#so getting to explore some deeper flaws-- ones that have much more serious negative impacts-- is a real treat!

[adenthemage]

[crashes in with a wholeass questionnaire]

💌 ⇢ how many unread emails do you have right now?

🍄 ⇢ share a head canon for one of your favourite ships or pairings

🍬 ⇢ post an unpopular opinion about a popular fandom character

🏜️ ⇢ what's your favourite type of comment to receive on your work?

🐚 ⇢ do you like or dislike surprises?

🧩 ⇢ what will make you click away from a fanfiction immediately?

-- Trauma :)

HI TRAUMA 💜💜💜

💌 -> sweats. Like. Cumulatively? Cuz I think between all my email addresses it's easily over 2,000

🍄 -> thinks way too long for ships that I like. OKAY GRIMMONS. So, my pal Galaxy and I have had this concept for Red Team Spanish Club where the only members are Lopez, Locus, and Grif, right (Donut thinks he counts but he also thinks his spanish is better than it is.) I feel like Simmons would get a little frustrated at not being able to tell what Grif was talking about with the others, and would try to learn spanish just to join in. It could be considered a romantic gesture, but they both know he just didn't want to be left out. (The way he reveals that he's been learning is by asking Grif "ever wonder why we're here?" but in spanish)

🍬 -> this will get me bitten in certain circles but. I think the "bad dad Goku" thing is a compelling character beat for him. I get that most proponents of the idea mostly use it to bash him, so I understand the frustration. But I think you learn a lot more about a character in their failings, and I think it makes sense for Goku to struggle to meet expectations in this facet of life, given his own unusual upbringing and his sometimes cheerful obliviousness. I also think it adds an interesting layer to his familial relationships that could be really fun to explore.

Actually, I think in general a lot of those next gen "the previous protag is not a great parent turns out" tropes can be really interesting. The problem is that oftentimes those narratives don't explore it in the way it's begging to be explored, so audiences come away feeling the character they love has been disrespected. But that's just my two cents.

🏜 -> I love when people point out little details they caught, and especially if there's an implication they read into for it, intended or not! But any and all comments are beloved!

🐚 -> I like surprises! As long as it's not a sudden schedule change loL

🧩 -> reader inserts are an instant no from me, deeply sorry reader insert writers 😔 Related, but I also have a hard time with first person for whatever reason. I can and have read some very good ones, but it's a lot harder to get into them for me. If there aren't enough paragraph breaks so it's a wall of text, I struggle to get through that, too. I am too adhd for that lmao

[golden-redhead]

I'm curious. Do you have any thoughts on Kaede and Kokichi's ingame relationship? I dunno, maybe it's an odd qurstion but... I think that maybe reading about them from the perspective of a good writer can help me write about them better. Thanks in advance!

So, first of all: sorry that it took me so long, but it’s such a complicated question that I had to take my time to think about it, talk with a friend, re-watch some fragments of the game, including their FTEs and just… think carefully about what I actually think and how to put it in a way that would actually make sense.

Okay, so the first thing that I think should be acknowledged is that both Kokichi and Kaede are very flawed characters and that they actually parallel each other in a very interesting way. And this is something that I mostly focus on in this post because I think this is the key to understanding the kind of relationship they had. Also, this post is awfully long (over 1700 words), so… Yeah, more under the cut. 

The problem with Kaede is that she is very pushy. Kokichi points it out during their little Death Road of Despair experience and he’s not wrong. She likes to have things go her way and most of the time she doesn’t even realize that she’s coming off as forceful and even kind of self-rightous. A lot of her character is just a facade, just like Kokichi’s, but her is probably much less obvious than his (it also applies to Kaito and I would honestly LOVE to discuss the similarities between all three of them one day, because they are fascinating and they are the three people that have the most impact on both the final outcome of the game and our protagonist). I don’t think that Kaede is nearly as optimistic as she pretends to be. I actually believe that a lot of what we see in her audition video is visible in our in-game Kaede, just covered by her positive, always cheerful mask. But the thing is that she doesn’t truly trust in her classmates - despite the fact that she states the opposite - and that’s why she takes things into her own hands. She wants to be perceived as positive and supportive but when you look at her actions during the Death Road of Despair or at how she wants to get the mastermind on her own her true personality really shines through this mask she made. And I think that Kokichi is aware of it, he’s not fooled by her cheerful persona the same way that others are. He’s immune to her motivational speeches (and Kaito’s, but it comes later), but at this point in the story he also seems to recognize that something good can come out of them? And it’s not something that he could do himself so he lets Kaede become their self-proclaimed leader as long as it motivates others to keep fighting. He’s a person who values life above anything else and I think that this is something that you need to keep in mind when analyzing his character because it’s such an important element of his character.

In general, it’s kind of hard to predict what would have happened, because Kaede never got to overcome her flaws and grow as a person, we never see her actually develop. Very early in the game one of her biggest flaws is introduced - and this flaw leads to her doom. I assume that if she lived longer she would get at least a chance to change, to overcome it, but it’s just me guessing and hoping and assuming. And even if she got  a chance the develop it still doesn’t mean that she actually would develop, at least in a positive sense of this word. And the worst thing about the game is that she ends up being treated like a perfect waifu, like she was a victim of this situation, so I’m not sure if they would actually go this way. I’m kind of worried that she would be just Maki 2.0? Because Maki’s flaws are also never fully acknowledged, which is honestly a shame because it would be a chance for her to and also make the game much more self-aware.

Because yeah, in Maki’s case the way she is treated has at least something to do with just catering to the audience, especially the male audience, and in her position as the game’s waifu. But when you think about it - her admitting that what she did was wrong, admitting that she went against her own promise to herself and against what Kaito tried to teach her… wouldn’t strip her of her waifu status, wouldn’t impact players’ perception of her negatively. If anything, it would only serve to make her more relatable. And something similar happens with Kaede, the game kind of admits that what she did was wrong and she actually gets punished for it. But the game also immediately after her death changes its narrative and turns her into this perfect martyr who did nothing wrong, which is just… so painfully contradictory. Looking at it that way I think that both Kaede and Maki got the short end of the stick. Sure, they are both popular and generally loved by the fandom characters, but the game had a chance to go deeper with them and explore them better, but never did, instead simply skimming over the surface. As much as I hate the argument that they both are kind of reduced to being love interests… well, let’s just say that I don’t agree with it 100% but I also see where people who say that are coming from.

