Detailed Analisys of the What is Popular and What Not in the US and the Rest of the World

Yesterday I wrote an article about songs that made it on one side of Atlantic but somehow failed on the other. I made some conclusions, but time was limited and could not say all I wanted to. Overnight I thought about it again and decided that is not enough and even somewhat misleading. More has to be said to make the differences between Americans and the rest of the World clearer. Just saying what is popular and what isn't will not do much without analysing the reasons why this or that song worked or did not work either side of Atlantic.

I will begin with Hang Up by Madonna, normally her songs are popular on both sides of the pond, but this one is a clear outlier, being hot in Europe but ignored in the US. So, it cannot be explained with lack of exposure and such, something in the song repealed American viewers but not European ones.

After some pondering I concluded that is probably has something to do with feminism and objectifying women. Half of the music video shows Madonna shakes her ass on camera. In America being politically correct and morally upright matters a lot so such explicit exploitation of female body probably offended American sentiments and song failed in the US. 

In Europe and Australia however, people find nothing wrong with objectifying females, those who do find it offensive are told to drink beer until they no longer think so. So, Hang Up did not offended anyone and song was a hit.

Now for the Before He Cheats by Carrie Underwood (did I remember her name correctly). This one is simple actually. Why would anyone find it acceptable when anyone vandalises your car and other belongings for any reason? Here world is united that such behavior is unacceptable and ignores the song that endorses it. As a non-American it more puzzling for me why Americans like this song?

Generally, Europe and the world, has a lot less tolerance towards wild female behavior. What is OK in the US will get women arrested or deported elsewhere, even in stereotypically wild countries like Australia, that actually not that wild at all. More details below.

American runner up was Higher by Creed. Here European stereotypes actually explain it. Europeans are much less religious that Americans so a religion inspired rock will not do well in Europe. Difference in Creed's popularity on different sides of the Atlantic proves that.

On the other hand, Imagine by John Lennon, anti-war British song, did poorly in the US because his vision of better world without war included no religion.

Another outlying song was Can't Get You Out of My Head by Kylie Minogue. Americans normally like Australian things but this song somehow was unpopular in the US despite being liked elsewhere across the globe. The reason for that is that in the US this song somehow got associated with gay culture despite the song not having any homosexual references in lyrics and is about heterosexual love. 

In general, certain songs in the US somehow become so called gay anthems, despite nothing in their lyrics or artists suggest anything homosexual at all. That is part of American tendency towards identity politics/signalling. A lot of rather boring songs, that get no traction elsewhere, somehow become popular in the US because they become identity anthem of one or the other group. The rest of the world does not do that and instead listen to what sounds nice. That will also explain why Europop does poorly in the US as that too gets associated with gay culture.

A final note, while Europeans fooling around, pretending to be Americans in their music videos, Americans do it IRL, pretending to be Australians and by Australians, I mean Steve Irvin. Recently an American women got deported from Australia for kidnapping a Wombat's baby and filming it on camera. She probably imagined herself to be next Steve Irvin and thought it will be OK to do something like that in his country of origin. Turned out it was not. Just cause Steve Irvin did it does not mean its legal. Even if he did it, he followed certain rules and precautions, it was a show on camera, not a reality show. 

Fundamentally however it's also a stereotype driven behavior where Americans assume that all Aussies are like Steve Irvin and wrestle with crocks daily. Most Australians will hardly touch any wildlife other than very peaceful Koalas, who are local favorites. It's because wildlife here sometimes dangerous that we do not touch them, just in case to be safe.

I will live it at that at least for now, maybe I will think of more to add later. I analysed some of the songs, but not all of them. So, I recommend watching full videos, linked in the very beginning of the article. I will link them again here: one and two. You will be able to see for yourself what works and what not.

Different Opinions About Music in the US and the Rest of the World Extended

In several of my articles, particularly those about communism, Russia and the West I used to write on how different American stereotypes about Russia are compared to the actual Russia as well as the other way around. What people choose to believe is far from reality. 

Turns out I am not alone on that. I recently watched a video, comparing popularity of different songs in the US compare to the rest of the world. First, they made a list of most "American" songs: songs that were popular in the US but were not popular elsewhere. They followed by a second video about songs that were popular outside the US but somehow never managed to win Americans. 

To make this objective, the organisers used the archival charts of the most popular song from the US and a selection of other countries. They aimed to find songs that topped the charts on one side of the Atlantic but ignored across the pond. Watch the full video on details. Before revealing the results, they offered a range of Youtubers from different countries to make a guess on what songs would top the charts.

The results did not confirm any stereotypes that people assume of the US and Europe. Before looking at data, youtubers speculated that songs acclaiming America, eagle screaming, gun blazing, like Born in the USA would become US only hits. That turned out not to be the case, the song did not even make top 10.

Most of the America only songs were rather quiet and timid even. They had rather simple melodies and lyrics about either about love or various identity issues peculiar to American life. As a European I never heard any of them. That said most of them sound too bland to appeal to me and I think other Europeans are of the same opinion.

Another distinct feature was presence of several Australian artists, that Australians themselves are not familiar with. I say that as a person who lived in Australia for two decades. Clearly Americans have some peculiar interest in Australia for some reason. 

The overall winner however Carrie Underwood with Before He Cheats. Outside of the US most remember her as someone who sand on Trump's inauguration. That was also the first time I heard of her and immediately forget about her afterwards. 

More surprises however came from songs that were loved by the world but ignored by Americans. A lot of it was so called Europop, German Boney M had most songs across several charts but, as far as I can remember, have not topped any of them. However, there were many songs from prominent American singers, including Hang Up by Madonna and Shut Up by Black Eyed Peas. Even King of Pop himself, Elvis Presley, managed to appear in one of the charts.  

However, even among Europop, clearly America themed songs, such as Barbie Girl, somehow won hearts of Europeans but not Americans themselves. What happened to the stereotype of snobbish Europeans, turning noses away from anything American.

Here winner was Hung Up by Madonna. Isn't that as American as you can get? Al least in Europe we think that Madonna is like essence of Americanness. That nice unique melodic jingle makes it so memorable.

So, what can we take from all that aside from the fact that this disproves all the stereotypes?

Despite the stereotype of being eagle screaming, gun touting, Americans are actually very fond of simple quiet songs, sang by equally simple and plain people. If you look at these songs a little deeper, you can notice that many of these singers seems struggle singing, as if it's something they are not too comfortable talking about or something that holds a lot of meaning for them personally. 

Combine this with rather plain melodies and it's clear that these songs are lyrics driven. It's the meaning behind these lyrics that make them popular in the US. Kind of like Kino and Victor Tsoi is for Russia. For Americans music is first of all a song and melody is secondary. 

However, this meaning is lost to people outside of the US as culture and life differences makes it impossible to relate to what they sing about.

In contrast global favorites tend to have catchy melodies and memorable performance. You can hardly find a single song where melody have nothing memorable about it. If melody is not memorable it is not going to be remembered, as simple as that. Words and lyrics come secondary and often have to complement the melody rather than the other way around. Often lyrics have few easy to hear and remember phrases that get stuck in the brain and make people remember the song. 

Europe and the world speak variety different languages. Words that make sense to some do not make any sense to others. However, a good catchy melody can be understood no matter what language you speak. 

Another surprising thing is the fact that global favorites a lot stronger scream America than American own favorites. Americans themselves shy away from their Americanness while Europeans find playing Americacans to be the thing to do. 

Almost like a quote from a Gothic King of Dark Ages: "Wealthy Goth plays Roman, poor Roman plays Goth." That means wealthy members of Gothic people liked adopt many aspects of Roman culture and tried to be as Roman as possible. In contrast poor Romans imitated Goth instead. 

In our modern world lefty Americans adopt faux European culture to look fancy and sophisticated in the eyes of their American peers. In contrast European bands do not hesitate to sing in English, adopt American stereotypes and pretend they are Americans in their music videos. In both cases the stereotypes they imitate are far from reality of what each side of Atlantic is like. Europeans are not culturally left; Americans are not what they look like in Rednex music videos. 

Another thing that stands out is that global favorites are more explicit that American ones. That not only applies to singer's appearance, but also to the lyrics and overall feel. Americans perhaps have certain reverence towards love, relationship, identity and some other things, not something the rest of the world feels the same about. When it comes to American songs that somehow missed out in American charts but made it globally, it is likely that they crossed certain taboos that exist in American society and thus were taken down. The rest of the world do not share these taboos however and embraced these songs instead.

Finally, another thing that world appreciate more than Americans is humor, particularly irony. Most of Europop is subtly ironic. These are songs that make you laugh, not touch your heart. That is how world loves it. That also means that creative music videos and overall interesting performance is important for the success of the whole.

This difference in music tastes that disprove rather than affirmed the stereotypes that people often repeat about Americans and the Europeans. Its Europeans who pretend they are eagle screaming, gun blazing, haystack fucking Americans. Americans instead pretend to be lefty leaning, accepting, politically correct Europeans. That is how world is.

