as something you cannot put down, Link’s Awakening was truly an experience that I was reluctant to let leave my hands; notably, I do not often feel this way about games.

Franchise Legacy

In some ways, Link’s Awakening is a radical departure for the Legend of Zelda franchise: It is the only game to take place on Koholint Island, the first portable Zelda title, and plays extensively with references to other games and media altogether. In other ways, it poses more subtle subversions.

In Ocarina of Time, a girl named Malon teaches Link Epona’s Song for his ocarina. In Link’s Awakening, a girl named Marin teaches Link the Ballad of the Wind Fish for his ocarina. Both of these characters show an affinity for animals.

In Link’s Awakening, using the Bow and a Bomb at the same time results in firing an arrow attached a bomb that explodes on impact. Curiously, this has never been confirmed or denied by the developers as an unintentional glitch. Arrows and bombs could be combined in Twilight Princess, but it was not until Breath of the Wild in 2017 that Bomb Arrows were finally their own full-fledged item.

I feel Link’s Awakening forged new ground for the Zelda series in ways that have been overshadowed by the contributions of other titles, like later games get credit for feats Awakening already achieved, and much of its greatness has been lost in the mix of fondness for some of Link’s other adventures.

The Legend of Zelda: Majora’s Mask has received lots of praise over the years for its melancholy mood and a darker theme. Rightly so! It remains my favorite Zelda game, largely because it is so unusual. However, some may forget that Link’s Awakening has its share of dark imagery as well, as noted by a Twitter friend of mine on a playthrough in 2017.

Link’s Awakening was already exploring the idea of an oncoming world-ending cataclysm in a world entirely separate from Hyrule years before Majora’s Mask would, complete with the necessary epic songs and ventures into added layers of the not-quite-real.

How about cameos? In the 64-bit Zelda titles, you can find little winks to the Super Mario canon, like the Bowser jewelry in Ocarina and the Mario mask in Majora. In Twilight Princess, keen observers may spot a Bullet Bill image. But did you know that in Link’s Awakening you can find Yoshi, Goomba, Pirahna Plants, Cheep Cheep, Bloobers, and a Chain Chomp! Never again would so many Mario characters manage to squeeze into one of Link’s adventures. It’s so strange!

Breath of the Wild is infamous for hiding 900 Korok seeds throughout its world, rewarding completists who will search every blade of grass for hidden treasure. Ocarina had its Skulltulas. But y’know which Zelda game started the trend of having a big fetch quest throughout? Link’s Awakening, with its 26 Secret Seashells, 20 of them standing in the way between Link and his sword upgrade.

It’s A Good Game, Brent

Consider the worst parts of popular Zelda titles.

What’s the one design element you hate from each one? Is it the rain in Breath of the Wild, or how poorly the polygons have aged in the N64 games? Do you despise the endless sailing in Wind Waker, or was it the Triforce shards that drove you to despair? Did you abhor the motion controls of Skyward Sword, or the barren overworld of Twilight Princess?

Link’s Awakening doesn’t have any of these issues.

It’s just a solid, well-rounded game. Like any high-caliber Nintendo fare it has charm, humor, a memorable soundtrack, tight gameplay, and some gorgeous visuals. Your mileage may vary as to its difficulty, but I always thought it hit a great spot between ease and challenge.

Words can hardly encapsulate the experience. Maybe some games can be summarized in a reflection like this, but I think Link’s Awakening truly rewards those who dig into it. I recommend you try it, and I’d love to hear what you think. I have a feeling it’ll be one of my sentimental favorites for as long as I live.

Eric Bailey likes Nintendo games and writing about Nintendo games. You can follow him on Twitter @EricVBailey, check out his new minimalist YouTube series, support him on Patreon, or ignore him altogether.

     Previous Guest Posts by Eric Bailey:

[ You’re All Idiots, Everything's On Fire, and Nothing Ever Changes: Yet Another Critique of Gaming Culture ] 

[ Easy-Mode Players Are The Real Gamers ]

Easy-Mode Players Are The Real Gamers (GUEST POST by @Nintendo_Legend)

“Everything ain’t hardcore, you know.” -- Jay-Z.