The most interesting thing about Kokichi and Kaede is probably how different their brands of leadership are. As I mentioned earlier, Kokichi pretty much lets Kaede do her thing, simply observing what is going to happen. but the moment he notices that her own blind ambition is getting in the way of her good intentions - he calls her out on her bullshit. The main difference between them is that Kaede immediately made her leader status known, whereas Kokichi always works from the shadows, collecting evidence on his own, trying to find out who the mastermind is.

Honestly, the most interesting thing that would come out of Kaede living longer in relation to her relationship with Kokichi is probably the way they would challenge each other, the same way we see it happen at the beginning with the Death Road of Despair thing. Shuichi can be seen as very passive compared to her and it’s honestly both a good and a bad thing, depending how you look at it or who you ask. It’s good, because it lets the player just observe things, observe how those characters react and behave on their own, without your protagonist’s interruption. But at the same time you as a player end up being an observer rather than someone who has actual impact on the story, unless maybe during the trials when it’s your job to solve the case. On the other hand, while Shuichi is rather passive, Kaede is his total opposite. She lacks his patience and she can be actually very… um, unpleasant? Just look at her FTEs with some of the others or her first interaction with Tsumugi (well, to be fair, Tsumugi was kind of rude herself, but still). She quickly gets physical with others and not necessarily in a good way. As much as I would like to believe that she would be more willing to understand Kokichi, I also think that she might be too pushy to actually get to him? Kaede forces her way through things, while Kokichi surrounds himself with lies and hints, I’m not sure if Kaede actually has the patience to deal with this kind of thing, she is very clearly tired of his antics during their FTEs. I like to think that she wouldn’t be as antagonistic towards him as others are and that she would defend him when Maki abuses him, but considering how narrative is very clearly against Kokichi, to the point that at times many characters come off as out of character… I’m honestly not so sure if that would be the case? But then again, she’s much more firm with him than any other character and it’s something that should be acknowledged. Kirumi is kiiiind of similar? But because of her devotion to her talent Kirumi also lacks Kaede’s individuality and doesn’t stand her ground the same way Kaede does.

Another thing that I would like to point out is that Kokichi changes a lot later in the game. He gets much more serious and more desperate as more people die. In Kaede’s first FTEs with him Kaede thinks that he acts like a kid who wants attention and… she’s not wrong? He really does act that way, especially at the beginning. He’s testing her limits, messing around and in general acting like a brat. Buuuut at the same time during their second FTE he warns her about what might happen if she continues to act the way she does and it’s actually very insightful? And, well, turns out to be true. It’s also kind of ironic considering that ultimately he also couldn’t catch the mastermind and had to sacrifice his own values in the process.

I think that Kokichi also has a lot of respect towards Kaede, which is seen in how he says goodbye to her and states that she wasn’t boring. I think a lot of this respect comes from the fact that in contrast to other students she actually tried to do something to stop the killing game. She went about it the wrong way but considering how extreme the situation they were in was… it makes a lot of sense and I think Kokichi understands that. He’s later shown to be very frustrated with the passiveness of others and how they kind of just accept the situation and hope that the power of friendship will solve everything. Both he and Kaede refuse to just stand and watch as people die and even though they both ultimately fail, they are also the ones who actually do something and pay the highest price for it. Same can be said about Amami, which is why chapter one is so tragic.

Anyways, that’s just my own personal interpretation, you don’t have to agree with it! Also, I hope that this word vomit makes sense, I tend to jump from one topic to another.

In conclusion, I think their in-game relationship is super interesting and I would honestly love to see more of it. And it gets even better if you add Kaito to the mix because all three of them are one of the most important characters in the entire game and the impact they all had on the story is very interesting. Not to mention that they shape Shuichi into the person he is at the end of the game and it’s fascinating to watch as he evolves throughout the game.  

[intexttheoutsideworld]

The Incredibles 2 (2018)

It’s been a long time coming, folks, but here we are.

The Incredibles 2 is the long awaited sequel to Disney’s OG superhero movie The Incredibles that was released all the way back in 2004. The sequel picks up where the original left off with the Parr family suiting up to take down The Underminer who was planning on robbing the bank and destroying the city with his bigass, doped-up drill. Following more or less in the same vein as the original, The Incredibles 2 tells the story of family conflicts and its resolutions along with featuring a kickass plot that involves the Parr family having to save the entire world from total doom. It’s a wholesome, badass, and nostalgic movie for those who have seen the original. But if you haven’t seen the original movie, then what are you even doing with your life? I loved every minute of it and for a supposed animated kids-targeted movie, it sure as hell is more realistic than Ant-Man and the Wasp. Why? Because it featured fucking foundations under houses, that’s whyasdfaieuhfaciuhdfa

I need to chill.

Final verdict, though: 4.5/5

There will spoilers throughout the rest of thos review.

I have to admit, one of the main reasons why I love this movie so much is because of the small references it makes to the original movie or scenes that were written in so that fans of the original movie would be reminded of it. I don't care if all of it was just clever manipulation on Disney's part in order to get audiences to like this movie, I just don't. Why? Because all of the throwbacks are incorporated into the movie seamlessly and does not break the narrative flow for the sake of inducing nostalgia. However, you can tell that Disney did extensive research on what fans of the previous movies zeroed in on in terms of significant moments that stuck out in the original movie because there were references to

And to

These references aren't in-you-face about it, but for those of us who grew up with the original movie and have been waiting for years and years on end for the sequel, it's nigh impossible that you can miss them. In addition, I also really like how they made Elastigirl's first superhero act in the sequel to be that she would need to stop a train from going off the rails. It's the defining act that launches her name back into the public eye and is a nice juxtaposition to Mr. Incredible's own training-stopping act in the first movie. The juxtaposition in this sense is more or less saying that both characters are of equal footing both in and outside of the household and also in terms of capabilities. It could also carry a feminist message that girls can be just as tough and brave and [insert adjective here] as boys can, and it's a nice little message that's not glaring or preachy and I really appreciate it.