As a bonus I will link some of the faux American music videos by European bands, Barbie Girl by Danish Aqua, Cotton Eye Joe by Swedish Rednex and America by German Rammstein. I am not sure if they were released in the US or not. Perhaps some might consider them offensive to American feelings. In a sense that they are watch me do stupid like an American. That is why they kept them in Europe. On the other hand, maybe European irony is subtle enough to avoid offending Americans, I wonder really. Watch these and judge for yourself.

There is more text below after these videos.

In Depth Analysis

Yesterday I left it at that, but overnight I thought about it again and decided that is not enough. Just saying what is popular and what isn't will not do much without analysing the reasons why this or that song worked or did not work either side of Atlantic.

I will begin with Hang Up by Madonna, normally her songs are popular on both sides of the pond, but this one is a clear outlier, being hot in Europe but ignored in the US. So, it cannot be explained with lack of exposure and such, something in the song repealed American viewers but not European ones.

After some pondering I concluded that is probably has something to do with feminism and objectifying women. Half of the music video shows Madonna shakes her ass on camera. In America being politically correct and morally upright matters a lot so such explicit exploitation of female body probably offended American sentiments and song failed in the US. 

In Europe and Australia however, people find nothing wrong with objectifying females, those who do find it offensive are told to drink beer until they no longer think so. So, Hang Up did not offended anyone and song was a hit.

Now for the Before He Cheats by Carrie Underwood (did I remember her name correctly). This one is simple actually. Why would anyone find it acceptable when anyone vandalises your car and other belongings for any reason? Here world is united that such behavior is unacceptable and ignores the song that endorses it. As a non-American it more puzzling for me why Americans like this song?

Generally, Europe and the world, has a lot less tolerance towards wild female behavior. What is OK in the US will get women arrested or deported elsewhere, even in stereotypically wild countries like Australia, that actually not that wild at all. More details below.

American runner up was Higher by Creed. Here European stereotypes actually explain it. Europeans are much less religious that Americans so a religion inspired rock will not do well in Europe. Difference in Creed's popularity on different sides of the Atlantic proves that.

On the other hand, Imagine by John Lennon, anti-war British song, did poorly in the US because his vision of better world without war included no religion.

Another outlying song was Can't Get You Out of My Head by Kylie Minogue. Americans normally like Australian things but this song somehow was unpopular in the US despite being liked elsewhere across the globe. The reason for that is that in the US this song somehow got associated with gay culture despite the song not having any homosexual references in lyrics and is about heterosexual love. 

In general, certain songs in the US somehow become so called gay anthems, despite nothing in their lyrics or artists suggest anything homosexual at all. That is part of American tendency towards identity politics/signalling. A lot of rather boring songs, that get no traction elsewhere, somehow become popular in the US because they become identity anthem of one or the other group. The rest of the world does not do that and instead listen to what sounds nice. That will also explain why Europop does poorly in the US as that too gets associated with gay culture.

A final note, while Europeans fooling around, pretending to be Americans in their music videos, Americans do it IRL, pretending to be Australians and by Australians, I mean Steve Irvin. Recently an American women got deported from Australia for kidnapping a Wombat's baby and filming it on camera. She probably imagined herself to be next Steve Irvin and thought it will be OK to do something like that in his country of origin. Turned out it was not. Just cause Steve Irvin did it does not mean its legal. Even if he did it, he followed certain rules and precautions, it was a show on camera, not a reality show. 

Fundamentally however it's also a stereotype driven behavior where Americans assume that all Aussies are like Steve Irvin and wrestle with crocks daily. Most Australians will hardly touch any wildlife other than very peaceful Koalas, who are local favorites. It's because wildlife here sometimes dangerous that we do not touch them, just in case to be safe.

I will live it at that at least for now, maybe I will think of more to add later. I analysed some of the songs, but not all of them. So, I recommend watching full videos, linked in the very beginning of the article. I will link them again here: one and two. You will be able to see for yourself what works and what not.

How Assassin's Creed Fall from Graces of the Old Gamers

 

Recently I have been watching the walkthroughs for older Assassin's Creed titles. Back in the days I played all of the older ones including Revelations but stopped short on third installment. 

Since the beginning of the series, AC evolved from the original idea into a never-ending franchise with many installments. That evolution however was not well received by the old fans, many of whom grew from praising this series high to despising everything about it. To see an example of that, watch Yahtzee's reviews of the original and compare them to later installment.

As one of the older fans who heard about the series in 2006 and played it in 2007, I well remember what it was back then and what Ubisoft have promised us then. So can easily tell just how different the outcome was compared to what was promised. So, I decided to write down the story of the game as it was intended then compared to what it became.

Assassin's Creed known as a historical series, but that is only part of the picture, mere surface really. Original plot was much more ambitions that that: it intended to have an equal stand both in history and in modern world, bridging them together into rather ambition tale. A tale that could be called a conspiracy theory, if authors would not disclaim any claims to veracity and put in disclaimer that the story is work of fiction with no claim to historical accuracy. Nonetheless early AC games we very curious "what if" story, by filling the gaps in historical facts with a rather creative narrative, that leaves you wonder if that is what indeed have happened?

The starting point of the story was the Holy Grail. Back in Medieval times during Crusades there were talks about Holy Grail in the Holy Land, that ostensively has supernatural properties. There was even Arthurian legend about Sir Lancelot and the Holy Grail. Inspired by these stories, some crusaders even intended to find this Holy Grail, as they fought Muslims for control of the Holy Land. As Middle Age ended, the idea of Holy Grail with supernatural powers was dismissed as mere superstition and stories about it were relegated to the realm of fiction.

Assassin's Creed decided to speculate on that. What if a small group of Knights Templar indeed found a Holy Grail in the Holy Land and the device indeed possessed supernatural powers? The historical part of the game begins the moment where a certain assassin, Altair ibn la Ahud, interferes with the templars and steals the Grail for his order. 

To top it up the contemporary part of the game begins with a secretive but very powerful corporation Abstergo, not only claiming to be the successor of the crusader era Knights Templar, but also that Holy Grail was not only real but was found by their members in the past. However, the above-mentioned Altair not only stole it from them but also assassinated everyone who knew been there when the grail was discovered. Believing that no man should wield the kind of power, grail has Altair hid it somewhere and then died. Ever since Templars searched for that, but all for naught. 

However, as time passed and technology developed, Templars managed to create a device that can access genetic memories of people. With such a device they can find a descendant of that Altair, use the system on them to find out where Altair hid the grail and then go there to retrieve it. That is where Desmond, a kidnapped bartender and a descendant of Altair comes in. Abstergo kidnapped him to find out where Altair hid the grail. 

However, when they started to use the genetic memory reader, animus, it glitched and refused to show the desired memory. After some tweaking, the engineer in charge, Vidic, figured they should instead access the memory, chronologically closest to the part where Altair hid the grail and gradually go from there towards the desired part. As Desmond re-lives memories of Altair from many hundreds of years ago, events in contemporary world around him developing in their own pace. 

Just when in the past Altair defeated the last templar, but before he could hide the grail. A member of contemporary successor to crusader era Assassins, who works undercover as Vidic's assistant, managers to break Desmond out of Abstergo and they disappear into the night as game leaves us wait for sequel for answers.

Back then the game was meant to be a trilogy, second part was meant to be about uncovering the nature of the grail, and the last part was meant to be set in the contemporary world, where modern assassins and templars continue their hidden war for the grail and fate of the world. 

Stakes are high as grail indeed has seamlessly supernatural power. When Al-Muallim used it, all but Altair were driven into submission and even Altair had hard time fighting powers of grail. If templars get their hands on that, they will be able deprive the world of free will and control it at whim. 

This over-the-top complex story is what got people interested in seeing the series through to the end where all the secrets and plot twists will be revealed. 

Alas that were not to come. Second part was split into three games, or a game and two expansions. Third was re-imagined as another historical installment, this time set in Revolutionary War America. After that Assassin Creed was anything where protagonist wears a hood over their head. Original fans were felt betrayed by the company who in the name of corporate greed decided to stretch the franchise into infinite and deny them the conclusion to the original plot about the grail.

There were changes to the game world itself. Originally the conflict over grail was a secret hidden war, that few people were fully aware of. No one wanted to make knowledge of the grail public. That served two purposes. One is to give the story plausible believability, sure the creators could not prove it really happened as depicted in the game, but neither you can really prove with 100% certainty it did not happen. Only few people knew, and they did not tell their secrets to outsiders. Their secrets died with them. 

Second is to allow more complexity to the world around you. Your few named targets know everything about the grail, assassins and are wary about you coming after them. Their uninitiated subordinates have no idea what their boss got so worked up over, so they fulfill their orders with certain degree of indifference and carelessness. Sometimes even very high-ranking figures have no idea. Closer to the end of the game one of the last templars pleads for protection from assassins to Richard I Lionheart of England. Altair instead asks Richard to reconsider. Richard has no idea what is going on, but decides to allow a duel between two, much to the charging of Robert.