At the time I am writing this, the current water-cooler topics of discussion include Harry Potter now being 20 years old and the SNES Classic releasing in the fall. Pop culture is a merry-go-round, an exercise in tempting bystanders through a cyclical display of the same bright lights, colorful motifs, and enchanting musical ditties.

Among the spokes on the spinning wheel of gaming topics is the intractable morass of difficulty levels. When Nintendo included an invincible Tanooki suit in Super Mario 3D World as an option for players who die five times in a row on the same stage, some people found this to be quite an objectionable thing, positing that including this item “destroys everything that playing video games is all about,” because the whole point of video games is “challenging yourself, improving your skills, and finally applying those skills you’ve learned to defeat the stage. Failing is an essential part of any video game. You have to fail to get any sense of accomplishment when you finally do win.”

One could wonder if having fun could be a worthy purpose for gaming.

I recommend reading Nadia Oxford’s piece at USGamer on the topic. Also, this Jimquisition video on Zero Difficulty, concerning reaction to an Easy Mode in StarFox Zero. While we’re recommending items on the subject, here’s a Kotaku article by Jason Schreier on the idea that maybe all games should have a ‘very easy’ mode. Here is a meaty piece on Dark Souls and how its identity is closely tied to its difficulty, among other sentiments. Finally, here is a long Twitter thread on (among other things) how even the meaning of the term ‘hardcore’ has shifted over time as the demographics of the hobby have changed.

Honestly, I do not want to rehash the entire discussion. It should be fairly clear, to anyone with common sense, that it is unreasonable to object to a feature being included in a video game that does no harm yet enhances enjoyment for others. Concerning yourself with how others conduct themselves in their gameplay to the extent of whining about it online is asinine, especially when it has zero affect on your own experiences.

Yet, even in recent days, we see the same old behavior dug back up for a new target, the SNES Classic. “Why don’t you just get a Raspberry Pi?” they cry, ignoring the fact that countless thousands within the target audience of the novelty have no clue nor interest in how emulation works, while also ignoring… the simple fact that it is perfectly fine for others to enjoy something you have no interest in. Again, it is a troll viewpoint, not worth covering in too much detail.

Simply: It is silly, at the very least, to care what difficulty level other people play at, or to scoff at how casual they are. Any half-decent human being with four brain cells can recognize that ‘hardcore’ and ‘casual’ players have equal value, and that worrying how someone else plays a video game is a waste of energy. To be a member of the gaming community yet hate on features that would only serve to include more people is a slimeperson position to take. Yet, I want to go a step further.

I want to say: Easy-Mode Players are the real gamers.

Yes, Easy-Mode Players are the ones who should have the cred, be looked up to, and have their opinions sought after. Why did it take me several paragraphs to reach my premise? … I don’t have an answer for that, ha. Instead, let’s take a not-too-serious look at why Easy-Mode Players are the real gamers.

They Are Different

On a simple, literal level, Easy-Mode Players are different. They take the path less traveled, they march to the beat of a different drummer. They take the scenic route, and do not concern their pride on such matters as violence and speed and competition. They are mold-breakers, and their type is still not thought of as The Default by developers or fellow fans.

Which is fine, mostly. But there is value in recognizing the ideas that a different sort of mind can contribute, and how these voices can help constructively craft the scene. Let them be taken seriously, and be appreciated for their distinct perspective. At times, it may even seem refreshing.

They Appreciate The Craft

Consider motivation: Why would anyone bother playing a game at its hardest difficulty, anyway? Sure they may enjoy the heightened challenge, but why? Does it not always come back to a personal point of pride? Having to conquer the game, having to beat someone else, having to prove something.

Now, consider the Easy-Mode Player, the player who is taking their sweet time to truly soak in the journey, to dive full-bodied into the story and lore that has been crafted for them, to let themselves be immersed and invested in the setting and characterizations. Just as there are connoisseurs in other fields, is there not room for gamers who really take measure of the artform we are so fond of?

Would Easy-Mode Players not more readily support games as an artform, since they are removing their ego from the equation and more readily embracing the total venue of experiences that the hobby can offer?

I am not saying that speedrunning is somehow bad, or there cannot be a healthy place in this world for esports tournaments. However, consider the artistic merit of these pursuits applied to other subjects of study. What would we think of a reader who speed-read a book? Of a viewer who watched a film in fast-forward? What if a listener made music more difficult, trying to listen to a track while punching their own ears underwater?