In addition, the juxtaposition of the two characters also adds to the conflict that is sorta brewing between Bob and Ellen wherein Bob is lowkey jealous of Ellen for having taken his spotlight in the public's eye while he's stuck at home babysitting the kids. The ongoing issue of Bob's, or Mr. Incredible's, ego transfers from the first movie into this one and while there are some extremely funny moments that happened because of this ego, we don't really get to see it explored in the movie in any further than Bob being frustrated from time to time. Therefore, the conflict between Bob and Ellen isn't really developed further in the movie as well in the sense that it doesn't really contribute a lot to the plot in terms of having a negative, significant impact on the characters' relationships with each other which subsequently leads to the characters being faced with a personal conflict that they have to resolve in order to handle the imminent threat of the enemy. Rather, the conflict is treated as more of a filler for the dramatic aspect of the movie. And while I do love me a good drama, the reason why I wish they had explored the conflict between Bob and Ellen further is because the main villain of the movie pushed for the separation of the two and seemed to have regarded Ellen as a potential ally if only she'd change her perspective just a smidge. If the movie had delved deeper into the conflict, fleshed out the kinks, and considered the ways which it could play into the larger narrative of the movie, I think that would have significantly enhanced the plot.

But it's time we move on from looking at The Incredibles 2 as being the sequel to The Incredibles for it is, in a lot of ways, its own movie. So, it's only fair that we review it as such for as the famous and beloved Edna Mode once said:

You know what, I can't decide which character I like best.

Sometimes I think I like Dash best because he's the human version of r/zoomies but other times, I think I like Violet best because I was totally that broody and emo when I was fourteen. And Jack-Jack is just a d o r a b l e. But then there's Edna.

Originally posted by alittlebiteverything

I can’t decided. They're all just so wonderful.

But I'm getting sidetracked.

As I've said before, I thoroughly enjoyed the movie when I was sitting in the theatre and loved every minute of it. The chemistry and playful family dynamics within the Parr family is just wonderfully written and skillfully incorporated into the first fighting sequence and it’s honestly such an amazing scene to watch. However, no movie is perfect, and, sadly enough, that also applies to The Incredibles 2. Some of the flaws which I find the movie to have are that:

At times, conversations between characters are intentionally written to be more complex and serious than they need to be and bring up points that ultimately don't get revisited again.

The conflict between the kids and the parents doesn't really play a big role in the story even though it is presented in such a way that makes one think it will. However, the conflict is considered by the movie as a "knot" in the story that needs to be "untied" by the end of it. Therefore, it leaves the resolution of the movie feeling a bit… underwhelming.

Building off of the previous bullet points (even though I don't consider this to be a criticism of the movie because I honestly just find this to be funny but I had to include it for it's a point to be made about the subject matter), the ending teaches a terrible lesson when it comes to listening to your parents because it literally teaches the exact same opposite of what a child should do.

In terms of the first bullet point, considering that college students are within Disney's target audience for The Incredibles 2 because they are the ones who grew up with and are the main fans of the original movie, it makes sense this bullet point exists. However, because the unspecified, aforementioned conversations in question are written to lowkey take on a serious tone, what that tells the audience (or, the people who aren't kids, anyways) is that the problems and issues which are raised throughout these conversations are going to play an integral part, or at least be addressed, in the story as the movie goes on. But they don't—and that's a problem. I'm not going to sit here and preach about how extraneous details which are made glaring but are actually just superfluous within a work of fiction is obsolete and kinda annoying and ultimately don't do anything for anyone at all—that is, if they don't affect the work in question negatively.

Moreover, circling back to the statement wherein I said that this movie is more intelligent than the Ant-man sequel and considering that Disney wants to make The Incredibles 2 more appealing to the now-college-students, it just kinda make even more sense as to why the movie come off as being smarter than it should be and why the sequel to Ant-man appears dumber than it should be. Even though both movies feature more or less the same characteristics such as sci-fi elements and action comedy and so on and so forth, the presentation of Ant-man and the Wasp and the medium through which it is presented—live action cinema—insinuates that it might be slightly more attractive to young adults and older audiences while the presentation of The Incredibles 2 and the medium through which it is presented—3D animation—insinuates that younger children are going to be more drawn to it. Therefore, because the ultimate goal is to have as wide an audience range as possible, the content of these two movies needed to be altered slightly in order to attract the most viewers as possible. But all of that's just my postulation.

Moving onto the second bullet point. So, at the beginning of the movie, the children are told to abstain from using their superpowers and from helping their parents fight crime. The two sides argue about it, and the conflict is established. But, as I've said before, this conflict doesn't really create a problem for the family nor does it have any effects on the plot in any way. Then, when the parents is hypnotized and yada yada yada, and the kids are left to their own devices to fend for themselves, they decide to go save their parents and is successful in their attempt and aren't punished for having disobeyed their parents. The conflict is now resolved. Do I need to tell you why this is bad story-writing? I do? Well, I don't want to because the answer is long and technical and I'm lazy and this isn't one of those movie analysis essay videos that you see on Youtube, so here's the short version for you: a good story needs to come from the characters and a good plot needs to be built and developed upon the character(s)'s weaknesses. If you want to make the audience connect with your character(s) and for the conflict/struggle/etc. in the story to be compelling, the conflict needs to negatively impact or inhibit the character(s) in a way that forces the character(s) to face their own weakness and triumph over it. Here's a different way to think of this sequence: if a person likes to clean and does it often and it doesn't interfere with their life in any negative way or at all other than it makes their surroundings cleaner, that person is fine and there's really no story to tell. However, if a person likes to clean and does it often and it affects their life in a negative way in the sense that they are unable to function unless their surroundings is spotless or something of the sort, then there is a story to be told—one where the character learns how to overcome their struggle/weakness; and a good story would be built around their struggle/weakness.

