Those damn achievements!

Since ever, videogame fans have had the idea of better and worse outcomes when playing a game. Defeating the final boss without having been hurt not even once isn't the same as coming out totally screwed. The idea of a game with handicaps is also known: defeating the final boss without jumping or without using certain weapon, etcetera.

Some video games include a recognizement if that happens. As an example, in various fighting games it's possible to fight a secret boss only if the game end is reached without losing at all and with good results. The next video explains how to fight Shin Akuma in Street Fighter Alpha 2.

That's the first kind of achievement, the easiest to understand. Of course, some examples are especially difficult. For example, all those about finishing the game without dying once. The necessary training is made up for if the player is really interested in the game.

Next comes the one that could be called "curious": you do something that is somewhat unusual, because it's outside the normal course to progress in the game. Such it was in some Final Fantasy games, where monsters under the category undead died if the object to revive is used on them.

The third is a derivation of the Easter egg: a secret hidden somewhere in the game. It's easy to miss it because it's pretty well out of sight, but if you find it, it's an achievement for you. The very first Easter egg ever is perfect to illustrate this point (9:32).

And then there are... the stupid achievements, to be fair. Achievements that make no sense, to be honest, and almost impossible to get without a guide. Some are so nonsensical as, like a certain visual novel, to leave certain scene open during an hour and a half. Seriously? Who is so patient? It's clearly thought for the guides, it's also as uncomfortable as a pain in the ass.

The other modality of vain achievement, though not stupid, is ligated to get achievement just for advancing in the story. I find them logical if the gameplay has diverse routes to follow, but when it's linear, what sense does it make? It'd make sense to include one achievement for finishing the game, because it's obvious you need to surpass the first levels, am I right? I only found it sensible when the game has an open structure, without levels, which can give players an idea of how much they have advanced... It may not be welcome, though.

And, of course, it may happen that the player isn't interested in those achievements, specially if they're too strange. I don't know, but do I really want to go drinking with one of the developers IN REAL LIFE?

Of course, everyone can play as each likes. Ignoring achievements is a way as any other of playing. But it wouldn't be bad if some developers considered just for a moment their ideas before implementing them...

Worthy comics.

Not long ago, I read a comment by Irene Roga (in Spanish, though) with a protest about, when people name their favourite comic, it's always one with serious undertones: Watchmen, Maus, From Hell, Paracuellos (1)...

"Paracuellos isn't only a serious work, even if quiet a lot of the content makes you feel like crying."

Correct, but I think my point is clear. For non-Spanish speakers, Irene Roga defended comedy as a worthy genre, in spite of the terrible attacks of those selfish and egocentric subhumans called hipsters. Indeed, it's fair to admit that it's a fight worthy of a Schillerian god, because the idea of comedy as a minor genre is pretty extended. In the Oscars, it's been years without a comedy winning the award for the best film because we live in a SERIOUS world. Humor is ussually appreciated in literature if it comes with a satyrical, even misanthropic, spirit. A funny, silly novel, without a heavy social criticism or even with some directed towards the serious gentlemen of literature, may go unnoticed.

Anyway, I'd say that, when it comes to comics, there isn't only a problem with humor, but there's also other with the publication format. See: traditionally, comic as a medium favours a exclusive time, where particular stories are more important than the global continuity.

The best example is The Simpsons: in this TV show, what counts is each episode and how it's resolved, but there isn't and will never be a very strong continuity. That's why none of the family members ages (2) and Springfield is in nowhere (I wouldn't find it strange if there is still a geek trying to resolve the enigma), it's just a "typical" American city. As a family, they need neither a start nor an end.

Mortadelo y Filemón, Zipi y Zape, (3), Urusei Yatsura (whose adorable main female character presides oveer this humble blog), Ranma 1/2, almost any superhero comic are other examples: virtually all of them feature the same "time loop" that forces the characters to be still the same age although the time flies for everything else. Superhero genre is distinguished by the retcon that updates a character's origin every few years. Furthermore, these stories are usually composed through a kind of accumulation: each chapter adds new anecdotes, that sometimes join the global continuity. That's why they're described with adjectives such as silly: they aren't as extense as a complete story because the characters are already known and can't be ubicated within a general continuity.

This medium has a problem: it's hard to reconciliate with the most appraised cultural standard, a story with a strong continuity, with both a very clear start and a very clear end. It could be said that modern literature was born with the publication of novels such as the Quixote, in whose second part the global continuity dominates over the funny parts.

Indeed, I think that's one of the reasons why genres such as fantasy and noir, among others, are less appreciated: lots of the works identified with those targets suffer the same problem, causing that knowing everything about Philip Marlowe implies reading various novels without relation among them.

But it would naive to consider only cultural prejudices, there is also an economic reason: How much does the entire collection of Mortadelo y Filemón cost? A lot, for sure. Even geeks find it troublesome to buy a particularly long series, like One Piece.

And that's likely another reason why a lot of people prefer saying that their favourite comic is a short work, bacause it's fequently assumed that the listener asks for advice. And it increases when it comes to editorial recommendations, because, as it's noticed with sacarsm, the objective of reading promotion plans isn't other but selling books.

If you know another reasons, don't doubt and just comment it below.