Should we not treasure the keen insights of those who truly involve themselves with the games in a real way? Those who really do regard gaming as an interactive art form, and see more clearly their narrative capabilities?

All I’m saying is that I bet people who play Easy have a sight for the craft of games that many others lack, and this is probably pretty cool.

They’re Nicer People

Look, um, I admit, this is a gross generalization, and totally unscientific, but -- if you put the hardest-core FPS player next to someone who likes visual novels, I’m just saying, I would wager on the visual-novelist being the kinder person if I had to pick. Kinder human beings are, generally, human beings I would rather associate and communicate with.

Okay, I am beginning to drift away from any legitimate point I could have had. At the end of the day, all I am trying to say is -- let’s celebrate and champion the easy-mode players, because they add a distinctive wrinkle to the community that should be appreciated. Let’s support and affirm one another, rather than… get bent out of shape because now even a baby can play a Super Mario game (I mean seriously, why the hell do you care wh-- never mind, sorry, sorry).

I do want to include a word about accessibility. The idea of having more play options for more people includes the benefit of opening possibilities for those with cognitive differences or bodily challenges. If including these players means a form of play that could be seen as an Easy Mode, can you really feel good about taking issue with that? Or feel malice for letting these players play at all?

I know some people find children annoying, as another example, but what objection can you truly have to a setting that finally lets a child enjoy a game? Feel free to tackle the issues of appropriate choices on a title-by-title basis, but the overall idea remains: Gaming inclusion beats gaming exclusion, and it is not a difficult debate.

Communities work better when people act more like friends and less like enemies. This seems like a simple-enough idea to me, but we have a bit of work to do yet. So, let’s do the work. Let’s stop turning our noses at folks for playing walking simulators, stop trying to push people into playing in ways they don’t really want to play, and conduct ourselves upliftingly toward those who slide the difficulty scale all the way down.

Here’s to you, Easy-Mode Players. I think you’re the real gamers.


     Guest post written by Eric Bailey [ @Nintendo_Legend ] 
          Admin of [ skirmishfrogs.com ] [ @SkirmishFrogs ]

     For Eric Bailey's last Guest Post click [ HERE ]

You’re All Idiots, Everything's On Fire, and Nothing Ever Changes: Yet Another Critique of Gaming Culture (GUEST POST by @Nintendo_Legend)

Idiots, all of you.

This happened weeks ago, before I wrote a blog post called I am a Hardcore Casual Gamer about the silliness of overvaluing video games (someday I’ll have the balls to write about how overvaluing any leisure activity should be a bad idea yet how doing so seems to have become the coutume du jour), before the Any Number of Currently Ongoing Gaming-Related ‘Controversies.’

I happened to eavesdrop on a few tweets exchanged, as I do. I do not even remember who the two people were. One of them had mentioned their complaint about a modern gaming industry practice that had something to do with how the product is sold to consumers. I do not remember the exact game/issue, I do not remember whether it was on-disk DLC or microtransactions or releasing a game episodically or Sony’s weird new 4.5 console or what it was, precisely, only that the original tweeter had a general “this kinda sucks” type of complaint and linked to an article.

Then came the responder, someone who multi-tweet-ranted about how the industry has become predatory with their anti-consumer practices, and has gotten “greedy” and that it’s all such B.S. and it’s so wrong and…

And, I dunno, I just kinda thought, can we unpack these ideas a little?

I am the old man who yells at clouds. Hello, clouds.

This whole buzzwordy online dialogue of the Consumer Vs. Industry idea is funny. Like, the way gamers get all pissy-whiny about this stuff (yet, lo and behold, usually end up buying the game anyway, right?) makes me wonder: If you get this way about a $60 purchase, how do you react when something goes wrong with your car? Have you ever tried to buy a house? Is this really the pinnacle of your outrage, or are you just one of those angry-all-the-time people that makes for absolutely dreadful company?

Or maybe, hey, everything else in your life is going well and the game thing is the lone thorn in your side, in that case I hear ya maybe, but that’s besides the broader point.

Can I talk about Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles II: The Arcade Game for the Nintendo Entertainment System? Some of you are likely familiar with this one.

Gosh, I loved this game.