Going back to The Incredibles 2, the conflict between the kids and the parents is introduced and resolved but the climax to it is never presented. The same goes for Bob and Ellen's conflict. I feel like all of this is sacrificed in the face of having to deal with the villain in the movie and if you've read my A Quiet Place (2018) review, you'd know why this is not a good thing. Of course, one could brush off all of these conflicts in the family as something that’s meant to be there in order to make the movie feel more realistic because every family bickers and goes through similar conflicts as the ones shown in the movie. But as I've stated in my review of Ant-man and the Wasp, you can't just do that man. Why?

Originally posted by: crazyexedits

IT JUST DOESN'T WORK, OKAY? IF YOU WANT A MOVIE THAT'S BOTH REALISTIC AND ENTERTAINING GO LEARN HOW TO INCORPORATE REALISTIC DETAILS INTO YOUR CHARACTERS AND INTERWEAVE THEM INTO YOUR PLOTS INSTEAD OF JUST TOSSING RANDOM, RELATABLE DETAILS IN THERE AND CALLING IT A DAY.

That being said, I still love The Incredibles 2.

And before I forget, the last bullet point speaks for itself. Kids arguing with their parents and defending themselves for not having done what their parents asked them to do, but then when they disobey again, it pays off in strides and the kids don't get reprimanded? Yeah… not the best lesson to have your kids learn.

That's it for this review, kids. Tune in next time to experience me shitting all over Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (2018) and The First Purge (2018).

Sidenote: I love this scene so much.

Sidenote #2: Edna Mode is K W E E N, okay? Also, this is me around kids.

[vgoccasion]

Reader Mail November 2017

Welcome to the first edition of Reader Mail! Thank you to everyone who wrote in with a question for me. Let’s get started!

VGO: Thank you for writing in James! Please take my answer with a large grain of sea salt, as I am not well-versed in World of Warcraft or MMOs in general.

While I think it is easy to categorize anything that Activision does as a cash grab (they are a profit-motivated publisher after all!), I think that the introduction World of Warcraft: Classic begs for deeper analysis. Blizzard telegraphed this move back in April 2016 when they shut down the largest private server, Nostalrius, which itself was a fan operated instance of vanilla WoW. Blizzard acted completely in its rights to stop that fan project (which violates their copyright) and start their own in-house Classic or “vanilla” WoW servers makes sense. Clearly there is a market of players who are nostalgic for the game in its much simpler form. (Sourced this information from an April 11, 2016 article on Polygon.com: “World of Warcraft fans bid farewell to largest legacy server before shutdown” by Allegra Frank)

As someone partially addicted to Hearthstone, I would love a third “classic” or “vanilla” ladder to check out that would limit players to cards as they existed at launch. I imagine that less sophisticated WoW fans may feel the same way. I trust Blizzard to make experiencing WoW: Classic extremely simple. Having not played more than 6 hours of the game in my life, I am not sure that I could find or access Nostalrius. So this sounds like a win for accessibility at the very least.

My train of thought next moves onto the track of game archival and history. I am only cursorily aware of efforts to keep other deactivated online games up-and-running on private servers. As more games become online services, it will be important to empower someone to preserve games on backup servers so they can be studied for historical context and inform the budding game developers of the future.

This phenomenon popped up just recently with the news that Sony and Altus would shut down the online servers for Demon’s Souls next February after 9 years of supporting the game’s online aspects. That game has spawned its own subgenre of action game (“Souls-like”). Exploring early experiments in game design that have had measurable impact on industry trends is crucial. Demon’s Souls online innovations included showing locations where other players perished and allowing people to leave cryptic messages and warnings for each other. These mechanics have continued on in FromSoftware’s Dark Souls and Bloodborne games, but soon curious players will lose the ability to explore their origin. This news acts as a reminder that games reliant on an internet connection are far less permanent than their offline, physical counterparts.

With a game as old as World of Warcraft — it turned 13 this November— the differences between the basic experience of 2004 and the version available in 2017 must be gargantuan. It is one thing to read about the quality of life changes or watch videos of the game in its original state, and wholly another to actually get hands-on with it and experience the flaws and differences yourself. If just for the sake of game archival and education, I am glad Blizzard is creating Classic servers in-house.

Overall, I think the move is primarily public relations management to try to appease fans who may feel alienated by the closure of private WoW servers. This story nicely echoes Nintendo stepping in to shut down Another Metroid II Remake, better known as AM2R, shortly before announcing the game at the center of this month’s issue, Metroid: Samus Returns, Nintendo’s own remake of Metroid II: Return of Samus. So, cynical cash grab? Only to the extent that protecting one’s copyright and providing a service people have demonstrated demand for can be labeled cynical.

VGO: I have indeed played a small amount of Animal Crossing: Pocket Camp. The game does a great job of replicating the surface-level appeal of the series. The music, character design, and dialogue all drip with charm. I got serious flashbacks to my time with the GameCube and DS iterations of the game from the title screen alone. I cracked a huge smile when K.K. Slider greeted me at the start of the game.

Nostalgia and aesthetics aside, I have a fundamental problem with the game’s premise, which has held me back from truly enjoying it. The furniture sets all include couches, dressers, chairs, etc. and while I think the design of each set is visually interesting, it feels extremely strange and stupid to set all of this real furniture outside at a campsite. The items you can craft in this game belong inside a cute house. Period.

Dumb gripes aside, I think the nightmarish memes the game has created in its first week of full release point towards the creativity (and unsettling mindset) of its audience. I hope the game grows over time. The game feels incredibly casual, and I could see myself checking in on it from time to time.

The worst sign for my future with the game is that I already find my interest in logging in on a daily basis waning. The core “gameplay” loop centers around a series of checklists, timers, and meters. None of the mechanics show depth enough to interest me in fishing or bug catching for the challenge, as there is absolutely none.

Overall I would give the game a hesitant recommendation, just to experience the quick spark of joy that comes from exploring a new Animal Crossing game. Sadly, that spark failed to grow into an inviting campfire worth gathering around.

David O.: “Query: Have you an opinion on the new Battlefront game, and what do you think of all the negative publicity around it?”