That continues into the second part as well. After you help Lorenzo Medici to take control of Florence and sideline rival Pazzi family, guards of Florence became unusually friendly to you. However, when Savonarola takes power, they become hostile instead. Only select few are aware that assassins or templars even exist. For most ordinary people they do not exist. So, guards behave one way when your friends are in power and the other way when they are not. They neither know, nor care about secret war between assassins and templars. 

A small detail that makes the world of the game much more complex and realistic even. Maybe Lorenzo Medici indeed was member of some secret society like Freemasons, maybe not. Even if he was a member he will not tell anyone uninitiated to the secret society. That theoretical possibly of all or at least some of that being true gives this story its unique appeal.

Just a couple of expansions later, in Revelations, templars and assassins fight openly on the streets of Constantinople, their flags are everywhere, by now it's no longer a speculative fiction but an alternative history. Also, ibn la Ahad from Altair's name means 'son of no one' in Revelations they instead showing him talking about his father, clearly scriptwriters were not familiar with the original plot. There is no more subtlety that made early AC games so compelling.

That said second part continues to give us more information about the grail, now called Apple of Eden for some reason, may be because its spherical. Now it's a device from an ancient humanoid civilization that lived before humans and completely died out before humas could build their civilization.

Revelations was the last game I played. It was already too far from what got me interested originally. I considered playing third part but never got to it. Instead of being completely set in contemporary times, it offers yet another historical setting and a protagonist that could hardly be a descendant of Altair. The original premise is we access generic memories of Altair's descendants. That is what Animus does. The game felt too far from the original concept to make much sense.

Games that went after third were all over the place, a pirate adventure in 4th that is hardly even AC at all. So does Desmond find the grail, does he defeat templars? When are the answers to the main plot coming? By now AC is just a brand that Ubisoft labels on anything to increase sales. Too sad, it could have been different.

Sure, I only know part of the picture as I did not play of watch the walkthroughs of later games, but time is short and even if there are some answers in footnote, it still proves the point that the game lost its original vision and was turned into a cash cow for Ubisoft. 

I took some time to think on what I should put as a conclusion to this article. I guess a conclusion of the original story would be very desirable to get one day. 

However, there is a bigger issue here as well. The one that is present in many games these days: disparity in story, in narrative and in overall feel of the game. When new scriptwriters mess up the plot, the game world falls apart and it's no longer the same game anymore. That is what killed modern WoW, that is what killed AC and many other titles. 

Why developers do that? Did original creators simply quit the studio, and some sort of replacement had to be found? Even if that was the case, why not find someone who actually understands the plot? If original creators did not quit, then why they were not involved with the plot? Internal politics? Still, it feels strange, so strange that by now even a explanation that someone used the Apple of Eden from the game to take control of the studio will sound plausible. I do hope one day we will find the answer for this mystery.

Aside from that we, at least I, want to see games recapture the middle 2000s atmosphere that made them so compelling and appealing. What was lost since that time? Why was it lost? What can we do to make videogames great again?

1001 Nights Review

Overall Rating 7.2 out of 10 - a rather simple arthouse type show.

I can recommend watching

This one is another of these unconventional shows with weird art and almost no dialogues, much like recently reviewed Angel Egg. That like alone might convince some to watch it and others to ignore it instead.

I am quite an expert at interpreting series of vague scenes with almost no dialogue into complex and profound stories.

Unlike Angel Egg, that had plenty of complex themes that took me a very long article to explain, this one is rather light on themes. All this show is about is showing metaphors for romance and sex in rapid progression. It can be called an allegory of sex. Over the course of 20 or so minutes the show compares sex with chase, with storm, with wild ride, with transformation, with intertwined sprouts and so on.

There are nominally only two characters, but in actuality there are several more. Others play out the metaphors of this show. A devilish male jinn/demon chases after pure and innocent female fairy. Before we can see if he can catch her, scene transforms into something else. He has rather pronounced and wicked eyes and face with pronounced features. Later this jinni advises the prince on how to sex properly. In contrast to jinn, fairy is light and most of her features are blurred and nigh invisible. The most pronounced part of her body is her curvy butt.

Jinn and fairy eventually make prince and princess to re-enact their own play with each other. Something that ostensively leads towards a very exciting sex. Finally, the show ends like it all was a princess's dream and did not really happen.

There is a fair bit of nudity in this show, but since it's so abstractly drawn, it hardly works as porn.

Art and character design is rather usual fantasy Arab theme, typical of Alladin, Prince of Persia and other western stereotypical depiction of middle east. It tries to be as beautiful and enchanting as Prince of Persia 2008 but falls somewhat short, partly because it's a decade older. 

Overall, it's a usual type of an unconventional arthouse style show. It nothing too special or deep, but it's enjoyable enough to watch. I can recommend watching.

Mondaiji-tachi ga Isekai kara Kuru Sou desu yo?: Onsen Manyuuki Review

Overall Rating 7.5 out of 10 - A rare OVA that actually brings the best out of the original.

I recommend watching

I do not always review OVAs. One or two extra episodes often just stuff too boring to put in main show, so it's released as extra to entice people to by DVDs or spend extra in other way. Rarely they do try to enhance the original, like in Kanokon OVA, but end up failing. However, in case this show, the OVA is clearly a win.

When I was writing review for original Mondaiji-tachi I said that best things about it are female sexual exploitation and unconventional character of main protagonists. However, it later gets bogged down in themes like poverty, backbreaking work and childcare that plague late 2010s anime. Now in this OVA fixes it by removing all that bogged show down and only keeping the good parts.

Here we have plenty of females in sexy compromising poses, dressed in sexy clothes. They got, molested by tentacles, covered in sticky liquids, get their cloth destroyed and many more. However, that is not all, we also have Izayoi being OP, like he plays warlock in WoW. 

If there is something that perhaps lacking is that we have not seen that snake molesting all the female characters.

Overall, this is possibly the best OVA I have seen, and I think the only one I rated higher than the original show. I can recommend watching.

Creators Lost Touch with What Makes Stories Compelling

Watching another isekai anime I could not help to notice a repeated use of the title, called "floor guardian". Even good takes on the videogame genre such as Overlord series do that, many others copy that. 

However, what a floor guardian even is, if you look at world of Warcraft for example, you will not find one in the entire game. Most likely this is part of player jargon and used in lieu of boss, possibly something culturally acceptable and meaningful for a Japanese person. 

Boss is a term used by players a lot, but it is never used by a game itself or in game characters. Reason for disparity is due to different objectives for communication between players and between NPCs in game. 

Players need to communicate fast and precise. The game is fast paced, and any delay can be costly. There is no time to nitpick on titles of each individual character, a simple precise term that denote their role in game is needed. That is why players use terms such as: boss, trash, loot, CC, DPS, tank, healer buff, nerf and so on. These are technical terms that sum up much more complex actual names for spells, characters and other game aspects as well as denote their role in game. Refer to OMGWTFBBQ article (net rather than my blog) for the full list of abbreviations used by players. 

On the other hand, NPCs in game and the game plot has to tell the story and immerse players in the world. To do that each character is given elaborate name, sometimes title and a role in the organisation they are part of. No real-life organisation would have a floor guardian and no person referred as boss has this written down on their business card. The game imitates reality so by extension it has none either. Instead, each NPC has a certain role in one or the other in game organisation. These range from royal and even divine titles to humble farmhands and shop keeper assistants. Each character is someone in the big world the game designers want to portray.

Broadly speaking both forms of communications are equally important for the whole experience. Player's jargon is needed to actually play and communicate with fellow players. The story language on the other hand allows you to feel that it's not just a game with game pieces, but a living breathing world, full of all sorts of people.

Any fiction is just as good as how well it can suspend our disbelief that its real. Yes, underneath the hood it's all numbers and game mechanics, they are important to master the game, but they are not why people play in the first place. People play because they find the world game set in compelling. Yes, it is a fictional fully made-up world, but if its likable and believable enough then people will keep coming back to it.

That is why what happens in this world is important. A one careless plot twist that does not fit the established world or characters and this whole illusion of the world falls apart. 

That is why good actors train themselves to actually believe they are who they play in the movie. That way they can act like it really happens and viewers looking at them could believe it too. They cry like their own wife and child died in front of them, then bash villain like they a person who killed their loved ones. 

A bad actor does half-hearted act that breaks the illusion and expose the 4th wall, allowing audience to realise it's all an act, no one died and there are cameras and director on the other side. 

Characters calling themselves floor guardian is that kind of breach of 4th wall act. If you look on WoW lore, every dungeon boss has actual title and role, they are, chef wizards, lead engineers, cannoneers, fighting instructors, captains, inquisitors, lords, even school headmasters and so on. Behind every title there is a story and a role they play in their organisation story wise. Same with characters talking about game rules and game mechanics. Phrases such as gift game or geass scrolls are all such artificial concepts that expose them as mere game mechanics. 

