How Many Times Must a Man Walk Alone?

(Personal rant ahead)

So yesterday was my 27th birthday. I spent it with family members, and spent the evening alone. I did invite people round, but not a soul came. Some of my would be guests were unwell, or genuinely had other plans before my invite; and that's fine. But the remainder either made excuses, cried off at the last minute, or never responded at all. It's a good job these days I'm a lot happier in mown company.

This experience hasn't upset me too much, because these things happen, and none of it was within my control. I do however think it's a bit pathetic the way some people carried on. It's not an isolated incident either. The amount of time I've tried to make plans with people, only to be cancelled on a couple of hours before is ridiculous- and no, of course they don't reschedule. 

It's times like this that I really do take stock of the ever thinning herd of people I give a shit about, and going forward, I'll probably just stick to those few for welcoming into my home.

Age Before Beauty; And Long After.

I often find my head in my hands at this society's preoccupation with physical beauty.

Beauty means different things to different people- but regardless of that- such high value is placed upon it. Everyone judges people based on their looks. It happens every single day. I'm guilty of it, you're guilty of it; we all are.

What so many people forget is that it's only temporary. We all age. We all get old. And we all lose many of the attributes that society calls beautiful.

People try to slow it with products and surgery, but why? Getting older is part of life and inevitable. Why not do it with a little dignity? What happened to growing old gracefully?

I recently watched a documentary called "Advanced Style". It seemed to address the fact that fashion is overly preoccupied with youth. The maker of the film is also a photographer and blogger (the blog has the same title, if you want to go and look), who takes modelling photos of women over 55 years of age. It demonstrated clearly that you don't  have to be young to have a sense of style or be fashionable. It really brought home to me even more how utterly meaningless the current perception of beauty is. Physically, their best years were behind these women, but they replaced that with something else; A pervading and irresistible individuality; that is ageless.

If you fell in love with someone purely because of their looks, it's probably not going to last, unless you find something else in them to love.

Beautiful or not, we all get old and eventually die. People would do well to remember that nobody makes a good looking corpse. Harsh? Probably. Definitely true.

End of the Corridor

So I finally found the time to finish Final Fantasy XIII.

First, (and I'll start positive) this game is BEAUTIFUL. The landscapes go from sleek and futuristic, to dingy and moody and both look excellent. 

The character design is on point, and there are a fair few likeable faces among them. Lightning, the main protragonist; is vibrant, complex, strong and independent. At one point she repeatedly slugs a character who is a more typical JRPG "hero", because he is being a complete idiot and deserves it.

The score, as always, is amazing. Even though Nobuo Uematsu has retired- his legacy lives on in the genius team behind the music

I have to say though- all things considered- this game is by far the worst in the entire series.

The story is confusing. Really hard to follow, and even harder to stay interested in.

Nothing is explained, except in Datalog entries that the game expects you to read- which is really galling... Sure, Kingdom Hearts does it, but it's supplementary information- you can still follow what things are and what's going on without reading it- it just adds depth. After completing the game, I still don't know what a Fal'Cie is- something mentioned in the first half hour of gameplay. 

The item-levelling thing is stupid, it's just so redundant until you get to the end, and you stop getting better items. The job levelling system is... All right. 

It's also very easy. Least amount of time I've spent in a final fantasy game. You can count the real problem bosses and difficulty spikes on one hand each.

But by far this game's worst offence is its monotony. And this is demonstrated in two key areas:

Firstly, the battle system. One of the key elements of these games, is the turn based strategy against enemies. 

Over the course of Final Fantasy titles, characters with unique skillsets are introduced and as the player, you have to work out which characters and abilities to use to overcome your adversary. FFXIII takes that all away. For starters- you only get to choose the actions one character- the designated "party leader"- whilst the other two are on autopilot. However, you won't do that. All you'll do is hammer "X" to "Auto Battle", unless you want to summon something. 

The characters can switch "jobs" in battle using predetermined paradigms that you set for them- giving them roles. These roles are Mage, Fighter, Buffer, Healer, Tank and De-Buffer- but they all have needlessly complex and pretentious names. 