I was already a fan of the Ninja Turtles, so this was a real treat for my boyhood self. I could choose different Turtles, roam through big 8-bit levels, and use sweet ninja attacks to dispose of familiar enemies in a relentless action fever dream.

I put so many hours into Turtles II. I played through it over and over. It was its own little Thing To Do. “Hey, let’s play Turtles II!” I played it by myself, I played it with my sister, I often played it with my mom. In fact, it was totally a source of bonding between me and mom, something we would play into long hours of the night way past when my bedtime should have been. We played it with the code, without the code -- sometimes we beat it altogether, but usually we would get to Shredder and lose all our turtles. We would fight playfully over stealing each other’s extra lives (remember when you could do that?), we would argue over which Shredder is the real Shredder, we would debate the proper pathways through the stages.

And while I have no doubt that many hours of craftsmanship were spent on the pixel art, the music, the programming, and other elements -- Turtles II is a dumb game.

Turtles II (NES) is a stupid game that I love utterly.

I mean, this was not exactly a culturally enriching experience. This was a button-masher. Every single area had the same objective: Kill every enemy on the screen, then move forward. That was it, over and over, again and again, repeated and repeated. Attack, attack, attack, maybe with some jumping and walking in between. This was a blunt-force object of a video game. This was a caveman’s club of a video game.

Yet I enjoyed it greatly. I mean, it was better than the actual Turtles arcade game, which people seem to remember with nostalgia-tinted goggles. In actuality, that thing is a quarter-chugging slog, an overly repetitive grind, as was the trend at the time (see: Simpsons, Captain America & the Avengers, X-Men, etc.). When is the last time you played the genuine Ninja Turtles arcade cabinet? It is terribly difficult, with an absurdly skewed ratio between how much damage you deal to enemies against how easily they can kill you first. The NES port is impressive enough, by managing to summon the spirit mostly (as many other 8-bit arcade conversions failed to), but even actually added content to the game that never appeared in the original cabinet.

Back in my day...

People complain about microtransactions today, but I am here to tell you: Arcades had the original microtransactions. Twenty-five cents to start playing, then again if you wanted to continue? That sounds like a microtransaction to me. Hell, in many sports games, you could get suckered into paying a whole dollar’s worth of coinage to begin -- only to discover, once the first quarter ended, you had to keep paying just to finish a single complete match. That sort of scheme has been going on for decades.

The console scene was not much better, prior to the Information Age of the internet. You could waltz into a store and select a fine-lookin’ game on the shelf, only to get home and discover that it was utter garbage. I hope the place had a nice return policy, because the experiences that today we would regard as “antiquated” and “horrible” and “diarrhea” were still the same full-priced $50 and $60 packages.

Isn’t that crazy, too, how prices on a new game have remained so insanely level? No wonder companies have had to come up with ways to squeeze out extra income. If they jacked up the price of a new game to $110, it might be defensible by some measures, but gamers would riot in the streets.

I don’t mean to sound like I am completely defending The Industry, though; sure, they have their share of sins. They have shown time and time again that they clearly make bad decisions, terribly misjudge what people want, and cannot execute plans to the quality you would expect. I just think many of the people complaining about their attempts at increasing revenue may not quite understand how business works.

Components such as subscription programs and pay-to-win and all the other tricks of the trade are to be expected. Sorry, Western world, but that’s capitalism. The nature of such an economy is one that rewards selfish predators and greedy swindlers. That is the system we live in, largely. It has been that way for a while, and it is not something that will change any time soon.

Even my beloved Nintendo is guilty of some head-scratching moves. You will never convince me that “Wii U” is a good name for a gaming system, or that it makes any sense for a company that size to release a social-networking app with a broken friends list and such inefficient navigation. Nintendo, like any other organization, is comprised of human beings -- and human beings are awful.

Once you understand that human beings are generally awful, everything will make sense and nothing will ever surprise you again.

Internalize this: People suck.

Of course, this doesn’t mean we should burn every corporate executive at the stake, nor should we not have compassion on our fellow members of humanity. We sure like to jump to extreme judgements though, don’t we? It is so much easier to paint every issue in black-and-white terms, with a Good Guy and a Bad Guy. Everything is either Awesome or The Worst.