VGO: I will start answering this question by alienating a large amount of my potential readership: I am not that big of a Star Wars fan. I think 5 of the 8 movies are good. I find the lore and universe interesting, but I don’t think it is the coolest shit of all time. So as a nerd with a less than passing interest in the franchise, I would have been happy to ignore Battlefront II and let it sell like gangbusters.

Sadly for the three development teams behind the game (Dice, Criterion, and EA Motive) the press cycle prior to the game’s release consisted almost entirely of stories focusing on outrage over the predatory loot box design in the game. The entire controversy is too lengthy to present in whole here, but online complaints won the day and EA announced they were putting the microtransactions on hold until further notice. This news story acted as a major distraction from any positive buzz the game may have generated.

In terms of the actual reviews, it seems like game has received mixed reception with some reviewers disparaging the quality of the much touted (and John Boyega requested) single-player campaign. Alternatively, some Star Wars fans have been effusive about the quality of the multiplayer and the outstanding detail of the game’s visual and audio design.

The negative fan, consumer, and press reactions have directly impacted EA’s wallet. The game’s UK sales were reportedly 61% lower than its 2015 predecessor in their respective first weeks. The game still hasn’t broken into Amazon.com’s “Best Sellers of 2017 in Video Games” list. The poor sales and backlash against the loot boxes has caused an 8.5% month to date drop in EA’s stock price, costing their investors $3 Billion in value (according to CNBC).

Call to Action Time!

December is Game of The Year month, and I would love to hear everyone’s personal anecdotes about how they played games in 2017! Which game grabbed your attention the most? Which game surprised you? What are your games of the year? Write in by tweeting your answers @vgoccasion or emailing them to vgoccasion@gmail.com. I need your help and input to make each issue of Video Games! (Occasionally) great.

[careergrowthblog]

Let’s get radical on Ofsted reform. Power:reliability:impact ratio is wrong.

I think it is time for a very significant review of the role of Ofsted, the nature of inspection and the whole accountability machinery for schools in England.  I have a lot of time and respect for Amanda Spielman and I’m writing this hoping she will read it at some point.  I’m sure that much of what follows is easier said than done, but I would like to suggest that we should be exploring Ofsted reform at a much more radical level than the current reform process would suggest is on the table.

I am encouraged by the debate about deeper reform that seems to be starting to gather some traction. Here are some examples:

An excellent article by ASCL’s inspection expert Stephen Rollett : It could be time for Ofsted to stop passing judgement

Rebecca Allen’s recent speech about education reform and trusting teachers.

Stephen Tierney’s August post: Time to seriously question Ofsted.

I recently re-read my 2013 post Accountability We Can Trust – written way before my personal experience of being crushed by the machine.  It is still largely true even if graded lessons have officially ceased to feature in inspections.

Essentially my argument is this:

Ofsted inspections and DFE performance measures are not sufficiently reliable to justify the weight that is placed on the judgements that are made given that a) educational outcomes are not rising within the system b) schools are driven towards perverse short-term behaviours around curriculum and c) there are unacceptable and disproportionately damaging consequences from negative judgements for schools and individuals.

If it were the case that, as a direct result of our current inspection regime and performance culture, we had a world leading education system and teaching was booming as a graduate profession of choice, it would be possible to make a case for keeping it as it is.  However, that isn’t where we are.  In fact my contention is that the current regime is making things worse, not better. It’s like an enzyme or catalyst that���s been heated beyond its optimum temperature: things are starting to break up instead of working better.

I don’t want to dwell on this too much but it has to be restated that the negative consequences for poor judgements are massive. Read Louise Tickle’s recent article about Headteachers being ‘sacked and gagged’ in the Guardian.  This is the reality of our system.  Good people are spat out by the accountability machine in way that is completely disproportionate.  As I’ve said before, it’s pretty f**ked up that our system does this to people – for no net gain.  How long is the line of people queuing up to become Headteachers? Oh wait…. there’s no queue? Oh! And, for me, the thing that makes me the most angry about Ofsted is that there is no official acknowledgement of their role in creating these conditions.

An aspect of the accountability culture is that school leaders are driven to make curriculum decisions that are not supported by sound educational principles. Headteachers have a gun to their head on outcomes and a gun to their stomach on curriculum breadth.  Rock vs Hard Place.   Progress 8 is the latest incarnation of data delusion to infect our system and this is one of the major forces driving schools towards a three-year KS4 with very narrow options models. Nobody anywhere has decided to do that on principle – in government or in schools. It’s simply an outcome of accountability pressure.  I’ve discussed P8 endlessly elsewhere.  It’s a zero-sum arbitrary measure built on an unreliable incomplete KS2 baseline and GCSE outcomes that themselves have a virtual zero-sum foundation: 30% of students must ‘fail’ and, given the grade-inflation freeze, any improvement in school A over here must be matched by a decline in school B over there.

Progress 8 might be a useful technical data aggregation tool to provide leaders with information for evaluating progress across a school but it has no business serving as the main outcome measure at a national level. It simply isn’t robust enough.  A 0.2 school is not inherently better than a -0.1 school.  There are too many variables.  But go shout at the hills. Nobody is listening; even Lead Inspectors do not understand it. Protest = excuse-making (and you’d be wasting your time making an official complaint.)

And then there’s the reliability question.  It’s still the case that no secondary school inspection processes have been subjected to any form of reliability trial. Incredible really.   Daniel Muijs’ appointment is good news but boy does he have his work cut out.  I would argue that every single element is massively flawed. Interviews with leaders, lesson observations, book scrutinies – the whole lot.  An Ofsted grade is essentially a giant subjective punt informed by layer upon layer of bias and selective interpretation of data which, in itself, is hugely complex, flawed and variable.  I have heard so many tales of the horse-trading that goes on as inspection teams try to navigate their way through the framework to reach a plausible sounding final outcome.  Good with Outstanding Features. On the cusp of Good and RI.  Borderline Inadequate.  The top end of Good. A secure Outstanding.  It’s nonsense — isn’t it?