Once you've found a winning set of paradigms, you can breeze through the whole game without much incident. In FFXIII, you aren't the one fighting, you're in the director's chair shouting at the characters. You can do most of it whilst eating a plateful of dinner at the same time; I speak from experience.

Seemingly, the developers wanted to make battle a lot flashier; in the wake of Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children (The FFVII CGI sequel movie) they wanted the games to look as good as that, which is an admirable pursuit. The reality of it though, is that you are watching a battle happen and stepping in if it all goes to shit. Watching, I might add through the most barf-inducing camera ever known in a video game. Imagine Lakitu from Super Mario 64 on crack cocaine, and you're not even close to how janky it is.

Secondly, (and this is what outrages most fans) the game is so linear. It has jokingly been called Final Corridor XIII, which would be hilarious if we weren't all stumbling down it whilst playing. 

About four-fifths of the game is running down a road or corridor in a straight line; with the only divergence being the silly bouncing "treasure chests"; which are almost always a disappointment. 

When you get that far though, you are greeted with a beautiful sight: a huge sprawling open map, monsters running and stomping about like real animals; and almost acting socially. It looks like a real ecosystem. It reminded me a lot of Avatar's Pandora (not just because of the shamelessly similar flying creatures.)

However, before long, it's back to the straight-line trudge, more or less until the end of the game, before you can come back here. This really angers me. Not only is it the complete antithesis of Final Fantasy of years past; but it shows you this area in the opening cinematic! Right before you reach the start menu!! It lures you in with beautiful visuals before sending you down an unremarkable rat-run for 40+ hours. 

The ending was at least nice, and there is a second game which supposedly rights a lot of this game's wrongs, but that remains to be seen.

Fuck this game. I don't think I'll touch it ever again. It has next to zero replay value, and the only reason I saw it through at all is because I'm that much of a dyed-in-the-wool fan of the franchise that I would feel incomplete if I hadn't. 

Welcome to Hell.

Well, here we are. Again.

The General Election has passed.

The Conservative party have a majority government, and David Cameron will be returning to Downing St. The Scottish Nationalist Party have claimed all but three seats in Scotland, routing the other parties in their safest seats. In the wake of these results, three party leaders have resigned. Ed Miliband (Labour), Nick Clegg (Liberal Democrats) and Nigel Farage (UKIP). UKIP gained one seat, Greens Held onto theirs. The final results seat wise are as follows:

• Conservatives - 330
• Labour - 232
• Liberal Democrats - 8
• UKIP - 1
• SNP - 56
• Other Parties - 23

Total 650.

First of all, I want to get something out of the way; something that you all knew was coming from me if this happened. This state of affairs we now find ourselves in was wholly preventable. We had the chance last September to prevent ourselves from being governed by another Tory government that doesn't have Scotland's interests at heart. We bottled it. If you voted No in the Independence Referendum 2014- Congratulations, there was always a high chance of this happening- you helped seal our fate. I'll get onto exactly what we can expect, However in the meantime I must deal with another point.

In the next few weeks, Labour and its supporters will bemoan their defeat, saying that the Scottish Nationalists are to blame 

         

Simple arithmetic. If every single Scottish person who voted SNP voted for labour instead, it still would not have been nearly enough to provide labour with a majority. In fact, quite rightly, Miliband has placed the blame for the poor results squarely on Labour themselves. The fact of the matter is they did not inspire confidence and trust in the electorate. In Scotland, they disgracefully got into bed with the Conservatives during the referendum campaign, and the Scottish people (however they voted) have not forgiven them for that. Still, Scotland is worth 59 seats out of at total 650. I will not patronise the reader by performing simple mathematics in this blog.

So now that the Conservatives hold a majority, they won't have the pesky Lib-dems moderating over the policies they make. This means they will not be pulling any of the punches from now on; and believe me, they are going to hurt, Here are a few things that the Tories have already supported for the future of the UK:

• £12 Billion cuts to welfare (as yet unspecified)
• Privatisation of NHS departments to multi-nationals
• A referendum on Leaving the EU
• Scrapping the Human Rights Act
• Reduction in the "Barnett Formula"
• Prevention of Scottish MP's from voting on English issues.
• Raising the top threshold levels for inheritance and income taxes
• Repealing the Hunting Act
• "Right to Buy" extended to housing associations
• Reduction in Corporation taxes
• Halting onshore windfarms
• Increased government surveillance and a possible return of the "Snooper's Charter"

Some of that will have people positively gaping at their screens. You can, however, look it all up freely in their manifesto, and in the official news announcements that have broken today in the wake of the results. Brace yourslves.