For example, NPCs in WoW do not say such things, they act like characters in screen are real people, experience real like sorrow or joy if someone dies or saved. In short act like real life people would in similar situation. Citizens of Darkshire is afraid undead or Worgen going to kill them all one of these days and then implore player to help them fend-off these threats off. They also ask you to contact every other Stormwind friendly locality and ask them to send help. All responses however are negative as they have too many problems of their own and could use some of Darkshire help if they can spare any. 

That get you invested too as you realise that you are possibly the only one who stands between Darkshire and its obliteration at the hands of Worgen and undead. When you save them, they call give you gifts and promise to remember you, tell tales and celebrate your victories like in historical myth. You can become as immortalised as Momotaro, or Minamoto, or Till Eulenspiegel or Ivan Susanin or crusaders, name it. You saved them from a certain assured destruction, story wise that it. Yes, you will be remembered by fictional people, but still.

Yes, really game will not break if you do nothing and they will not die, but it's the illusion that they will that makes people love the world as much as they do and continue to play classic. This is one and quintessential thing that classic got right compared to modern WoW.

Generally High fantasy stories are like Lord of The Rings or cliche WWII movies. JRR Tolkien got the formula right in his books, that is why they are so loved by the fans.

In High Fantasy enemy is devil incarnate and trying to destroy everything and exterminate everyone; we either win or die. There could be variations on how exactly they plan to destroy everyone, or whether they honestly admit to their designs or believed so by their opponents.  If they do not plan to destroy everything and kill everyone and can be trusted and negotiated reasonable terms with, then why all the struggle with fighting them to death. Let's just make a deal and have peace of our time, Neville Chamberlain style. It's the impossibility of compromise that makes all the struggle against the enemy necessary. When plot fails to deliver that impossibility of peace, it cheapens the whole experience. 

It works in real life as well. Take even recent war between Russia and Ukraine. Russia called Ukrainians nazis and refuses to negotiate with them. Ukraine and Europe in turn consider Russia untrustworthy genocidal power who seeks to destroy Ukraine and Europe. It is not a situation where there can be trust in any agreement, not backed by something more concrete, like force and guarantees.

Originally WoW followed this formula faithfully. For as long as they continue to follow this formula, fans were happy. 

In later expansion they started to deviate from it. NPCs started to admit that not much will change even if you do nothing. You no longer save them from assured destruction, just kill some mobs to earn some gear. Story progressively went somewhere else. 

There are no antagonists to speak of. As I wrote in one of my previous articles about WoW, western stories are almost always antagonist driven. No antagonist is almost as good as no story.

Before enemy was deadly and good guys are completely hapless without you. You were the center of all efforts to win and save Azeroth, everyone else either supported you or relied on you. It was all about you. When Nietzsche talked about Will to Power, he meant this: the power to decide the future of the world.

After you end up being an accessory to the dodgy protagonists like Garrosh or Sylvanas and later even Shadowlands Jailer if I understand story correctly. It's no longer your show, it's their show and you are just an extra. You are no longer the power, they are, you are just around. You can have that IRL, as IRL most of us can affect nothing, why bother playing the game. 

The reason to play games is to feel more powerful and influential than you really are. Games can give you what reality alas cannot. That fulfilment of Will to Power. When games and other entertainment stop giving you that, then why continue?

If it's not about you, everyone can be just as fine without you, then why play, why struggle, why invest into the game, what all these efforts will accomplish? Videogames were one of few opportunities for an average person to feel they are important and matter a lot. If you take that away than what remains? Crunching numbers until your numbers are bigger than their numbers?

It is the same with isekai or any other anime. In some anime, like Code Geass you feel that future of the world is at stake. You can feel invested. 

Yet other shows make you feel discouraged instead, system is just too strong or stiff or inert, and you can never change it no matter what you try.

Back to the original topic. When writing about videogames, player jargon and game story narrative should stay distinct. Authors should not mix them as that breaks the whole thing apart. Instead, two distinct narratives should exist side by side, one describes the action from story point of view, and the other describe in in gamer's jargon terms. 

To achieve that one way is to make one character speak in jargon and the other in story terms. One of the players, invested in story or narrator can give plot context of what is going on, while another experienced player will speak jargon instead.

As I was often writing in my articles, quality of writing has declined in all media, movies, anime, videogames. In this article I have describe how it declined exactly and how to fix it. Hopefully it will result in more and better stories across all media.

Mondaiji-tachi ga Isekai kara Kuru Sou desu yo? Review

Overall Rating 6.5 out of 10 - Rather unusual show with mixed good and bad aspects.

I recommend watching.

This show felt rather refreshing at first but gradually felt into usual problems so many other shows of this era suffer from. 

It is an isekai but instead of usual adaptation to new world and struggle in the new world, it was several OP protagonists going wild and pushing boundaries of what was thought possible. Clearly stronger than what their hosts have anticipated, they each went on to break the game in their own way, especially Izayoi. Kill toughest demons and gods just because you can. A motivation not uncommon in actual gamers, watch Spiffing Brit videos if you want to see some of that.

Add to that cute looking Black Rabbit whose sexy revealing outfit gets frequently admired by Izayoi and Shiroyasha and you have a good show. Sweet, sweet female objectification and exploitation: they are just pretty dressed dolls and puppets for us to have fun with. Later they also added another cute girl, Leticia Draculea and they made her dress in maid outfit. Decent stuff all round.

Later however it gets worse. Leticia got almost no screen time after her ark. Black Rabbit suddenly stops being helpless damsel and fights Izayoi. The worst protagonist, Asuka, gets lots of screentime, but does not suffer in any of that, like she did in Leticia ark.

Character motivation somewhat changes too, or to be more precise drifts into less appealing zone. Instead of minmaxers (a type of gamer) they end up more of whatever goes: more chaos and action over more victory and loot, typical of actual gamers.

Game world, already rather convoluted with many overengineered complex rules and even complex mediation system over these rules. There are role and place for everything. Dispute between two corporations over the terms of multibillion contract is something to be mediated by qualified judges in a courtroom where examination of all the rules and terms as well as facts on the ground are needed. This is something a court can find a fair solution to. An invasion of semi-undead troupe who first infected everyone with uncurable disease and then try to use mediation and game rules to suspend the battle and prevent them from curing the disease is ludicrous instead. In what kind of real-life situation in will fly? Yet this show does that. For every complex plot that works and makes sense like in Code Geass, there are several dozens more that do not. This show is of latter type.

Finally, epilogue leaves to be desired as well. Instead of a grand victory, it's just watering of the barren land. 

Overall, it is flawed but decent experience. I can recommend it.

Macross 7 Review

Overall Rating 7.0 out of 10 - Nice show with thick late 90s early 2000s nostalgia

I recommend watching

It has been a while since I have reviewed anything. That is partly because this show is 49 episodes long, 4 seasons of most other shows. 

I liked Macross 7 mostly for its very late 90s feel. The show really brings back the better of late 90s memories: fancy sleek looking gismos, imaginative drinks and outfits all as outlandish and surreal as possible - helps you forget the shit all around us in this post-crisis austerity era.

I could somewhat relate to the protagonist as well. Basara has very unconventional worldview and frequently clashes with everyone over it. In the end Basara always ends up being right. That is just like me: I am right but no one sees it my way yet.

On the other hand Basara's overly pacifist views are hardly that close to mine. That said in late 90s they made more sense that nowadays.

That said show has its drawbacks too. To begin with, its far too long. Instead of clear cut filler arks, they just stretched story very thin. There are several very repetitive episodes before something significant changes and then there are more repetitive episodes after that.

Story is somewhat interesting. There is now another alien race that survives by consuming life energy of humans. Their approach to addressing this problem gradually evolves as show progresses, making it interesting to follow.

Unlike the original Macross, here music has supernatural power that somehow stronger than weapons. In the original music had no supernatural fighting power but only appealed to enemy psychologically. Original Macross fleet convinced Zentradi to defect with better culture and way of life, kind of what EU does IRL and it works in both show and IRL. Compare to that Macross 7 does not try to showcase any clever use of soft power. Its a pure entertainment show.

Characters are somewhat OK. Best girl is the flower girl in a wide hat. She is a very devoted Basara fan who wants to give him flowers one day. The show consistently shows her struggle to get close to him. Basara's band, Fire Bomber, consists of quiet drummer Vefiddas who almost always drums on something, Rey who struggles to keep band together and patch differences between members and rather annoying Milene that complains all the time. Max, Milia and Exedore return from the original Macross. There are also stick up Gamlin and cocky Docker who is this Macross's Fokker. Enemies consist of Gepelnitch with a plan that gets revealed gradually, ugly guy Gigil who yells at people, Sivil that struggles to say basic words and Gabil who says beaty in every sentence.

Overall it is a solid experience and I can recommed, especially if you are nostalgic for the late 90s. 