I have made this case repeatedly:  it takes leaders, governors and school improvement professionals weeks and months to fully understand the detail of the quality issues in a school. If you look at how many lines of enquiry are embedded in the inspection framework – safeguarding, SEND, top-end challenge, pupil premium, curriculum, behaviour, leadership, teaching, assessment, performance management, numerous other compliance issues – it is simply utterly, utterly preposterous that this can all be meaningfully, accurately and reliably evaluated in a one or two day visit by a couple of inspectors running around like blue-arsed flies.  (Which is how it feels to them – so I’ve heard.)  “Oh, you can tell by lunchtime whether or not it’s a good school.”. Really? REALLY??

The argument is often made that parents like the grades and that they need good, simple and reliable information about their child’s school.  But they are not getting that. There will be ‘Outstanding’ schools all over the country that are ‘worse’ than schools that are ‘Good’.  There are RI schools that are better than some Good Schools.  It will just be that different teams made different subjective judgements, snatched from all their rushed meetings, lesson fly-throughs and book grazings on different days and the various randomnesses in their minds on those days fell in a certain pattern.

School A:  P8 = 0.65 Good.

School B. P8 = -0.11 Outstanding

School C P8 = 0.44 Outstanding

School D P8 = -0.33 RI.

All of this is delusional misinformation.  All of this has to go.  The appalling cult of Outstanding that has grown in the country is simply ludicrous. I know heads who have had massive mental health issues simply around whether their school falls on the right side of the Good/Outstanding divide -because they perceive the stakes to be so high.  The competitive rat-race behaviours around school badging and promotion are ugly -disgraceful at times.   I once had an email from a Head who had ‘Leadership Ofsted Rated Outstanding’ in her email sign-off. Nauseating.  The next year, her results dropped 20%.  Awkward.  What kind of system creates that culture? Not a healthy one.

So, what’s the alternative?

I’ve got some extremely radical suggestions but, for now, I just want to suggest changes that are plausible and justifiable within our current system:

First of all, follow the Heads’ Roundtable/Stephen Tierney idea of taking safeguarding out of the standards inspections and do them separately. It’s too important and should be done annually by specialists.

Remove all the grades. They are simply too unreliable to sustain.

Abolish Progress 8 as a performance measure and relegate it to the place it belongs as a school management tool.  It’s too flawed as it stands.

Publish an annual data report that does not contain any false comparisons or made-up algorithmic constructs.  Attainment data by subjects, multiple benchmarks, prior attainment data presented in profiles, not averages – detail over simplicity; truth over falsehood.

Publish inspection reports informed by multiple visits including at least one person who has known a school over time.  Reports should focus on key strengths and key areas for improvement written in a language that conveys the strengths and weaknesses in an honest and meaningful manner, including the appropriate degree of complexity where patterns are unclear. This could include suggested timeframes for improvement in certain areas where the issues are significant.

Create a separate process for schools showing chronic weaknesses.  This should include a period of purdah to allow for rapid responses to significant areas of concern prior to reports being published.   Schools need to have the opportunity to make radical changes in response to issues without being exposed to public scrutiny. I envisage something like a three-month rapid response window – not longer, as this would be counterproductive in terms of impact.

My view is that these changes would not be any softer or less rigorous.  But they would be more humane, more accurate and more sustainable.  And if that is true, or even close to being true, surely they should be given serious consideration.  The question is whether the people with the power to make the change have too much invested in justifying the current system to allow themselves to contemplate reversing years of policy.  It’s got to be worth a look though hasn’t it?

    Let’s get radical on Ofsted reform. Power:reliability:impact ratio is wrong. published first on http://ift.tt/2uVElOo

[jrbende1]

Messages in Advertising

           We are surrounded by advertising almost constantly through all mediums. They are in print newspapers and magazines, plastered on public transport and in buildings and on billboards, on websites and social media, on TV and radio. Ads can affect not just what products we buy, but how we see the world. Thus, it is important to investigate and be aware just what those affects are. The theories of cultural studies and symbolic interactionism examine the impact advertising has on us.

           The theory of cultural studies, put forward by Stuart Hall, essentially posits that mass media helps enforce the dominant ideologies put forward by the upper class. Hall emphasized that these messages cannot be taken out of their context (which is why it is cultural studies and not media studies) because these messages derive meaning from the culture they are in. Furthermore, he stressed the importance of examining power imbalances and deconstructing them through the use of this theory. The purpose of cultural studies is to become aware of how media promotes the status quo so it can be resisted (Griffin, 2015, p. 340). Cultural studies speaks to all media, but advertising is one specific area filled with hegemony.

            Symbolic interactionism is a theory of George Herbert Mead that postulates that people form their sense of identity through communicating with others (Griffin, 2015, p. 54). However, as Wood and Fixmer-Oraiz (2017) point out, “others do not communicate from strictly personal perspectives…their communications reflects the values and meanings of their culture” (p. 46). Therefore, the ideologies taught and sustained through mass media are perpetuated by people even in the absence of media. Furthermore, symbolic interactionism says that people act towards others based on the meanings they assign to them (Griffin, 2015, p. 55), so when the ideologies we learn become stereotypes and prejudiced assumptions, they can do real damage; for people with privilege, it can mean they feel their position of power is warranted or give them a negative view of those different from them, and for oppressed groups it can reinforce stereotyped roles and create a feeling of being “other” in their own society. Advertising is part of the socialization process that causes us to communicate cultural ideals that help shape our identity and view of others.

           A recent advertisement that got a lot of attention was a Pepsi ad starring Kendall Jenner of Keeping Up With the Kardashians fame. 

The ad blew up almost immediately on Twitter as well as being the object of several pointed late night sketches. The bulk of the backlash was focused on the racism and tone deafness of the ad. The premise of the commercial is a protest march à  la Black Lives Matter, but the signs show no real cause for the march.

They say things like “peace” “love” and “join the conversation”, none of which put forth any real message, unlike the protests it is feigning to emulate. One of the key things the Black Lives Matter movement protests is police brutality—specifically, the murdering of black people without even a hint of justification (and the lack of repercussions for that). The movement is pointing out a major flaw in the system, but this Pepsi commercial does the opposite with its depiction of police: they are not in riot gear (as they are without fail at every BLM protest, without provocation) or even armed. They are depicted not just as nonthreatening, but as friends to be made, completely ignoring the systemic flaws in the United States’ police force. The idea that a Pepsi is all it takes to fix things trivializes a serious issue, as shown pointedly in this tweet from Bernice King, the daughter of Martin Luther King, Jr. 