On a more positive note, the landslide victory for the SNP in Scotland means that 56 MP's are headed to Westminster who will put Scotland's interests first. We shall not be as easily ignored in the House of Commons. Jim Murphy, Gordon Brown, Jo Swinson, and Danny Alexander, big-hitters all, have been ousted in favour of SNP

On the subject of another Referendum, I'm sure there will be continued fervor for one, but it's doubtful. even though we were completely misled by Westminster and their "Vow"and scared into voting to stay. 

                     

However, the sad fact of the matter is, that despite the increased numbers, despite the "Scotland Bill" and despite the promises made to us since before September, we are going to be hammered. Welfare cuts mean that the weakest and most vulnerable people in society will have even less. Foodbanks have already increased from 56 to 445 under the previous government- and are set to rise further under these new cuts. Suicide rates in the poorest areas will undoubtedly be on the rise. Meanwhile, the richest 1% of the UK will be well on their way to having their wealth TRIPLED, having doubled it already since the Tories came to power. Any tax cuts announced will only benefit the rich and the powerful, while the rest of us are left to rot.

Remember: up until this point we have been in a coalition where the Conservatives have been paired with a left-wing liberal party that helped to curtail their more unfair and crueller plans for the electorate. If you thought the last five years was harsh on the less fortunate- In the words of Bachman-Turner Overdrive- "You ain't seen nothin' yet"

Welcome to hell. The irony is, in Scotland it won't even be warm.

Panem et Circenses.

Now that Britain's Got Talent has returned to national television I find myself in a curious conflict: relief versus penetrating despair for humanity.

I should explain. I mean relief, in the sense I'll be spared from it. For a couple of years now, I have forsaken a television service. I only watch catch up and streaming services, and in doing so, I save £145 per year by not paying a TV License. Sure- there are things I miss. I am a fan of documentaries, I like an edgy drama special now and then and enjoy debate and panel shows- but so much of television today is complete and utter dreck. Fly on the wall shows. Game shows. Talent shows. Parades of Z list celebrities trying to recapture an audience. "Talent" shows. 

Which brings us neatly to Britain's Got Talent. Ironically- the show's title doesn't give me this feeling. "Britain's got a lot of shameless, grasping, attention seeking, desperate souls who will debase themselves on national television for a shot at easy money" might be a bit long, I suspect, but is closer to the mark. "Britain's got some Talent when you sift through all the shit" pretty much sums it up.

 

Be under no illusions. BGT is not out to make "stars;" it is out to make money. It is out to keep both of Cowell's Bugatti Veyrons purring along affluent roadsides. 

Aside  from that I hardly need to mock

It because it has gotten so ridiculous it is now a parody of itself. Everyone knows that some auditions are just included for ratings. Everyone knows these people shouldn't get through to the next rounds (but they inadvertently do) just to make "good television" and promote discussion. It's only through being discussed that shows like these maintain relevance at all. 

I ask the same question of the genre that Bowling For Soup once did ("When Did reality, become TV?), but I have a particular distaste for "talent shows", particularly when there is music involved. I've stated already that I am a music elitist- for better or worse. I believe that music should come from that creative place deep inside every mind. It should come from how you feel about the world, how you feel about being in it, and sharing that with others. Talent shows make it all about money, fame and selling records. It's for Simon Cowell- not the artists.

However, because it is a catapult into the limelight, as opposed to the traditional methods of getting yourself out there musically, desperate and deluded souls will continue to sign up to try and get their shot. The reality is Britain does have talent, but it isn't on this programme; it's in the small venues around the UK just waiting to be found.

Artists who have built themselves up from the ground with integrity also have something these manufactured singers don't. Longevity. Even the ones who win talent competitions (with few exceptions like Will Young) have a year of success at best before their labels drop them and they fade into obscurity- only to be replaced by next year's winner. 

