«

[_r.u.s.s.]

this reminds me of the movie idiocracy, it was probably even inspired by your novel

[Kugerfang]

Originally Posted by dosraider

It was pretty clear those days were coming where the idiots would take over.
Reminds me of a novel, forgot the title, forgot the writer, but in short:
Intelligent people don't have many kids usually, they restrain themselves.
Idiots breed as horny rabbits.
Idiots and fools will outnumber the intelligent ones.

Simple fact.

"People shaggin' away like rabbits, and dropping their kids everywhere" - Hellblazer

[Sebatianos]

I think it's something rather different MM.

Never before were people able to comunicate with the whole world acctually. If you make a comment on YouTube there's a chance more people will read you comment, then there will be people who heard the last public speach of their country's president. This and the notion of everybody being entitled to their own five minutes of fame in this world brought forward such comments.

It's kindda like people who walk behind an interview. You've probably seen this before. There's a cammera and a person conducting an interview somewhere on the street. There are sure to be some people trying to get in the shot, just so they could see themselves on TV. And what will they do? Usually make a stupid face trying to be funny, trying to be noticed. You can't really make a funny face when commenting on YouTube (or any similar media), but you can make a stupid comment.

And normally you won't put such a comment under a clip you've liked. There you'll be just one of many saying how it r00000xxxxxx111!!!!111!!!!11 (or what the current term is).
And it's also conexted with hatered toward anything different. It's not that the'd care about something else, but if that other thing gets possitive comments and is voted to be above average, it will be more likely to pop up and the people from mindless groups don't want anything other then their personal preforance to pop up.
It's actually very simple. People like to ride on the same train as winners, hoping their luck, fame, glory... will rub off on them. But there are only so many disciplines you can watch and a hard core basketball fan won't even know what sport sinchronised swimming is, much less care about the person who won the tournament - so they will see those people just an imposter trying to take away the spotlight from their own personal idols and thus robbing them of few specs of dust from their glory.

In other words, people tend to be idots, trying to prove they're worth something by identefying themselves through their favorite music, films, sports... and childlishly attacking anything that is different so it wouldn't steal attention (like a child being jelous of something else, people around him are paying attention to instead of it).

[DoomYoshi]

Music reviews, movie reviews, good/bad...

At the turn of the last century there were only two types of media reviews. Book reviews and art reviews. With the descent of modern art, art reviews became as garbled as wine reviews. However, book reviews remain the highest standard for what a review should be. The thing that distinguishes book reviews from other types is that the book reviewer will not state whether or not the book is 'fun' or 'enjoyable' whereas the video game reviewer only focus on such things. In the nineties when internet was still small but video game magazines were huge, most players grew accustomed to video game journalists reporting on rumors and giving highly subjective reviews. With the internet explosion people began to think they could emulate this 'tabloid' journalism... sometimes it turns out alright (abandonia reviews); most of the time it is absolute gibberish.

What style do you think should our reviews have? (Probably both, but I'd want to know which one our editors prefer).

1. The 'guidish' style, where you write a lot about what the gameplay is like, describe the game's rules and mechanics a lot, etc. and your own opinion is less prominent. This is the style of such Abandonian reviews as Beverly Hills Cop or Into the Eagle's Nest.

2. The 'reviewish' style, where you concentrate more on the game's quality and less on the nuances of gameplay. Basically, you try to explain what are the good and bad sides of the game, and when you describe some facet of the game, you also write your opinion on it. E.g. this Gamespot review of ET: Quake Wars or the review or R-Type Tactics.

Here is the same issue approached from a different angle. Type 1 is actually the 'highbrow' style and type 2 is the 'lowbrow' or 'tabloid' style. Unfortunately, there is this idiotic belief that people's idiotic beliefs have any value whatsoever. That is what causes the entire problem. Assuming that everybody's opinions are not only valid, but equal in value. It's ironic that at the same time as pop culture is being elevated due to 'purely subjective art', people are becoming irate that their ladder of superiority is not being respected. If you ignored this entire post, you are halfway to understanding what I am trying to say.