1 Paracuellos is a work by Carlos Giménez, about his experiences in a children home run by la Falange, during Francoist Spain.

2 Technically, it's obvious that Granpa Simpson and director Skinner do, just because both characters have been in two well known armed conflicts: Second World War and Vietnam War, respectively.
3 The former work is known by various names through various languages, such as Mort & Phil; the latter seems to have been translated as Zip & Zap, at the least according to Wikipedia.

Is Dragon Ball Super mocking the viewers?

Dragon Ball came back two years ago. Akira Toriyama understood that he could still make profit from his pop version of Journey to the West and said "I need more rooms for my scale models". And it was done.

Now, the return of the once legendary monkey, now alien having too many parallelisms with Superman, has been shaken by too many polemics around the quality of animation. I won't insist much here about this matter, it's enough with a search on the web. Furthermore, I'm more interested in analyzing certain plot details.

In the first place, both Goku and Vegeta's behaviour must be admitted as reprehensible, as they only judge people according to their power. If somebody isn't strong, they act like that person din't exist. The funniest is that it's Whis, that character that coaches one of the Gods of Destruction, the first to openly criticize that attitude.

Son Gohan is also in a crappy situation. He was never very popular. Too similar to his father and with a cheap characterization. Akira Toriyama even said that he didn't know what to do with Gohan, wich is a bit laughable coming from his CREATOR. Since the first ending of Dragon Ball, he has always been assumed to become an erudite who, apparently, would write a book about ki and its potential for dummies, to say. The success of the book would lead many people to learn the secret that allows to shoot kamehamehas, to fly and other skills.

However, some people complain about Gohan being now such a weakling against the current evil guys. Honestly, I can't say I understand the reason. The moment Gohan defeated Cell was even original, but wasn't too surprising (seriously, Gohan's special power had been nagged for more than two arcs). Anyway, he'd forget about bashing--- which makes sense, because Gohan has always been unstable (and I'm being nice).

Also, Future Trunks has been reused, the same guy who carried a quite awesome sword (by the way, the first sword got broken, where this new one has come from?). He's again back to the past because he has found other evil enemy (This poor child has really no luck!). When Goku and Vegeta hear that Trunks flew from the new evil enemy, first thing they do is reprimanding hin... Just for Bulma reminding them that not everybody is obsessed with finding difficult rivals to fight them.

Finally, it's worth to mention that the lad with the cool sword has felt merry to see Gohan happily married instead of bashing with space punks to death. It's what happens when you've seen your cherished ones dying before your eyes: you prefer their safety before all else. Some fans proposed that Trunks scolded Gohan for stop fighiting. Heh! Some of them even proposed that Gohan lost his wife and dughter, so he were motivated to bash. Indeed, the scene is clearly there TO MOCK THOSE FANS.

But, personally, the most obvious declaration of war against such an audience has come with the second opening. To be precise, from 0:29 to 0:33.

Let's now examine the matter. This character that appears duplicated is Zen-Oh, the king of the twelve universes (1). His appearance is similar to a kid-sized robot. His nature is amoral, like that time when he destroyed six universes just because he was in an horrible mood. And it doesn't stop there, his intention behind organizing a tournament is destroying the losing universes. Social Darwinism at cosmic level, it's actually that! Furthermore, the song says "I can't get no satisfaction" when this character appears.

I have the feeling that he is the perfect reflection of the audience: he looks like a kid both in his appearance and his acts, but is actually quite old (as it's belonging to the king of the universe... and to the audience, that exists before the work of fiction), has an immesuarable power (the globally negative reaction against Dragon Ball GT has led to erase it from canon) and only wants fights and more fights (What else is Dragon Ball Z?), while also being cruel to the weakest characters. Nevertheless, they'are never happy, like the song insinuates, even if they get the same material as in Dragon Ball Z, because they have idealized memories, because they relate them to a time without duties.

Any reader may say that it's a bit strange that Toriyama mocks viewers... but it isn't the first time he does it. In Dr. Slump, it wasn't strange for him to throw digs at his readers (and the anime adaptation wasn't very different). The relation this man has with his most famous creation is contradictory: many years ago, he fought to abandon it and succeeded, and dedicated himself to short works... But it soon became clear that noting new he were to create would reach Dragon Ball in terms of sales. So he came back with parodies and has now continued the story where he left it, encouraged by the success of the movie Battle of Gods (Dragon Ball GT was an original creation by Toei Animation).

However, now that he finds lots of criticism and protests, maybe Toriyama thought "Damned be those jerks! You're gonna see!". And no, I can't blame him. I must that admit my relation with Dragon Ball is complex. On the one hand, it cheered my childhood and was one of the series that opened the doors of anime for me, on the other hand, I remember other series such as Ranma 1/2, Dash!! Kappei or Hai Step Jun (2) that deserve the same recognition, and even they're directly superior to Dragon Ball finishing in Z. The fact that this last part is the most celebrated by the nostalgic adorers of "our" childhood irritates me even more.

Well, those crazy nerds!

1 In old Spanish translations, Kaioh was also called "king of the universe". How many kings may be in Dragon Ball?
2 The two former were named Chicho Terremoto and Los inventos de Eva for Spanish audiences.