I think that's what offends me most of all. It's not just that I don't like the manufactured pop these shows turn out; I can't respect any of it. It has no substance. Then again, the easily amused masses who keep these shows running don't respect it either; they're just interested in sampling the flavour of the month. I am a music elitist because I don't accept mediocrity. That's all these people are. They are a cheap and cheerful and inoffensive. Our Panem et Circenses. Nothing more than a distraction for those with low attention spans and money from which- like the proverbial fools- they are soon parted.

What You Buy With Free Speech.

Yesterday, a young man in Sunderland was arrested, for making an insensitive,  and disgusting joke on Twitter, at the expense of those killed in Glasgow's George Square.

I won't mention his name, nor will I lend him a platform for his bile to be spread further, by copy-pasting his tweet. I do this out of respect for the victims of the incident- one of whom I knew and worked with. Jack was a kind, generous, talkative and genial soul.

In the wake of his arrest- many Twitter users (Twits?) are claiming injustice, and protesting it with the ever predictable cries of "it was only a joke" and "freedom of speech". 

Such nonsense makes me groan.

Yes, it is important to maintain freedom of speech- even if it is a view we disagree with, we must fight for people's right to say it. However, having freedom to say something, and exercising that right, doesn't  absolve a person of all responsibility and accountability for their words. Furthermore, when you sign up to a social media site, you agree to abide by the terms and conditions of use, including conduct.

The fact of the matter is, this individual grossly insulted not only the victims, their friends and family, but their whole nation. It caused a large amount of people considerable distress and upset. It violated Twitter's terms of use, and apart from anything else, it was also racist and thus in contravention of the law.

As for the comedy aspect- I agree that there should be no boundaries in what can, and cannot be joked about. Tragedy and comedy have always gone hand in hand. Invoking humour- especially around the darker events in our history and humanity- makes life more bearable. It is an important part of our culture, and it helps in how we deal with such events emotionally. However, comedy has a qualifier. If people don't find it funny, it's not a joke- despite what your intentions were. If you have to explain why it's funny, the joke has failed. If it's set out to hurt some people and make others laugh, I'm not sure that meets the criteria of a joke either- and it should be noted that this is profoundly different to being the butt of a joke. Jokes should not aim to have a selective audience- surely they should aim to entertain all? Humour is very individual, but comedians all have one goal; to entertain. This is why despite not appealing to everyone, the likes of Frankie Boyle and Ricky Gervais are an important facet of the genre. 

I recently wrote a post about offence, and I feel I need to make a differentiation between what I am saying here, and what I was saying there. When I go on the attack in my writings; I attack ideas, not people. Ideas do not have rights- people do. Sometimes, in support of my criticism of ideas, I may invoke an opinion or criticism of someone- but you will never find me sincerely wishing someone physical harm or relishing in suffering. It's also important when making criticisms, to restrict oneself to use of the facts, and refrain from use of ad hominem attacks, which undermine your point. 

So before you leap to the defence of someone exercising their "freedom of speech" or decide to do so yourself:

Think.

I Find This Offensive.

I'm an opinionated person. This means that every once in a while I say something that people will disagree with. I will say some things that people might even feel offended by. 

Unfortunately however, there's nothing I can do about that.

I used to be a blogger on the website Tumblr. My most popular post (by a very long way) was a single sentence. I feel it was quite revealing of the general environment I was in:

"People on Tumblr need to realise... that just because someone disagrees with what you think, it does not mean you are being oppressed"

I am not about to retract something I've said because I've offended or upset someone. There was always a good chance of that happening.

Here is an example:

I think that Kate and Gerry McCann should be locked up. If they want to find the people responsible for their daughter's disappearance, they need only look in a mirror. If any working class or minority family failed in their duty of care to their kids the way they did- the social work department would take their other kids away. They are not victims; they are unfit parents. This is also the reason why poor Madeleine, out of all the thousands of children that go missing silently every year, gets so much attention, money and resources thrown at her case- because she is white, adorable, and from a well off family.

