I Take That Other Post Back

Turns out that my prediction from my previous blog entry has held true. No longer am I having to put up with pages and pages on how working in the gaming industry sucks. And while they sure aren’t making it sound easy, in recent chapters they have been good at providing a contrast of the good and the bad. Much better than flat out saying “if you think you’ve got what it takes to do these jobs, read this chapter and reconsider (Rush, 5).

This is not to say that they do not tear these jobs apart. It is actually quite the contrary. When describing the life of a programmer, Stratton is quick to point out that you can “work eighteen hour days for a month” (Stratton, 56). However this bothers me less as this is concrete information regarding why it can suck, of which I am sure constant 18 hour days would suck. This is as opposed to the first few chapters in which they would essentially questioning why anyone would want to be a programmer in the first place.

What is especially refreshing is that they also point out the good in those same positions they tear apart. For example while they stressed that programming can be very stressful, they also made sure to include positives such as “always working with the latest technology” (Stratton, 54). They also make sure to include various quotes from those who love their jobs, as stressful as they may be, to ensure that the reader is able to view various opinions on each area of work in th gaming industry.

Overall, I think that this past section of the book has been much more objective than the earlier parts as the authors take a bit of a step back with their subjective opinions on the various careers. Instead of telling you what you probably would be up to or what they think you may enjoy, they instead give you a career and list the types of personalities it fits as well as the opinions of those working in the fields. Add to this a summary of the ups and downs to ensure that the reader has sufficient pros and cons to where they can make their own decisions and you have a pretty good overview of that specific career. And while there will always be some opinion shining through (oftentimes in the form of a bad joke pertaining to a certain job), it has been, for the most part, very informative.

You Aren't Cut Out for this Job

I have always thought that many people have this skewed image on how the gaming industry works. That somehow the games manage to make themselves and the designers are always having fun. This book so far has been devoting all its energy to that. Especially the idea that “The one thing you can count on in the game industry is that you can't count on anything in the gaming industry.” (Hodgson).

And while I do think that it is important to weed out those who can’t understand that  the gaming industry is just like any other industry in terms of stress or workload...  I didn’t read this book to be able to understand that which was already understood. So far there have been short descriptions of the roles involved in making the final products followed up by a long snippet describing how this job is harder than you think. So far the writers have essentially been writing this phrase over and over: “Think you could do this job as a possible career? Yeah right... odds are you aren’t smart enough and lack work ethic”

And again, I know where they come from. They probably hear the phrase “you play games for a living, awesome!” way too much. And reflecting on this I am seriously questioning why their title is what it is. Don't they realize that the title Pay to Play is just going to attract those who they are trying to drive away for the first 40 pages. Wouldn't it just be more efficeint to have a title something akin to: The Harships of the Gaming Industry and save us all some time.

But what they don’t realize, at least what I assume is true is that those who are reading this book probably realize this as most of them want to seriously find out how the industry works. Because if you are willing to put the time in to read this much about the process of game creation aren't going to be the ones to put things lightly.

But maybe I am being a bit too harsh on this book up to this point. After all I am still only a fraction fo the way through.And while this is pretty annoying I do think that they will soon switch over from weeding out those with false hopes of an easy career and begin to focus on what a job in the industry actually entails. This is why I still have a good feeling about this book and as of now I just have to get through the initial period of “There’s a good chance you aren’t cut out for this industry.” So for now I will just have to wait it out until it gets good, using the occasional humorous jab at gamer stereotypes as fuel to keep reading.

Let the People be the Judge of This.

Article

These days it is incredibly easy to forget that behind every prison sentence is an actual human being. This might be a father, a mother, a teenager. And  while oftentimes they do deserve the sentences they are being given, this is starting to become the exception rather than the rule. And you (assuming you are American) are paying for it. And I think that in this case we can all agree that we have better things to spend money on as a country than  making sure Sharanda P. Jones doesn’t return to the streets.

These people were never malicious. They pose no threat to our country. They merely saw no other way out than to sell drugs to support a child that they could not support with their jobs. To add to the injustice, these kids own lives are negatively impacted by knowing that their parent is imprisoned for life. Some may even be blaming themselves for it.

The sad thing is that the system we operate in now seeks to prolong problems rather than seek out solutions. Because if you think about it, it makes sense that if these people were being paid sufficiently in their low wage jobs to begin with, there is a good chance that none of this would have happened.

Certainly a good part of this is due to the greed of the institutions where these people are being kept. They want them there. And they want you to pay for it. Certainly the least we can do is voice our opinion that we do not want this to continue. That we as a country will no longer stand for this. Because when pressure, we can influence the government to change and change for the better.

Futurama: Mocking Richard Nixon for Thousands of Years

I have always love Futurama. Never have I seen a show with so much awesome wit, both obvious and subliminal. Sometimes it even seems like they know who I am and my political views while watching the show. And based on what I learned from Thank You For Arguing chapter 20, I am sure now that they do know who is watching.

I realized this while watching an episode in which Fry, the protagonist, attempts to decide which party to vote for.  The candidates being two clones who state the same things in regard to every issue, changing their wordings only slightly. I find this to be pretty funny as it, in my opinion, reflects how democrats and republicans are in many situations in today’s politics. I also fondly remember an episode in which a monkey, who has just been given basic human intelligence, declares he suddenly feels like joining Fox News. This  makes me laugh as I realize that Fox is a pretty extreme right news station.

But wait, wouldn’t making these kind of jokes alienate extreme conservatives? Well to be honest, yes it would. But for Futurama, it is worth the trade off. This is because while it is alienating this group, it is making the vast majority of its viewers happy. The creators of Futurama realize that their type of sarcastic humor is more likely to appeal to a young, diverse crowd. And to a larger extent, a more moderate to liberal crowd.

The writers for the program here are using a great example of code grooming. They are able to realize that their show appeals to a certain crowd more than others. By constantly making a fool out of prominent political figures such as Richard Nixon, they are accepting that they have a chance of losing the whole 3 viewers of the show who think Nixon was the best ever president of the US while simultaneously encouraging those who think otherwise to watch more.  

Why Nobody Loves a Smart-A**

I have always loved opportunities to be a smart-ass. What could be more fun than being able to poke holes in a friend’s logic? To see through and point out their fallacies? And while it may be fun, it also derails arguments. For I, in these situations, had been committing “rhetorical fouls” (Henrichs). Because although it may please me to annoy my opponent by pointing out these fallacies, they would have, in most cases, stayed in bounds - rhetorically speaking. I, though, would not have. This is because many logical disconnects are permitted within rhetoric for the reason that the main purpose is to persuade the opponent. If a logical fallacy aids you in your pursuit, so be it. I then made it worse by committing a rhetorical foul: I tried to humiliate my opponent. This has no purpose but to put an end to useful argumentation and may lead to a fight.

For example, I may be arguing on the side of nuclear power (which I am against) with a classmate who supports it in a class debate. They may cite the events of Chernobyl as the main reason why nuclear power should not be used. This, however, would be a fallacy. While the events of Chernobyl were no doubt catastrophic, this alone does not mean nuclear power is bad. More so that it was misused in the situation. But to the audience, this does not matter. For to them, a disturbingly eerie picture of the post-apocalyptic Chernobyl will align them emotionally with my opponent more than my pointing out his/her fallacy will.

And this makes sense. I have often left an argument in which I lost trying to figure out how exactly I lost. How could I have lost when I had logic on my side. But the thing is that in rhetoric, nobody cares about “Vulcan logic” (cold, hard facts) (Henrichs), you need some emotion too. Because you need to get them on your side. Something that pure logic will always fail to do.