After all, in today’s Outrage Culture, we have incentivized the Hot Take. All those precious views, clicks, likes, shares, favorites, and retweets are going to go to the person with the most obnoxious voice and the loudest, most extreme opinion. What else would we react to, if not the outlier, and thus form the next link on the unending chain of the ‘conversation’ cycle?

I am guilty of adding to the problem, sure. And many of my words here are not new insights. I just think it is disappointing to see people continue to think in these ways about their games, like everything happens in a vacuum, like the entire universe is somehow obligated to grant them some kind of sublime experience, as if they are the Glorious Exception to everyone else, chosen divinely to receive a brand of joy that nobody else deserves.

That’s another thing I want to explore further someday: This modern idea that it’s offensive and unacceptable to have to undergo any kind of struggle or hardship. That is so dumb. I will leave it at that, for now, but it is… just so dumb.

And it works both ways: You have people decrying any kind of disagreement as harassment, and then you have the kneejerk other side of the equation who think that you shouldn’t block anyone on social media who disagrees with you because “being open to opposing ideas is the only way anything changes,” and all the even-keeled rational-minded people in the middle are never paid attention to in the first place.

In fact, if you look hard enough, you may discover that gamers love self-defeating contradictions. We like to decry publishers for pushing out the same iterative titles, then turn our noses up and ridicule the result when someone really does try to do something truly different. We go insane when another delay is announced, yet complain at the same volume if a game is released unfinished. We place reviews (of video games, of all things) under the biggest, brightest, most scrutinizing microscope to make sure none of the scores are unusual (?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!), yet wonder why the ‘average’ game gets such a lofty mark.

Reviewing reviews.

Actually, let me riff on that last one, just a little bit more: Why do people care so much about review scores? More specifically, why do people read reviews with an expectation of a specific score -- then flip out if the score doesn’t match their expectation? At its simplest: How can you disagree so strongly when you have not even played the game yet?

Here’s the real kicker, for me. I suspect that, for many people, the reason they react so strongly to a perceived “poor” review is because they feel an intense fandom loyalty to a chosen game franchise. Maybe you utterly love the Uncharted games, but some jerk gave the last one only a 7.5 score and you were enraged, for example. I really think that’s the sort of thing it is, most of the time.

Then this is the catch: If you know your own tastes so well, and you know what you like, and you have an understanding of what your favorite franchise has to offer, and you can quickly identify whether or not the latest title is something you would want to purchase… then why the hell do you care so much about what exact score some rando writer gives the game?!

I am confident that nobody can give me an answer to that question that makes any sense. Let’s have some more intellectual honesty in this discussion: I’d love to hear someone say, “You’re right Eric, of course there’s not a good reason for that. I just love getting mad about stuff -- which is another behavior that I cannot explain rationally!”

And yet… slivers of optimism?

Overall, though, life is just so much more colorful and rich and complex than making every issue black-and-white, judging someone by one thing they say, or assigning an out-of-ten score to an item. We exist within a world where millions of different influences all collide with each other in every moment to affect a vast organic tapestry. Each of us makes hundreds of decisions throughout our day, and by sheer mathematics, we are likely very often choosing courses of action that are worse than an alternative. We are meat bags, filled with water, piloted by ghosts, slowly deteriorating.

You’re dumb. I’m dumb. But maybe the next time you encounter a situation or person you disagree with or dislike -- you can take a minute to actually consider your words and your reactions, you can consider the fact that being a vocal angry idiot is much worse than being an encourager elsewhere or being quiet altogether, and if we all just do that sometimes then the whole scene will be a bit less moronic.

That probably sounds like real sunshine-and-roses thinking, but here is my parting thought. No, seriously, I promise, this is my conclusion.

I used to be an angry guy. I am much less angry now. Between “angry guy” and “much less angry,” there was a lot of personal growth. Yes, people suck, but they are capable of greatness. People can be smart enough to identify specific ways they can improve, then do it to become better in their future than they were in their past. Change happens when you acknowledge a problem and take real steps to alter it.

I may not be able to convince every angry gamer to be a more constructive member of the community, but if I can be part of the impetus to get one person to grow personally, then I know it is worth it -- because it has been worth it in my own life.

Thanks for reading!


     Guest post written by Eric Bailey [ @Nintendo_Legend ] 
          Admin of [ skirmishfrogs.com ] [ @SkirmishFrogs ]