This clearly shows that the problem is much more complex than “just getting along” and how useless a Pepsi would be in a real situation of oppression. In addition, the person who befriends the police is Kendall Jenner—an extraordinarily privileged white woman. As cultural studies points out, it is important to examine power relationships—and this ad fails not only to depict the power imbalance between police and civilians, but also uses someone who is in reality the least in danger from police as the “brave soul” to unite them all. Jenner’s approach to the police feels like a gross mimicking of the photo of Iesha Evans standing up to police in Baton Rouge—unlike Jenner, her approach did not magically unite everyone, but instead got her arrested despite being utterly nonthreatening (Sidahmed, 2016).

This advertisement sends a “can’t we all just get along” message that overwrites decades of oppression and ignores the voices of oppressed people advocating for change. Through the lens of cultural studies, it is clear this ad reinforces the idea that police are not the problem. According to symbolic interactionism, as people have this belief confirmed in an ad, they share it and it can become a key part of our (white) American identities that police are utterly trustworthy and are not at fault for the issues surrounding them; this in turn can lead to viewing people, particularly people of color, who say otherwise as complaining about a nonissue, making it difficult for them to be taken seriously. Granted, this particular ad will probably not have that affect due to the heavy negative reactions it received that lead to its immediate removal, but it is indicative of a larger ideology enforced in many different ways. And of course, it only got that reaction because of the society we live in, which did not approve of the message being sent—as Hall points out, mass media does not exist in a vacuum, and the context of the ad (both what it was drawing from and how it was received) hugely impacted it.

           On a slightly more subtle level, the ad also promotes the ideology behind capitalism. Of course, every advertisement does this on some level because they are trying to get people to do the intrinsically capitalistic thing of buying their product, but this ad in particular promotes those values. Like many ads, it shows those using the product as young, attractive, and happy, the implication clearly being that if you drink Pepsi, you align yourself with those people and become those things yourself. As Colbert (2017) points out on the Late Show, this is intentional in order to target a specific demographic—millennials. 

But on a deeper level, it portrays consumerism as the solution to society’s ills; the answer the Black Lives Matter movement has been looking for was Pepsi all along! Even if it was not meant quite so literally, the message is still clear: buying products is what will unite us, solve our problems, and make us happy. And since capitalism and consumerism is the law of the land, this again shows Hall’s ideas to be correct—on some level, mass media is feeding us the same ideologies over and over to ensure we still believe them. The other layer to this is the exploitation of protesting and more specifically, Black Lives Matter. As explored above, this commercial appropriates the movement while simultaneously undermining the message. Pepsi is not showing protests because it wants to promote resistance—it is showing a march because they are “trendy” now, and thus are an opportunity to make money. The company feigns support of revolutionary ideologies, but undermines the real message and will only promote resistance for as long as it is profitable. 

           This Pepsi commercial is not the only racist ad out there, however. Only a few weeks ago, a Nivea ad came under fire for using the slogan “White is purity” and an old PlayStation ad resurfaced depicting a white person assaulting a black person (Kuchera, 2017).

These ads show that this recent Pepsi ad is not an anomaly; advertising is full of racist messages. Once again, it is critical to remember (for both consumers and marketing departments) that these advertisements exist in a cultural context. In a world without racial issues, a statement like “white is purity” might be innocuous, but here, in a time marked by the rise of neo-Nazis and white supremacists, it smacks of racism. Power relationships are also important, and the PlayStation ad draws a crystal clear image of white control over black bodies. Advertising like this plays into symbolic interactionism as well, enforcing a belief on some level of white superiority. As we communicate these beliefs to each other, it creates a sense of identity for both sides—those who belong, and those who do not.

            Advertising, and mass media in general, seem to permeate every part of our lives. It is crucial that we are aware of the impact this has on us. Cultural studies tackles this issue head on, examining what role mass media plays in enforcing the status quo and how to resist. Symbolic interactionism highlights the importance and great influence our interactions have on our identity and view of the world. Both of these theories make it evident that paying attention to the messages advertisements are sending, both overt and covert, is essential for any change to occur.

References

[careergrowthblog]

Let’s get radical on Ofsted reform. Power:reliability:impact ratio is wrong.

I think it is time for a very significant review of the role of Ofsted, the nature of inspection and the whole accountability machinery for schools in England.  I have a lot of time and respect for Amanda Spielman and I’m writing this hoping she will read it at some point.  I’m sure that much of what follows is easier said than done, but I would like to suggest that we should be exploring Ofsted reform at a much more radical level than the current reform process would suggest is on the table.

I am encouraged by the debate about deeper reform that seems to be starting to gather some traction. Here are some examples:

An excellent article by ASCL’s inspection expert Stephen Rollett : It could be time for Ofsted to stop passing judgement

Rebecca Allen’s recent speech about education reform and trusting teachers.

Stephen Tierney’s August post: Time to seriously question Ofsted.

I recently re-read my 2013 post Accountability We Can Trust – written way before my personal experience of being crushed by the machine.  It is still largely true even if graded lessons have officially ceased to feature in inspections.

Essentially my argument is this:

Ofsted inspections and DFE performance measures are not sufficiently reliable to justify the weight that is placed on the judgements that are made given that a) educational outcomes are not rising within the system b) schools are driven towards perverse short-term behaviours around curriculum and c) there are unacceptable and disproportionately damaging consequences from negative judgements for schools and individuals.

If it were the case that, as a direct result of our current inspection regime and performance culture, we had a world leading education system and teaching was booming as a graduate profession of choice, it would be possible to make a case for keeping it as it is.  However, that isn’t where we are.  In fact my contention is that the current regime is making things worse, not better. It’s like an enzyme or catalyst that’s been heated beyond its optimum temperature: things are starting to break up instead of working better.