Night Elves vs Blood Elves in WoW

 

I was thinking recently that I do not like Blood Elves as much as I theoretically should. In theory Blood Elves are just my kind of people, they pursue increased knowledge and power, use arcane magic to make everyday life more comfortable and advanced, they are also hedonistic and like comforts and pleasure. That sound a lot more like me compared to nature loving, magic forbidding and ancients worshipping Night Elves.

Yet somehow in game itself Night Elves appeal to me more than Blood ones. I wonder why that is. Could it be that I do not like colour red, Blood Elves do overuse it to my taste, but there is more, I think.

After some thinking I concluded that Blood Elves architecture looks tad too small and somewhat plastic in game. It feels more like a playground for kids houses than one's people actually live in.

Also, Blood Elf women look to cold and hard compare to Night Elf ones. I like softer women.

Finally, there is indeed too much red and brown in Silvermoon, I do not like colour brown and only like red in limited amounts. Generally, there are too much colour saturation in Blood Elf towns.

Compared to that, Night Elf towns and areas look like there is perpetual twilight. I like sunsets, so that appeals to me.

Generally, Night Elves feel a lot more relaxed compared to rather terse Blood Elves. Night Elf areas have resort feel to them, particularly tavern building. Darnassus itself is somewhat oversaturated with treehouses but, smaller towns are much better in that regard, particularly the one in Darkshore. That ocean view is one of the kind. I like relaxed things and Night Elf areas give feel of tranquility and timelessness.

Also, while Night Elves are somewhat closer to nature, it's not the kind of real wilderness like in Un'Goro Crater, Feralas or north and east of Strangelthorn Vale. Ashenvale has paved roads and even streetlight (lamppost) trees to illuminate your path, similar to how high-class resort hotels do it in real life. It's all crafter magical and fairytale-ish experience rather than wilderness. I do not like wilderness but do like magical fairytale-sh experience.

That is not to say I do not like Blood Elves, their areas are better than Tauren ones for example. If I am to rank capitals in order of my aesthetic preference, then they will go: Exodar, Darnassus, Silvermoon,  Ironforge, Undercity, Stormwind, Ogrimmar, Thunderbluff. Night Elves have better small towns, but best capital has to go to Draenei. As for favorite zones, then Ashenvale, Azshara, Desolace, Eastern Plaguelands, Westfall in that order. Least favorite has to be Un'Goro, followed by Redridge Mountains, Feralas, Wetlands and Dun Morogh. 

Kidou Senshi Gundam SEED FREEDOM

Overall Rating 5.2 out of 10 - Poorly made movie loosely based on original series

I do not recommend watching.

I did not yet review the original Gundam Seed. I watched it a while ago long before I began blogging and had a mixed experience with it. In view of lack of good anime to watch recently I decided to revisit this franchise and watch a movie.

The movie did disappoint. Original war between Earth Forces and ZAFT ended and they are not all friends for some reason. Later I checked there is whole 50 extra episode second season of Gundam Seed, called Destiny, that possibly explains how that happened, but after watching this one, I do not want to watch it. What they showed about Durandal in this movie is enough to not want to watch the entire 50-episode slog where he is main antagonist.

Back to the movie, Kira married Lacus, they live unhappily together, each too busy with their own work and feel guilty for not having time for each other. Each so driven to achieve peace and blaming themselves for not being able to. Back in original both of them were much nicer and a lot more easygoing, they were just nice guys, now they are as heavy with guilt as lead dumbbells.

Antagonists are not any better. The asshole knights who measure a person value based on ability to fight with a sword despite piloting overengineered ginormous mechs that can destroy a city or two at a press of a button. Spoiler alert, they end up being so called accords, genetically engineered beings above coordinators, who want to create a caste society dictatorship and try to convince protagonists and viewers that it is the only way to peace. I will not spoil the rest of the plot as the Accord's trap one of the few redeeming points of the story, together with Lacus cooking ability. 

Story begins with pathetic "strength is all that matter" message and ends with "love is strength" (almost Beatles era, all your need is love), yes that pathetic. I simplify here, but I cannot be bothered to elaborate on stupidity of screenwriters of this movie.

Broadly speaking most of the story is unappealing and unpleasant, middle movie plot twist is the only interesting part. Animation is not any better, characters look uglier than in the original Gundam that was released more than 20 years ago, how did you managed to fuck it up that much? Some backgrounds somewhat redeem it, but not that much. There is a lot of beams flying all over the screen during the fight scenes, trying to make them look pretty. Its picture over substance however, oversaturation makes it hard to follow who fights whom and where. Mech's designs do not help identifiability either. So is the fact that Shiin looks too much like Athrun. The whole action feels either rushed or cut too far. Athrun seems like teleporting between his own fight with Shura and protecting Kira from Orpheus. Some scenes in between were probably cut.

Speaking of characters, my favorite and most relatable character from the original, Rue Le Creuse (the masked guy from ZAFT), is not in this movie at all, a be it you see him occasionally in memory flashes. I do not remember if he died at the end of original or not. My second favorite character, Athran is in it, but he is different from how he was in the original, and not in the good way.

Finally, the overall plot. In the original I could sympathize with ZAFT. Humans engineered coordinators to be smarter than ordinary people yet denied them status and power they deserved, expecting them to all to be like Kira and serve humanity for no benefit of their own. It was only natural for coordinators to fight against the earth forces. 

In this movie however, the accords are extremely unlikable, and their society is horribly totalitarian and oppressive. The never-ending obsession with peace, that all sides profess, does not make it any better. I felt that Gintama should satirise it. It's like when Gintoki and Hijikata were arguing about treatment of that elder in video game (ep 99).

Overall, this movie is a bad, it's full of unlikable characters and I do not recommend watching it.

Why Japan and Japanese Things Has Unique Appeal in the West

 

It is no secret that Japan is very popular around the world. It's not just Japanese games and electronics, but other aspects of culture as well. Nowadays there are at least as many sushi restaurants as there are McDonalds or Pizzerias if not more. 

To top it up there is also anime that people enjoy watching with subtitles despite American Hollywood can offer life action movies in many languages. Yet people around the world choose subtitled anime instead. There is supposedly large cultural barrier between Japan and the west, yet it does not stop fans. 

A similar problem prevents people from enjoying cultural products from other countries. China, Russia or France are supposedly huge countries with long history of culture, yet they only enjoy very limited to non-existent interest around the world. A far cry to the interest Japan has.

However, why Japan wins the hearts of the globe, while everyone else misses by a longshot? What does Japan have that other countries do not?

A simple answer would be humble women; I wrote a separate article about why Western Men choose Asian women. In this article I will cover reasons not related to women.

Imitation

Back in the past, Japanese heavily borrowed from Chinese. culture, technology, even writing system. Some Sinophiles might even say that everything originated in China and Japanese and other Asians simply copied it. That however will be shortsighted. While Japan indeed copied a lot from Chiese, not everything Japan has comes from China. For example, even if Kanji are from China, Hiragana and Katakana are not. The same with other things.

In copying and imitating good ideas from other cultures, Japan is remarkably similar to the Western civilization. Greeks borrowed from Egyptians, Romans from Greeks, barbarians who destroyed Rome, later grew to imitate it in many ways. Even at its pinnacle, West does not grow complacent and start thinking that everything great comes from us and there is nothing to learn elsewhere. That makes it much easier for western people to understand Japanese who think the same way, than say Chinese who think that everything good originated in China and everyone else is just a barbarian compared to us.

Language

Japanese language a lot closer to western languages compare to say Chinese or Vietnamese. Japanese may be using Chinese characters, but their spoken language is rather distant from Chinese. Chinese and Vietnamese normally limited to one syllabus per word and are heavily tonal. Japanese language is not tonal, and words typically consist of several syllabi. Most other languages share these features with Japanese, making Japanese more accessible and easier to understand than Chinese. 

Japanese also have access to Hiragana and Katakana, that allows them to write words phonetically, like in most other languages. In contrast Chinese a limited to characters that represent objects and concepts and have no ready way of writing down sounds.

The sound of Japanese language is pleasant to ear, its soft and gentle. Much unlike many other languages. It sounds almost childish and wins Japanese people much sympathy because people tend to like children.

Religion

Japanese religion, Shinto, while different from either Christianity or more ancient Hellenic, Norse and Egyptian religions, but it does have many parallels with them. All of these have a lot of stories about gods. Japanese gods, much like Olympians or Norse have humane personalities and flaws. They also have complex human interactions and relationships with each other. Each also has world founding myth as well as stories that explain various natural phenomena. Finally, each has dedicated places of worship (shrines), elaborate rituals that performed at such places and even formal religious authorities in charge of religion.

Japanese attitude towards religion is also similar to increasingly secularised west. There is more curiosity towards religion than righteousness and zealotry. That allows for communication and mutual appreciation of religion and culture of each other.

History

Japanese history has many parallels with the western one. Japanese daimyos were much like Western feudal nobility; samurai were like knights. Both even had a peculiar code of conduct for warrior class, Chivalry in the West and Bushido for samurai. Both of these codes were equally far from how warrior class actually behaved. Nonetheless legends about knights and samurai continue to exist in both cultures even in present day.

