|Chris Metzen: Anyone who knows me knows I hate this guy.|
He's a tool, and he makes video games. He's the reason why
Blizzard sucks ass now. Fuck him.
I think I've mentioned before that Electronic Arts makes me want to cry, but it's not just them. Game developers today have largely boned video games, and it's precisely because they're catering to a younger audience (younger than I).
"But Jack, just a few weeks ago you said that your generation would change the world. Now you think your generation sucks?" No! I think my generation will change the world, but the people that are in their teenage years right now have no taste in video games.
Game developers have strayed away from games being an art form, and they've done so because they discovered that artists don't make a whole lot of money. In essence, they sold out. How so? Well, when video games first started being a real thing--we'll say at the dawn of the Nintendo Entertainment System--they were basically pioneering the modern game industry. There was no real product that Super Mario Brothers compared to, and that's how games were for a long time.
So basically, like artists, game developers had to make games that they thought would be a great experience. We were given these games and forced to appreciate them (or not) exactly for what the games were. Good artists don't make art to cater to what they think people will like. They just make art. At some point, game developers made games for the sake of making games. They were looking to make fun, innovative experiences.
That's not the case anymore. Games, today, are catered to key moneymaking demographics. So games today are made under the mindset of "accessibility." "Accessibility," is code for "make the game easier." So they sold out, and games today are mostly hollow shells of what they once were. And why are these guys worse than Terry Jones? Well, it's because they are a party to the destruction of creativity. Creativity, in my mind, is the last bastion of true freedom for humanity.
|No . . . no we cannot.|
I just won't win this one, because some of you will hate me for not having him high enough on my list, and others will hate me for having him on my list at all. Well, both groups of people can just deal with it.
Now, I'm a fair person. I did not vote for him, but I didn't harbor any ill-will or feelings of impending amrageddon. I'll be the first person to say that America has survived far worse presidents. Having said that, Obama is not a great president, and it's not necessarily because of which side of the aisle he sits on.
Obama represents "more of the same." Yeah, that will probably sound silly to many of you who think that a lot of his policies are radically different than anything that's ever been done before, but that's simply because you're not looking at it objectively. Obama honestly has had no business being the president. I hate to bring up the whole "experience" argument, but c'mon. The guy was a senator for a few years and that somehow made him a great choice for a president?
Be honest with yourselves: Obama was elected because he is a young, charismatic black man who promised "hope and change." That's not racist, it's just the truth. One of my black friends actually admitted to me: "yes, I voted for him simply because he's black and I wanted to see a black president. I regret voting for him."
He promised hope and change. He tried to make himself out to be something different, something new. In the end, it turns out he's no different than any other politician. And what's worse is that he convinced many of you that he was different. Right, because his senate voting record definitely showed him to be a maverick who was willing to break with his party. Please . . .
And yes, this is a very cursory criticism of his presidency and what it represents, but honestly I could write an entire article about it; maybe someday in the future. For now you're just going to have to accept this quick look at why he sucks.
|It's a snow machine. See what I did there?|
CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, they'are all incredibly terrible. They're terrible because they make no effort to be even close to objective. Fox News is almost even more terrible because it's whole purpose is to "balance," out the news.
Yes, there is a major liberal bent to CNN and MSNBC, but it's ridiculous to think that balance somehow means that there are an equal number of radically subjective morons on both sides. None of these newsmedia asshats even care about objectivity anymore. They're making the news more about ratings than they are actually presenting facts and truth.
"But Jack, networks like MSNBC just presents the facts. It's all objective, and it's all true!" Right, Keith Olbermann is the king of objectivity. And Fox News is no better with the likes of Bill O'Reilly.
What's most egregious about these newsmedia outlets is how positively snowed they've got people. I can't help but cringe when someone cites Fox News or CNN as gospel. I consider myself to be a conservative, and I can't watch more than 5 nanoseconds of Fox News without vomitting. I probably hate Fox News more because they're so unabashedly grand-standish. It's like everything Obama does is a mortal sin. "ZOMG OBAMA WENT GOLFING THIS WEEKEND!!! NO PRESIDENT IN THE HISTORY OF THE PRESIDENCY HAS EVER TAKEN A VACATION!!!" Fucking get over it.