I don’t want to dwell on this too much but it has to be restated that the negative consequences for poor judgements are massive. Read Louise Tickle’s recent article about Headteachers being ‘sacked and gagged’ in the Guardian.  This is the reality of our system.  Good people are spat out by the accountability machine in way that is completely disproportionate.  As I’ve said before, it’s pretty f**ked up that our system does this to people – for no net gain.  How long is the line of people queuing up to become Headteachers? Oh wait…. there’s no queue? Oh! And, for me, the thing that makes me the most angry about Ofsted is that there is no official acknowledgement of their role in creating these conditions.

An aspect of the accountability culture is that school leaders are driven to make curriculum decisions that are not supported by sound educational principles. Headteachers have a gun to their head on outcomes and a gun to their stomach on curriculum breadth.  Rock vs Hard Place.   Progress 8 is the latest incarnation of data delusion to infect our system and this is one of the major forces driving schools towards a three-year KS4 with very narrow options models. Nobody anywhere has decided to do that on principle – in government or in schools. It’s simply an outcome of accountability pressure.  I’ve discussed P8 endlessly elsewhere.  It’s a zero-sum arbitrary measure built on an unreliable incomplete KS2 baseline and GCSE outcomes that themselves have a virtual zero-sum foundation: 30% of students must ‘fail’ and, given the grade-inflation freeze, any improvement in school A over here must be matched by a decline in school B over there.

Progress 8 might be a useful technical data aggregation tool to provide leaders with information for evaluating progress across a school but it has no business serving as the main outcome measure at a national level. It simply isn’t robust enough.  A 0.2 school is not inherently better than a -0.1 school.  There are too many variables.  But go shout at the hills. Nobody is listening; even Lead Inspectors do not understand it. Protest = excuse-making (and you’d be wasting your time making an official complaint.)

And then there’s the reliability question.  It’s still the case that no secondary school inspection processes have been subjected to any form of reliability trial. Incredible really.   Daniel Muijs’ appointment is good news but boy does he have his work cut out.  I would argue that every single element is massively flawed. Interviews with leaders, lesson observations, book scrutinies – the whole lot.  An Ofsted grade is essentially a giant subjective punt informed by layer upon layer of bias and selective interpretation of data which, in itself, is hugely complex, flawed and variable.  I have heard so many tales of the horse-trading that goes on as inspection teams try to navigate their way through the framework to reach a plausible sounding final outcome.  Good with Outstanding Features. On the cusp of Good and RI.  Borderline Inadequate.  The top end of Good. A secure Outstanding.  It’s nonsense — isn’t it?

I have made this case repeatedly:  it takes leaders, governors and school improvement professionals weeks and months to fully understand the detail of the quality issues in a school. If you look at how many lines of enquiry are embedded in the inspection framework – safeguarding, SEND, top-end challenge, pupil premium, curriculum, behaviour, leadership, teaching, assessment, performance management, numerous other compliance issues – it is simply utterly, utterly preposterous that this can all be meaningfully, accurately and reliably evaluated in a one or two day visit by a couple of inspectors running around like blue-arsed flies.  (Which is how it feels to them – so I’ve heard.)  “Oh, you can tell by lunchtime whether or not it’s a good school.”. Really? REALLY??

The argument is often made that parents like the grades and that they need good, simple and reliable information about their child’s school.  But they are not getting that. There will be ‘Outstanding’ schools all over the country that are ‘worse’ than schools that are ‘Good’.  There are RI schools that are better than some Good Schools.  It will just be that different teams made different subjective judgements, snatched from all their rushed meetings, lesson fly-throughs and book grazings on different days and the various randomnesses in their minds on those days fell in a certain pattern.

School A:  P8 = 0.65 Good.

School B. P8 = -0.11 Outstanding

School C P8 = 0.44 Outstanding

School D P8 = -0.33 RI.

All of this is delusional misinformation.  All of this has to go.  The appalling cult of Outstanding that has grown in the country is simply ludicrous. I know heads who have had massive mental health issues simply around whether their school falls on the right side of the Good/Outstanding divide -because they perceive the stakes to be so high.  The competitive rat-race behaviours around school badging and promotion are ugly -disgraceful at times.   I once had an email from a Head who had ‘Leadership Ofsted Rated Outstanding’ in her email sign-off. Nauseating.  The next year, her results dropped 20%.  Awkward.  What kind of system creates that culture? Not a healthy one.

So, what’s the alternative?

I’ve got some extremely radical suggestions but, for now, I just want to suggest changes that are plausible and justifiable within our current system:

First of all, follow the Heads’ Roundtable/Stephen Tierney idea of taking safeguarding out of the standards inspections and do them separately. It’s too important and should be done annually by specialists.

Remove all the grades. They are simply too unreliable to sustain.

Abolish Progress 8 as a performance measure and relegate it to the place it belongs as a school management tool.  It’s too flawed as it stands.

Publish an annual data report that does not contain any false comparisons or made-up algorithmic constructs.  Attainment data by subjects, multiple benchmarks, prior attainment data presented in profiles, not averages – detail over simplicity; truth over falsehood.

Publish inspection reports informed by multiple visits including at least one person who has known a school over time.  Reports should focus on key strengths and key areas for improvement written in a language that conveys the strengths and weaknesses in an honest and meaningful manner, including the appropriate degree of complexity where patterns are unclear. This could include suggested timeframes for improvement in certain areas where the issues are significant.

Create a separate process for schools showing chronic weaknesses.  This should include a period of purdah to allow for rapid responses to significant areas of concern prior to reports being published.   Schools need to have the opportunity to make radical changes in response to issues without being exposed to public scrutiny. I envisage something like a three-month rapid response window – not longer, as this would be counterproductive in terms of impact.

My view is that these changes would not be any softer or less rigorous.  But they would be more humane, more accurate and more sustainable.  And if that is true, or even close to being true, surely they should be given serious consideration.  The question is whether the people with the power to make the change have too much invested in justifying the current system to allow themselves to contemplate reversing years of policy.  It’s got to be worth a look though hasn’t it?

    Let’s get radical on Ofsted reform. Power:reliability:impact ratio is wrong. published first on http://ift.tt/2uVElOo