Even warrior states period division during times of shoguns are similar to how medieval western society have operated. In both cases warrior class took control of the country after defeating barbarians. 

Long periods of war are also common for both Japanese and the West. Peace is more of an exception than a rule. That is different from say China where one dynasty just takes down another in a coup or a very fast war that does not affect broader country that much and peace returns, just under different authority.

Past Poverty

Modern Japan and the West are rich, prosperous and well developed. That was not the case in the past, however. Europe has cold climate and poor-quality land. Better and richer lands were that of Byzantines and later Arabs in the South-East. Japan geography is also not very fortunate; there are not that much habitable land between mountains in the middle of the Japanese islands and sea that surrounds them. One of precursor of modern Western civilization, Greece has similar geography. 

Compare these with near endless plains of China and huge rivers that make these lands very fertile or vastness of Russian lands, that are full of valuable natural resources.

Poor geography and resulting poverty pushed west towards exploring the world and eventually allowed them to discover New World. It also encouraged innovation and creativity. In the same way Japan too became much more creative and innovative as a result of their circumstances.

Dealing with poverty of the land, while secretly envy those lucky neighbors who have it much better simply because they were born on better piece of land, is something Japan and the West have in common.

These similar experiences allow Westerners to relate to Japanese and their experiences. Just like Chinese can easier relate to Russia instead. Much like in my previous article about paradox of wealth of nations. Russia and China are poor Kraterocracies on rich lands. West and Japan are rich democracies on poor lands.

Understanding Emotions

Despite distance and physical differences, similar past experiences ended up shaping West and Japan to be broadly similar to each other.

That allows Japanese to better understand feelings of a Western Person. That allows them to create video games and anime that appeals to Western audiences even when they do not particularly try to. Similar past allows for an unspoken understanding and relatability.

Meanwhile China, Russia, France, Arab World, Iran or Latin America all had different past and history. Thus, their experiences and works of art are not as relatable as those of Japan.

In Defence of Formula 1

For quite a while various internet pundits and content creators have been bashing F1. Most of the reasons they cite are repetitive and awfully same: few overtakes, very expensive and full of nepotism. Some even go as far as call it corrupt. They make it seem that F1 has nothing going for it and its place on top of autosport hierarchy is completely unwarranted.

As someone who enjoyed F1 ever since I began watching it in 1998, I could not agree with such assessment. Yes, F1 does have less overtakes, which it certainly compensates with quality of overtakes. There are other issues too. 

However, there are a lot of things that F1 does that other series do not. Here I will explain what make F1 pinnacle of auto sport.

Engineering

F1 one is not just competition of racers, it's also a competition of engineers or in more recent times, engineering teams and R&D departments. Just as racers try to outrace each other, engineers try to out engineer each other and build a car that will be head and shoulders fasters that what other have.

F1 is a race of concept cars. Other series, who race on tried and tested at best, and downright outdated at worst, equipment. The kind of cool over the top cars that you occasionally see on exhibitions. What if all carmakers will bring their concept cars to a race so we can see which one is the fastest. That is what F1 is about. 

Pre-season testing is where we get to see fruits of these efforts. That is why everyone who understands the game, paying great attention to cars in these events in an effort to notice a future GP winner.

Nowadays teams go conservative with designs as certain design solutions just work best and best not to alter them. However, even in modern times we occasionally see original and bold solutions, like Mercedes without sidepods.

F1 is famous for many of the engineering innovations. Some of these later made into road cars as well. Others stay in F1 because they are either too expensive or impractical. 

Some innovations later get banned, but not before team that came up with them, gets to win a championship or two, becoming a legend of the sport in the process.

In F1 its not only racers, who get famous, chief engineers and sometimes team principles become legends as well. Nick Fry, Adrian Newey, Patrick Head, Harvey Postlethwaite, John Barnard and of course Colin Chapman are all famous for their engineering innovations.

Money

F1 is famous for being extremely expensive. Nepotism, paid drivers and dubious sponsorships deals are regulars of F1 life and often make a lot of F1 news and rumors, fuelling accusations of corruption.

What rumor mongers do overlook however is what all this money is spend on. Running a full-on R&D department with dozens of people with engineering experience is not cheap. Equipment they use to build and test cars is not cheap either.

Unlike other series, F1 uses expensive materials, such as carbon fibre, titanium and so on. When it comes to what it builds of, F1 is closer to Space Shuttles and other rocket equipment than to cars from similar series such as IndyCar. At one time teams even experiment with fuelling cars with literal rocket fuel until FIA outlawed it because it's too flammable. Rocket science behind these cars is real.

Overtaking

Now to the elephant in the room: overtaking. Yes, there are a lot less overtaking in F1 compared to many other series such as NASCAR or IndyCar. However, when it comes to quality of these overtakes then F1 is clearly ahead.

Number of overtakes is not everything. Take soccer and basketball for example. In soccer there are at average only 1 or 2 goals per game. In basketball players hit the basket so often, score often goes into third digit. Does that make basketball better or more popular? Statistics says that soccer fans outnumber basketball fans by large numbers. 

The reason for that is when a soccer player does score, the entire stadium goes mad. After every goal it takes several minutes for players to calm down and continue playing. You will never see something like that in basketball. Easiness to score makes each scoring repetitive and ordinary. Michael Jordan hitting the ring in 100's time is nothing to write home about. A Ronaldo finally getting through tenacious goalkeeper and scoring after 20 or 30 previous futile attempts to do so, drives the stadium to celebrate with him as he running wild all over the field.

F1 is like soccer in that regard. Less so nowadays compared to the past, however. Overtaking is hard, but when it does happen, everyone gets agitated. F1 overtake is a dish that is served slowly cooked and well prepared. You get to see it being cooked over many, many laps. Near entire race sometimes. 

Overtakes are typically precede by a lengthy fight over position, where the chasing racer tries to put pressure on the one in front of him by staying within striking distance and occasionally fainting overtakes. Every so often they will attempt to take on the car in front of them, forcing them to defend and try to block the chaser to prevent them from overtaking. That goes on and on for many laps straight, making viewers speculate who will blink first and make mistake. 

A good commentator is needed to narrate the whole process to the audience.

Long Term Plans and Plots

F1 is a long-term sport. To begin winning in 2030, you need to start in 2020, ten years ahead. Take for example Audi. In early 2020 they negotiated with F1 authority's engine regulations. After getting what they wanted they started investing money in R&D to build the engine, as well as started their takeover bid for one of the existing teams on the grid. As of 2025 Audi is not yet on grid, but on track with their plans to get winning by 2030.

Other now famous teams did not become so overnight. Both Mercedes and Red Bull spent several seasons to get things right. Some might call Brawn GP an exception, but if you understand how F1 works, it really wasn't. Brawn GP was a former Honda factory team with all the same personnel. Due to head office decision to terminate their F1 involvement, Honda name was withdrawn in 2009. However, the F1 team already knew in 2008 that they will have a winning car in 2009 because one of their engineers figured out a clever workaround against the F1 rules. Thus, engineering team offered Honda to buy the team and entered 2009 season as Brawn GP and won.

This long-term planning is also part of the game or F1 process, much like playing chess or contract bridge. Pit-stop strategies. Complex deals even paid drivers are part of smart solutions to get ahead in the long run. Sure, you will have to take a deadweight driver on board, but money their will bring will let you build a better and faster car several seasons into future, so it's worth it. When Haas and Sauber were saying they will have a poor season this year, that is what they meant. Poor season now, for a good one several years on.

High Stakes

Another reason that brings a lot of interest to F1 is the fact that stakes are much higher here compared to other series. In a casino no one will care if a slot machine doubles your $1 bid or not. However, if someone bids a million that will get heads turning.

It's the same with F1. Big money is part of it but there is also a competitive racing spirit. Many famous F1 drivers are fiercely competitive. Take Prost and Senna, who infamously caused a crash each to win a championship. While Prost used to deny it was deliberate, Senna did not. Michael Schumacher was also famously competitive, ending two battles for championship in a crash in a final race. For one of these he was even disqualified. Even when he did not crash into anyone, he would do anything possible and impossible to win.

There were also many incidents of fistfights and hurling insults due to perceived undue interference. As for mutual accusations between teams and occasional complains to FIA, then these happen after nearly every race. 

Big money brings big stakes; big stakes make everyone nervous. Add to that ambition and stubbornness and you get tension that will explode if something falls on the wrong side of the track.

Compare that to an overly relaxed attitude of some IndyCar racers, where even not getting to start at all is no big deal for some.

Meritocracy

One of the important aspects of F1 is meritocracy. In F1 the best driver and best car wins. In NASCAR people accept that sheer luck can make you a winner. Not so in F1. F1 champion is someone who races better and faster than the rest. F1 constructor champion is one that builds fastest cars.

That is a double-edged sword. On one hand F1 fans can accept that one team dominates a season or two if they indeed managed to build a better and faster car than anyone else. On the other hand, fans do not like when someone gets victory handed down to them for free or wins through no talent of their own, by pure chance and luck. 