That could be regarded as a bit of an unpopular opinion. Do you disagree? That's fine. Are you offended? That's fine too. But that's what I think. I still think that way whether I have offended you or not.

Now you are perfectly at liberty to present an alternative point of view. I like a good debate. I would however insist that you actually present an argument instead of just telling me you're upset or offended at what I've said.

Plenty of things offend me. I'm offended by people who chew with their mouths open. I'm offended by suffering. I'm offended by people who talk over top of others, or do not allow other people to get a word in edgeways. I'm offended by anything "supernatural" for which there is no proof. I don't ask to be spared from these things because I'm offended, but I'm just not going to agree with you; and if you believe something like someone not deserving the same rights as you- because they were born different to you- then you can be damn sure I'm going to let you know how much oxygen I think you're wasting.

But I digress.

In summation; the point I'm trying to make is that it's okay if you disagree with somebody. It's okay to think differently. If you make it your personal duty to let everyone know you disagree with each and every little thing that comes out of someone's mouth, then you should probably back off. As well as that- what kind of pathetic existence is that, anyway? Not everyone has to think the exact same thing as you, and that's okay. If you can agree to disagree with somebody, and the two of you accept it, then you'll both be better people for it. And if it gets to you that much? Then maybe you need to reassess who you're spending time and data with. 

You're offended? Good for you. 

Success and "Selling Out"

I did a post about music fairly recently, but I discussed music with a friend of mine recently, and I was reminded of a rather annoying characteristic of some music fans. In the past I've been called a music elitist and I accept that charge- it simply means my standards are high.  There are however, greater "sins" that some lovers of music commit. To fully understand what I'm talking about- let's examine some of the choiciest irritating phrases uttered by fans of this type, and respond to them.

"I listened to them before they got famous, now I don't":- Why? Have they changed dramatically since then in sound or attitude? If there is no legitimate shift of any kind; don't be alarmed, but you might in fact be what is commonly known as a pretentious hipster. Oh no- a relatively unknown band has broken ground and now people other than you like them. What a travesty.

"I was one of the first people to get into them":- Congratulations. We are all so very happy for you, are deeply moved by your unwavering superfandom, and think your oversized owl pendant is... Lovely. Tell me, what is it that draws you to nautical themes? Forgive the sarcasm, but I fail to see the merit in pointing this out, other than shameless posturing of course. 

"They used to be good, but they've sold out now, and they suck" :- Do they really? I'm sorry to be the one to do a little bubble-bursting, but selling out is actually a good thing. Think about it; a band you are a fan of- a band you like- has become successful and famous for their music. How is that not positive? If, as I mentioned before, the band has changed irrevocably as a result and you no longer like the actual music or it's direction in subsequent releases, that's understandable. That happened to me with Metallica. The material after "Load" didn't do anything for me, but it's enjoyed by many (yes, even St. Anger). It doesn't stop me enjoying the older records like Master of Puppets and Ride the Lightning. It doesn't change how much I enjoy the grandeur of songs like "One", "Creeping Death" and "Welcome Home (Sanitarium)". It makes me wish that they were still doing that- but bands grow, experiment and, yes, change. That's just the way it is. 

And, probably my personal favourite selfish gripe:

"I hate that everyone listens to them now, they were one of my bands"

Wow. Take that in for a moment. Not only are you resentful of someone's success, but you would- given your way- keep them at an underground level: have their music reach and entertain fewer people.  You'd actually impede the progress of the bands you supposedly "love". That, to me is not how a fan of a band should behave. It's like you're saying "How dare they capitalise on what they're clearly good at. How dare they make a living from the art they've created and suffered for- they're MY band." I've honestly encountered people who will not divulge their taste in bands with other people; for fear word of their cherished artists might spread. If that does happen, they claim that they have been "ruined" for them. Such possessiveness is highly irrational- musicians are not property to claim some kind of ownership of. If someone I knew discovered a band I liked, I'd be delighted. I'd boil over with enthusiasm and spark conversation about them, because finding out someone shares a passion with you is awesome. Believe it or not- most bands out there don't want to be playing in bars to 20 people- ten of which aren't even watching- for their entire lives. Most bands have a little more ambition; a drive to share their music with more and more people, play bigger stages and entertain larger crowds. The more people you play to, the bigger the head-rush gets. Put your pathetic obsessions in perspective to that and realise that it isn't all about you- it never was. It's about musicians doing what they love and sharing it with the world.