For example, Senna is so popular because he had Alan Prost to fight for championship with. Fans liked seeing them fighting for victory. Michael Schumacher in his early career too had to fight Damon Hill, Jacques Villeneuve and Mika Hakkinen for leadership. Later however he became uncontested, and fans grew to dislike him, calling him red baron. 

Mercedes had much more goodwill of the public when Lewis Hamilton had to fight Nico Rosberg for title. When Rosberg left, citing unwillingness to just let Hamilton win all the time, that goodwill dissipated. Rosberg was replaced with uncompetitive support driver, Bottas, who was just there to pave way for Hamilton to win. Hamilton became silver baron.

Some might question equality in sport. Considering that some teams have better cars and engines than others, giving them clear advantage. That may be true in F1 but to get there, a racer typically has to go through the equal machinery F2 and F3. However, a truly equal and accessible for nearly everyone is the very first step, carting.

By carting I do not mean go-carts where you rent a cart for a time to race with friends. In (semi) professional carting you have to buy your own cart, engine and other equipment from a specialised store. All together it costs less than a typical road car. 

Once you have your cart, you can enlist in regional carting league and start racing right away. Races are typically in the same country and not too far away from each other, meaning you can just drive there with a caravan and a cart in a trunk.

Carting is more accessible because you do not need to somehow convince a team boss to give you a chance; in carting you are your own boss and your own team.

On the flip side it means that you also have to manage everything yourself and be your own engineer and mechanic. However, that experience is what makes good races that later became F1 champions. Sure, there are engineers and mechanics in F1 who can set your car up for you. However, if you are not knowledgeable enough to understand what does what, then your car will be average at best, and you will never be the first. 

A truly good drivers have peculiar driving style they developed in carting. To match this driving style, they also have a peculiar setting preference that somehow work for them. Max Verstappen is a good example of that. All of his teammates struggle to drive a car tuned and build to his driving style, yet he alone can win championships with it. Something like that can only be achieved through thorough understanding of technical aspects of the car and its settings. Without caring background it will be hard to have such understanding.

Legacy

in other sports racers come and go and forgotten almost immediately they have left. Not so in F1. If you achieved in F1 something of will be remembered forever. People talk forever about legendary cars, engineers, racers. Great innovations are remembered and analysed decades after the fact. So are famous overtakes and battles for championships.

F1 is immortalised as it goes with meticulousness of a museum collection of royal jewels and then showcased with no less reverence. If you want to become part of history and not forgotten the season you stopped racing, F1 is the way to go.

Why legends of F1 are remembered and those from other series are often forgotten. Some might say its only because F1 is more prestigious, however there is more to it than just that. To win in NASCAR or Indy you mostly need luck. A lucky break can make even a very average driver a champion. In F1 that does not work, to win you actually have to be better than others. That is why legends of F1 are remembered.

It is the same in other spheres in life. People who won a million in Nobel Prize money will be remembered, while those who won as much in lottery will soon be forgotten. Because to win a Nobel Prize one has to be good at science and to win in lotto just luck will suffice. 

Conclusion

F1 is a sport like no other, it has it all, fast speed, glamour, money, iconic locations such as Monaco, cutting age space level technology and chess level strategy. What other sport has just as much. not even posh upper-class golf can compare. So, tune in and take your time to understand how it all works, it will be worth your time.

What Went Wrong with World of Warcraft: Part 3 Design and Game Mechanics

 

Blizzard used to say that attention to details is what differentiates them from the competitors and makes their games win over in the end. However, since Cataclysm this attention to details was somewhat lacking. In this article I will outline the details that made early WoW shine but were lost in later expansions.

Distinctly Looking Biomes

I already mentioned it in the in the previous part in section about Cataclyms but will iterate on it further. Zones have to look different from one another. That gives the impression that world is much larger than it really is. As you travel you move from jungle into desert into grasslands, into mountains, into snowlands into plaguelands.

Making biomes distinct means using different colour palettes for different zones, different trees, different rocks and so on. When you move from Feralas into Thouthand Needles, you immediately notice a much lighter coloured and open world compere to the thick jungle you just left. You do not need to check map or interface to tell its a different zone.

Since Cataclysm however it is much less apparent. Zones became lot more similar to each other.

People call modern WoW controlled by content creators precisely due to lack of this distinction. There is a tendency to use the same new pretty assets in every single zone possible. Designers spent a lot of time making this fancy new tree or rock and now want it everywhere. 

However, this frequent asset re-use is what makes all zones look the same. So, designers should make a new type of tree for every every other zone there is. Some zones should be plans or other type of terrains.

There is another aspect to this and that is consistency with zone's original character. Do not just suddenly start growing pines in desert. Pines are cold weather tree. Use desert vegetations such as palms instead. Some basic knowledge of biology and geography is needed to make biomes realistic and meaningful.

Finally, some zones like, Plaguelands or Felwood are deliberately made to look toxic and inhospitable. That was done for story purpose, to showcase the damage, Scourge and Burning Legion will do to Azeroth if they win. There are other more hospitable biomes out there so these should be kept as it is.

Distinct Denizens and Structures

Terrain and plants are not the only things that need to be distinct, denizens and structures they live in should also be appropriate for the biome they are located. There is a reason why Centaurs for example live in open and spacious regions, such regions in real life are often homes for horse riding nations and cultures like Mongols and Comanche. It is only reasonable that Half-horse half-human creatures are found in such zones in WoW.

Since people live in homes in cities and villages, creatures in WoW need their homes as well. How homes look like depend on culture and location. Different areas and people have their homes look different from one another. Upwardly curving roofs are distinct feature of Asian architecture for example that is not found elsewhere. WoW races too each need to have a distinct style of housing they use and build in areas they control. 

There is also a utility aspect in architecture as well. Deserts often have sand-coloured homes with flat roofs. There is no rain in deserts so there is no need to build steeped roofs that will make rainwater flow down on the ground. Cold areas with a lot of snow have to take steep roof much further and build very tall roofs with steep inclination to prevent snow from piling up atop of the roof. Thus, before deciding what homes of new race will look like, practicality of such dwellings for the environment race inhabits should be considered.

Houses are not the only unique things about races. There are minor things such as postboxes as well. There are iconic postbox and telephone booth design around the world, particularly in the UK. WoW does that too and each race has its own unique looking mailbox. Other small things such as furniture, decorative patters, even typical colour of clothes and such are also sometimes part of that race identity. Thus, great attention needs to be paid to such things when making new zones. There are also flags but I will dedicate a separate section to the flags and tabards further below.

Fractions

There are two playable fractions in WoW: Horde and Alliance. However, in the broader world there are many more unplayable fractions. Some but not all have a dedicated reputation you can gring. Fractions differ in size power and influence. They can be just bunch of local lifeforms or organisations that contest your fraction control of the area, like Quillboars in Barrens and Durotar and Defias Brotherhood in Elvyn Forest and Westfall. Alternatively, they could be as huge as Burning Legion that has many subfractions, that have subfractions of their own. If someone were to create a political map of WoW it will be very large and complex, not quite the Voltaire's Nightmare of Holy Roman Empire but at least half-way there. 

This plethora of fractions makes world look bigger and more diverse, there is always more to learn and see when you enter a new zone. There is no one big global government that controls everything, every area has their own authority. There are many organisations, big and small.

Motivation to Play

Multitude of fractions gives gameplay its reasons too. You fight for your race and fraction against others. If everything already controlled by your fraction, then what do you even do it. The whole thing is just a staged training exercise made by your bosses. That just does not give people enough motivation to play. 

People will have more reason to fight some monsters if these monsters are in organisation that threaten existence of their race and the world. Their heroic efforts will be more appreciated by NPCs as well. They will get to be heroes. 

After all, why play a bootcamp simulator when you can instead play hero simulator. No one ever dreams being in a perpetual bootcamp training, but many do dream of being a hero, winning wars and then be hailed and worshiped as champion for the rest of their lives.

Flags, Insignia and other Symbols

That could have been part of distinction section, but it is so important that it needs a separate section. Just like real world, WoW is full of multitude of flags, banners, symbols, insignias and so on. All these things denote allegiance to fraction, being part of a race or an organization. Just like in real life, these symbols can be confusing by their similarity to a slightly different symbol of a different organisation. Take real life flags of Poland, Indonesia and Monaco. In WoW symbols of Lordaeron, Scarlet Crusade and Stromgarde are similarly confusing. 

Just like in real life it is very important to get symbols right, it will offend a Pole if you depict "his" flag red bar above like Indonesian on, it will offend fans if symbols of one or another fraction are substitute with a similarly looking ones from another. BfA reconstructed Stromgarde with unrelated Scarlet Crusade flags is a good example of what not to do.

There are secondary insignia too. Some kingdoms and organisations have different design on a tabard compared to a flag. 