If any of these phrases sound like you- ask yourself why that is- and whether you really feel right in saying it. If you find yourself uttering the last phrase frequently, then you are a sorry excuse for a fan, and should take a good hard look at yourself. 

I'll say it once again- selling out is a great thing. If you as a musician are accosted by some cardigan-wearing hipster and accused of it; take it as a compliment.

Five things I love and hate about Pokémon.

I adore the Pokémon series. Even as a 25 year old man. I don't mind admitting that. I'm also considering investing in a second hand 3DS so I can play the new ones, X and Y. 

The games have such a charm and uniqueness about them- but are far from perfect- so without further ado- here are my top 5 things I love about the games:

1. The adventure:- not knowing what's lurking in the grass ahead. That moment when the screen freezes and dissolves with that frantic descending music. The silhouette of your encounter tracking across the screen before the big reveal. That moment when your pokemon that you've been training for ages starts to evolve unexpectedly. The excitement of seeing the sprite of a legendary pokemon standing just ahead of you, and you nervously save the game. As well as all that, pokemon is a journey. You're on a quest to get all the gym badges and win the pokemon league and be the very best (like no-one ever was; yo.) There's a lot to it! 

2. The challenge:- There are very noticeable difficulty spikes throughout the games, particularly the latter half of the gyms, plus rivals and bosses. Also, wearing down a legendary who will not stay caught when you have a finite number of balls can be pretty nail biting and pleasantly infuriating.

3. The variety of types, moves and how they match up:- The elemental advantages and resistances are pretty intuitive (though I don't think I'll ever understand why 'normal' types are immune to 'ghost' attacks- playing field levelling maybe?). No pokemon is invincible by any stretch of the imagination and with 'Pokémon special abilities' added in the later generations- strategy just kept getting more and more intense. In addition there are an amazing volume of moves, ranging from "scratch" and "bite" to "future sight" and "tri-attack" which pokemon can learn by levelling and by teaching as they are discovered in gameplay.

4. The varying environment and puzzles:- Some of the "dungeons" are actually quite tricky. There are underground labyrinths, secret bases full of teleport pads, tunnels, booby-trapped gyms, and- in later games- the sea floor. All teeming with new pokemon to battle and catch at the same time.

5. The satisfaction:- Getting that feel when you got your eighth badge is awesome. Getting through the hellish gauntlet of "Victory Road" feels like coming up for much needed air (I sigh involuntarily and audibly upon seeing the exit). Beating the Elite Four and the Champion- who is usually an established rival- you do really feel like nobody can best you. And knowing that Mewtwo is yours after battling with it for 45 minutes (because you stupidly used your masterball on something shit) is pretty amazing... Even if after that there's really nothing left to battle in gen. 1; you may need to actually find some friends! Gasp!

And now, the things I really, really hate. Like- can't stand.

1. HM's:- Hidden Machines are stupid. In generation 3 there are EIGHT of them that you HAVE to use to finish the game. If they put all of the HM related obstacles in one dungeon- four of your pokemon would have to learn one and two would have to learn two. That wouldn't be so bad,if you could discard these taught moves once you didn't need them any more- but no! HM moves can't be deleted unless you visit "The Move Deleter". So to be clear, if you're levelling and you get a new move, you can't just save over an HM- not even with another HM. You'll have to delete one of the other moves you presumably want to keep. There's no pokemon (to my knowledge) that is an HM "mule" and can learn a lot of them- but let me give you a scenario. To advance the game in pokemon Emerald, I had to teach my Tentacruel 'Surf', 'Dive', and 'Waterfall' which leaves one move it can learn and replace by levelling. One! They fixed this slightly in later generations by introducing a system by which you can relearn previous moves after deleting to make space- but even so- HMs are an unnecessary hassle that just annoy me.