There are separate flags for religions and other such things as well. Above mentioned Scarlet Crusade often uses Symbols of Church of Holy Light to showcase their devotion, that are also present in Stormwind Cathedral and some other places too.

People understand the world by using symbols stereotypes and such. Thus, it is of utmost importance to get such things right. Mistakes in such things shows lack of attention and care for the games and players.

Convenience vs Lore

As I mentioned before, there are many fractions in WoW and two playable fractions are not the biggest powers in Azeroth. That means they do not control every zone in game.

In vanilla WoW you could tell you control the zone by looking what major settlements are. For example, in Elvyn Forest Kingdom of Stormwing is in control. Stromwind affiliated settlemts located on major roads and Stormwind knights patrol the roads. Enemies of Stormwind are hiding in dark corners of the map as they plot against Stormwind. On the other hand, in Plaguelands, the Scourge is in control, Scorge minions swarm roads and settlements. The only people there who are friendly to players, Argent Dawn, are hiding in the dark corner of the map in non-descript building called Light's Hope Chapel as they plot against the Scourge.

Such places like Light's Hope Chapel could be hard to find and hard to use as questing hubs. However, making this location as visible and accessible as a McDonalds restaurant for players convenience makes a Lore error instead. If Scourge cannot just destroy a piny settlement in the middle of their lands despite it standing there in plain view, then may be Scourge is not really a threat to Azeroth. That removes the reason to fight the in the first place and by extension motivation to play the game.

Player's convenience is good, but it should not break the Lore. Alternative quest-based option can be arranged to show players where to go and who contact in a territory controlled by enemies of their fraction.

Player's Freedom

Making game more hands on where something always happening may seem like a good thing, but it's not as one sided as it seems. Classic WoW gave people more freedom by allowing to explore the game as their own pace. They also had agency over what quests to fulfill, where to quest and what to do in general.

In a more hands on game, such freedom and agency could be compromised by game being overly obnoxious and constantly asking for attention.

Introverted Players

There is also an issue that more players are introverted rather than extraverted. After all extroverts would prefer life human interaction to games. Its introverts who would rather sit home and play.

While extroverts welcome any human interaction, introverts are bewildered when people talk to them too often or too much.

So, inability to leave players alone for prolong periods of time can be a problem for many players, particularly for introverted one.

Old Wow was clearly a game for introverts. A lot of time you were quietly exploring zones and looking at scenery without talking to anyone. The game has since clearly shifted towards more extroverted players. A lot more is constantly going on at the same time. That is something introverts have problem with.

Showing Damage and Decay

As much as it is good to make games pretty polished and healthy, it is also necessary to be able to show damage and destruction. You cannot make enemy feel real and dangerous if you cannot show how much damage they are capable of doing. Both biomes, structures and even people can be affected by this damage. 

For example, Felwood is infected example of a Night Elf Forest that stands just next to its healthy analoge Ashenvale. Travel from one zone to another and you see just how twisted Burning Legion can make things be.

Another example is Elvyn Forest and Plaguelands. In Elvyn Forest you see recently build and well-maintained human houses, taverns and so on. In Plaguelands very same buildings are damaged and dilapidated, because Scourge took control of the area and damaged them. Other areas like Alterac Mountains also have dilapidated human buildings.

There is also a playable race, Undead, who among other things, live in dilapidated human buildings, it's part of what makes them who they are, even though there are also purpose build undead structures.

Races and Differences Between Them

In WoW its races that are like countries. Both Alliance and Horde are associations of countries that cooperate with each other against their enemies. Cold War with its NATO and Warsaw Pact are good example for real world.

Just like amount the Cold War allies on either side, relationships within Horde and Alliance are nuanced and have certain internal politics. 

For example, Horde is clearly divided into inner and outer one. Orcs, Taurens and Trolls have utmost respect for each other. They fought side by side for a long time and helped each other a lot. They also share many believes, have similar ways of life. 

In contrast Undead and Blood Elves mostly view Horde as ally of convenience. Only mutual district of the Alliance keeps them cooperating with the Horde. They do not think much of other Horde members and will not hesitate to betray them if opportunity presents itself. Blood Elves mostly see the rest of Horde as dirty savages and only work with them because they were driven out of Alliance by Grandmarshal Garithos. Undead have certain hatred for the living in general and only even greater hatred for the Lich King keep them allied to the Horde against the Scourge. Also, Trolls and Elves have mutual animosity towards each other that goes way back to when Silvermoon was founded, though that is mostly towards hostile to Horde Jungle Trolls and not the Horde Island Trolls.

In Alliance it is somewhat between these two extremes. They neither think too much of the fellow allies, not particularly apprehensive towards them. Sober logic that allies are good for mutual defence and self-preservation mostly dominates as Alliance way of thinking.

That was part of the original lore but have long evaporated in later expansions. 

These vastly different attitudes towards allies stem from individual character of each race. Snobbishness is one Blood Elves and High Elves defining features. They would not be the same elves if they would embrace Horde just as Taurens do.

Every other race too has certain character traits and attitudes that define majority of them. There

Blood and High Elves are snobbish and arrogant. Orcs are brutal, they value strength and victory, but also loyalty, Taurens are loyal and have deep care for nature and Azeroth, Trolls are wicked, but ancient and know a lot about past and things in general. Undead are angry for being turned into these monstrosities and hate both living and Lich King who did it to them. Dwarfs are loyal, love to drink and love stone underground places. Gnomes love tinkering with technology. Night Elves are most ancient and wise, their experience during war of the Ancients makes them very concern with survival of Azeroth. Drenai are calm and sophisticated and focused on surviving and fighting back Buring Legion. Goblins love tech as much as Gnomes but unlike Gnomes they also love money and explosions just as much. These are short descriptions of each race traits. There are also Humans who do not have many traits to make them a choice for those who do noy find anything else appealing. There are more to them of course.

Players pick to play as one or the other race because they feel certain racial traits are relatable to them personally. Take that away and players will feel like it's not the same anymore.

Differences in traits is also what makes story work. In a good story each character just doing their usual thing and that sometimes leads towards unusual outcomes. People will think plot makes no sense if characters act out of character. However, to act in character they have to have character to begin with. That is why these racial traits exist.

Post Cataclysm developments homogenized races. They now do not feel as different from each other as they once were. That is something that should be reversed. Distinct character of each race has to be showcased in their dialogise, rituals, religion and so on. That will give players context of who they play as, allow them to immerse themselves into a different culture, even if it's a fictional culture. 

For example, Warcraft II mentioned how Orcs practice burning corpses of their fallen enemies as a religious ritual. Of course, Orcish religion should be administered by Shamans rather than Priests. We have yet to see that being done in WoW. Other races too could benefit from more exposure of their distinct cultures.

Fractional and Racial Leadership

Final issue that produced a lot of rage back then. Issue of leadership, particularly that of Garrosh. However there similar but less dramatic problems with other leaders too. Just others had some redeeming qualities or were much less noticeable in game while Garrosh stood out as sore thumb.

As far as I understand Blizz wanted to bring back some of the Horde original feel from first and second Warcraft. Warcraft III and early WoW made Horde far too pacifistic compared to its old self and developers wanted to bring back some of the original feel.

As someone who is also nostalgic for the Doomhammer's and Ner'Zhul's Horde, I am somewhat sympathetic to these efforts. However, Garrosh was a wrong way to go about it. Garrosh resembles Blackhand a lot more than either Doomhammer or Ner'Zhul. He is spiteful, pointlessly cruel and lashes out at people at random. Meanwhile the other two did their share of cruelty but were never unreasonable. Doomhammer ordered extermination of two orcish clans, but arguably they had only themselves to blame for suddenly deserting the Horde before the important battle with Dalaran and putting their brethren in undue danger. Gul'dan too had it coming due to his constant scheming.

Also, Garrosh was groomed and parachuted into leadership by Thrall and did nothing to prove himself. People do not like to see rich scions just getting ahead because of connections. Doomhammer made his way up from the bottom. He took power by force but only after he has proven himself to be a capable leader. Meanwhile Blackhand was misusing his authority because of his daughter.

If you think of a real-life example of leadership in an independent militaristic community such as pirate crew or a Cossack Host, then leader had to be able of cruelty, yet at the same time he also has to be reasonable, smart and cunning. Pirates and Cossacks has to be able to trust them to lead them to victory and not screw them over either due to stupidity or wickedness. They will not be able to trust someone who just fucks up someone of their own for no good reason. At the same time, they should be able and willing to kill others.

There is more detail in CGPGray video about How to be a Pirate part 1, part 2. I think good leader for the Horde should combine brutality with reason, ability to win and concern with survival of the crew. Such a leader will be a leader liked by players.

Of course, those who install Garrosh might simply wanted a pointlessly cruel leader because of their masochistic kinks. However, majority is not masochistic and thus it was poorly received by community.

Conclusion

That are some of the ways in which WoW can be improved and win back love of veterans. I might be able to think of more ideas sometime later, but so far that is all.

Hopefully Blizzard will realise their mistakes and fix WoW back to how we loved it.