2. The same pokemon/trainers cropping up:- I want to take this opportunity to get something out of the way. I hate Zubat, and I LOATHE Golbat. These pokemon are in almost every cave, in every game, of every generation and they drive me absolutely mental. Toward the end of the game the Golbat get pretty strong too. So if you're on your last, slightly weaker final pokemon in a cave, and one of them show up; because of their high speed stat, your Zangoose is cooked (see what I did there? ;) hehe). I also want to meet whoever thought it was a good idea to make it so you "Can't Escape!" from them, and punch them in the throat. But this leads me neatly to my main points here. There's nothing worse than getting to a new unfamiliar area and finding the same pokemon you've been meeting on every route. Sure, some are more common than others, but why not vary it a bit? On top of that- why are all the level 3 ones still bothering me? Can't they level proportionately; or better still; leave me the hell alone? Same with trainers. Why do they have duplicates? In generation one, I'm certain there is a bird trainer which has 6 Pidgey (literally the first wild one you see) all at the same level. Why? I want battles that keep me on my toes and mess with me; and aside from gym battles, I'm not getting that.

3. Cookie cutter stuff:- There are so many pokemon now that they have taken almost every sort of shape you can imagine. Yet, without fail, in every single generation, there have been, among others, constants:-

• The Rattata clone

• The Pidgey clone

• the Pikachu clone.

And I'm actually going to list each generation here for this, so here goes.:-

1. (Er...) Rattata, Pidgey, Pikachu

2. Sentret, Hoothoot, Pichu

3. Zigzagoon, Wingull, Plusle/Minun

4. Bidoof, Starly, Pachirisu

5. Patrat, Pidove, Emolga

6. Bunnelby, Fletchling, Dedenne

Honestly. Look them up if you don't believe me. How about that eh? They always come in threes, the weak rat no-one wants, the "starter bird" and some kind of electric rodent. Without fail. I know Game freak and co are probably starting to run out of ideas, and have certainly produced some really daft pokemon over time (e.g. Klefki, Swirlix, Vanillite, Trubbish, Klink, Nosepass- the list goes on)- but surely you can be a little more innovative.

4. Unlockable "red tape" areas:- You physically can't enter certain areas until criteria are met. They are literally blocked off until you pass a certain point- sometimes without telling you- and you can then suddenly go in. More traditional RPGs have a better way of doing this- in certain areas the enemies are simply too strong, you get your ass handed to you and decide in of yourself not to go back until you have grown a giant set of swinging balls. My dream is for there to be a pokemon open world game; a map that you can just wander about in and make your own mistakes. But we have a long way to go.

5. Can't catch 'em all:- there's 718(?) now. You just can't. Back in gen one and two, the iconic slogan was actually doable;  it was a feasible proposition. Now it's a farce. I mentioned earlier about an open world game. I would ideally expand that to online open world game. I'm talking Skyrim sized maps, maybe done in a sort of Borderlands/Windwaker art style. That way, they could gradually add the new regions and create a world where you could catch any ones you wanted. The places are all established. From both the games and the animated series the sheer area of world that could be used is enormous. You could have quests, events, swarms, migrations, Team Rocket attacks- so many possibilities. You could battle mates in real time, enter tournaments and go hunting in the wilds together. And with it online- there wouldn't be a memory and storage problem because it would all be "in the cloud" under your login. It could be so good; the biggest question is why they haven't done something like it already.

But yeah- unless they make a yawning gaping arse of it I'll probably continue to enjoy these games. The ideal one may be a pipedream for now- but I remain hopeful. 

A special kind of person.

As you know, not everyone can be a psychic, or a medium.

It takes years to hone the skill. It takes focus. Some say that it's a gift that is bestowed on them from an early age, and I'm inclined to agree- it must be- because it takes a special kind of person to profit from people's grief, sorrow, loneliness and desperation. Not only that- but to blatantly lie and say they can contact departed love ones. Why does anyone accept this? It's sick and depraved. How such people are allowed to operate as a business (because that's what they are) is completely beyond me. It is literally profit from suffering. 

There is no steadfast evidence that any human being can establish contact with those who have died. There is also no evidence for the "spirit world", extrasensory perception, or the accuracy of any form of divination or fortune telling. Until proven otherwise, they are all heartless money grabbing charlatans.